The article examines the issue of the international and nationally distinctive, which has been the subject of a new “big debate” in the science of international relations in the last 15 years. The authors show that despite the dominance of “universalist” positions within the Western academic mainstream, their criticism continues to grow. In this regard, an interesting project of the global IR theory by A. Acharya and B. Buzan is being discussed. In our view, with all the positive features of this project, it is informed by the outdated West-centric view of the world. The declared consideration of non-Western intellectual, socio-cultural and historical traditions in the formation of a global view of the world does not contain an understanding of the concept of identity, which is replaced by the concepts of regions and multiple agents-participants. However, without such an understanding, neither the historical reconstruction of the global, nor the understanding of its social and intellectual roots is possible. Any theory contains multiple levels and is based on important politico-ideological assumptions, which are national, and not universal. Any theory, including international theory, is also a product of time, place and social relations. Such theory is based on local specifics and conditions. Scientific concepts cannot be developed only from one part of the culturally pluralist world. Therefore, a condition for such development should be a socio-cultural and political dialogue between scholars representing different countries and parts of the world. For Russia, this implies the need to understand its own historical and cultural conditions and mobilize its own intellectual capital in their examination and development of national IR theory.

Eurasianism, in its various interpretations, from ideology to the implementation of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) programs, is regarded as one of the strategies of creating a multipolar world order. This article analyzes the views and assessments of foreign authors regarding the relationship between Eurasianism and the EAEU amid the changing international context. The authors present both critical and positive opinions on Eurasianism, Eurasian integration and its political and economic interlinkages with other countries and associations (China, Vietnam, the European Union (EU), Latin America). Thus, we identify three main lines of assessments on Eurasianism and Eurasian integration. The first includes negative assessments ranging from characterizing Eurasianism and the EAEU as a threat to the EU, the US, and the West in general to deliberate misinformation about the Eurasian ideology, for instance, denoting Eurasianism as “parafascism.” The second comprises more pragmatic and balanced views, with an emphasis on economic cooperation, which may imply cooperation with the EAEU and acceptance of the Eurasian integration if specific conditions are met, or cessation of such cooperation. The third group includes positive assessments and emphasizes the need for more intensive interaction between the EAEU and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. Such views are generally held by Russian and Chinese authors. Non-Russian conceptions of Eurasianism that gained popularity in Turkey or Kazakhstan are ideologically close to the classic Eurasianism and the EAEU, although these conceptions take a distinctive national shape. The article provides some examples of interregional cooperation promoted by the EAEU within the BRICS under the “outreach” model, i.e., adding new dimensions to existing cooperation formats. The authors arrive at a conclusion that most often the assessments of Eurasian integration and cooperation proposals by foreign experts are tied to Russian foreign policy (or experts’ opinion of it). They often find interconnections between EAEU, Eurasianism and Russian policy, which emphasize Russian identity as a marker of distinctive civilization. The article also notes comments of Russian authors on the EAEU - EU relations. The research is based on comparative analysis of analytical and research publications on the subject.

The idea of creating the Eurasian Union belongs to the First President of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Until 2011, this initiative was popular in the academic and expert community of Kazakhstan. There has been a groundswell of support. It was partially embodied in the foundation of such regional organizations as the Eurasian Economic Community, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Collective Security Treaty Organization. Astana has lost leadership in promoting Eurasian integration since 2011. Although Kazakhstan is an active participant in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the initiative is gradually being transferred to the Russian Federation. This article is devoted to the analysis of the genesis of the Eurasian idea and Eurasian practice in Kazakhstan, highlighting the qualitative stages in the dissemination of the ideas of Eurasianism and Eurasian integration in Kazakhstan. Comparative analysis, event analysis, political monitoring and process of tracking were used in the article. The authors conclude that the ideological content of Eurasianism in Kazakhstan has undergone a certain genesis and has almost exhausted itself at this stage. Kazakhstan has now taken a stand on rigid economic determinism in the implementation of the EAEU project and has moved away from the broad set of tasks of Eurasian integration, as originally presented by N. Nazarbayev. This is largely due to the internal political development of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the changes in the ethnic composition of the population, the arrival of a new generation of managers, the beginning of a new stage in the formation of a national state and nation-building, which are reflected in new conceptual documents and national programs. At the same time, it was Eurasianism that corresponded to the specifics of Kazakhstani society and contributed to interethnic interaction and harmony, just as at this stage, Eurasian integration helps to preserve Kazakhstan’s sovereignty and strengthen its position in the system of global economic relations. However, there is a significant conceptual and semantic gap in understanding the essence of Eurasianism and the current practice of building a sustainable Eurasian integration core, an active participant of which Kazakhstan could become.

The embodiment of the pragmatic school of the 100 years old Eurasianism movement - the Eurasian Economic Union - took inspiration from the European Union to create a single internal market. Hence, the EU and the EAEU both aim to liberalize economic relations between their member states despite their fundamentally distinct histories and development levels. Both unions have achieved some degree of success in establishing the common labour market. As the integration process continues in the context of the global pandemic there are new barriers to abolish. This article examines the European Union (EU) and Eurasian Economic Union’s (EAEU) major accomplishments and challenges in establishing a single labour market. The research used a systematic approach to outline two regional labour markets’ policy context and mechanisms. Comparative analysis is used to highlight the similarities and differences of the EAEU and EU’s practice and current challenges in the framework of the single labour market. We found that despite the similar concept and legal basis the practice of a common labour market is distinctive. We have identified the similarities and differences in challenges the unions are facing currently. They vary from individual to global, including linguistic and cultural barriers, skill gaps, aging population, socioeconomic inequalities, etc. We conclude that the ongoing global pandemic has exposed and further aggravated the existing problems for both unions, which requires revisiting and enhancing the legal basis and creating more favorable conditions for migrants, for instance, better social protection.

This article analyses the structure of trading networks in Eurasia and raises important questions on the relationship between these networks and the geopolitical contexts they navigate. Obviously, the geopolitical ambitions of multiple nation-states directly affect the lives and activities of the traders. Besides, nation-states also seek to instrumentally use the trading networks and communities that operate across their territories in order to expand their geopolitical reach and influence. The ultimate goal of these efforts is to dismantle trade barriers among regional players and invigorate intra-regional trade and investments in such a spirit that it would serve their interests. This leaves researchers and analysts wondering whether there is a need for connectivity in Eurasia and how it can be achieved. Which countries are participating in these projects, and what strategies have they adopted? In this article, the author answers the above questions with the help of the relevant maps reflecting the geopolitical interests of major powers and trade statistical reports. The author analyses the institutional arrangements and frameworks created by regional and great powers of Eurasia with special focus on the ambitions of Russia, the European Union, China, Central Asian states, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and India. Neighboring states may take up an interest in developing overland and maritime trade routes. However, to unlock the potential of regional economic cooperation there are conditions to fulfill, such as favorable economic context and political circumstances or the decision by the governments striving to unlock the potential of their economies through cooperation with the neighbors. Naturally, the Eurasian space has room for most players to participate rather than be self-sufficient, with all of them standing to benefit from increased connectivity. Thus, this article offers a broad note on connectivity issues in Eurasia, which denotes physical and non-physical linkages between continental geographies, polities, economies, and populations. Despite the potential benefits of securing a higher level of connectivity in Eurasia, related initiatives have become a competitive factor. Eurasian powers, both great and regional, have made no secret of their goals to reshape regional and continental integration in accordance with their interests.

Alexander Gelyevich Dugin is a Soviet and Russian philosopher, political scientist, sociologist, theorist, PhD in philosophy, Dr. of Sc. (Political Sciences, Social Sciences), professor, leader of the International Eurasian Movement. He is Professor Emeritus at Eurasian National University named after L.N. Gumilev and Tehran University, visiting Professor at Southern Federal University, Senior Research Fellow at Fudan University (Shanghai). Alexander G. Dugin is the author of a number of journalistic publications, as well as scientific articles and textbooks on geopolitics and international relations, theory of a multipolar world. He has served as editor-in-chief of the “EON” publishing center, “Dear Angel” publishing house, and the journal “Elements.” Since 1991, he has been the Chairman of the historical-religious Association “Arktogeya.” From 1997 to 1999, he was the author and host of the program “Geopolitical Review” (Radio Free Russia). In 1998-2003, an advisor to the Chairman of the Russian State Duma. Since 2001, Chairman of the Political Council (leader) of the All-Russian Socio-Political Movement “Eurasia.” In 2008 to 2014, Professor, Head of the Department of Sociology of International Relations, Director of the Center for Conservative Research at the Faculty of Sociology at Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov. In 2016-2017, editor-in-chief of “Tsargrad” TV channel. In his interview, Alexander G. Dugin discusses the concept of Eurasianism, its main schools, directions and representatives. Particular attention is paid to the influence of Eurasianism on Russia’s foreign policy and the strategic partnership between Russia and China. The interview deals with the specifics of Eurasian studies in Kazakhstan and Turkey. The leader of the International Eurasian Movement emphasizes that multipolarity is accompanied by the presence of both external and internal poles.

The article is devoted to an analysis of India’s attempts to form an economic basis for its flagship foreign policy initiative - the concept of the Indo-Pacific. The author, using a multidimensional approach based on critical theory, historical sociology of international relations, the strategic culture approach and spatial approach, examines the evolution of the economic system of the Indo-Pacific in a historical perspective. India has historically played a key role in the system. So the Indian political elites believe that it has to be the regional hegemon. The rapid growth of the Indian economy at the beginning of the 21st century allowed New Delhi to start implementing its ambitions. The growth of neighboring China and its expansion into traditional Indian spheres of influence forced India to intensify the Indo-Pacific policy. Possible options for building the economic basis of the Indo-Pacific have been consistently explored in the article. The author highlights the economic mega blocs (TPP and RCEP), which India refused to join due to concerns about its economy; sub-regional trade and economic blocs and initiatives (SAARC, BIMSTEK, SAGAR, AAGC), local and relatively weak for providing the economic basis of the mega-region on their basis; finally, the latest infrastructure projects (Blue Dots Network, Build Back Better World), in which India is still hesitant to participate, not being sure of their effectiveness and fearing excessive involvement in anti-Chinese projects. The author concludes that India can either join Western infrastructure initiatives, or try to build an economic basis for the Indo-Pacific on a set of sub-regional initiatives. In the latter case, Russia could play an important role by implementing bilateral projects with India and participating in multilateral ones.

The global economic crisis of 2008-2009 and all subsequent crisis “waves” revealed the need to deepen regional integration processes in order to mitigate the consequences of crises and prevent future financial shocks. This aspect seems significant even for the European Union, which has already achieved a high level of financial integration due to the introduction of a single currency and the establishment of the European Central Bank. However, this problem is even more topical for countries with a significantly less developed level of integration, including the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The positive effect of financial integration is largely due to financial globalization and digitization of the economy, fintech development, which is a transformative mechanism for coordinating fiscal and monetary policy instruments in financial services, as well as removing barriers to cross-border financial transactions. The purpose of the study is to uncover the prerequisites and trends of financial integration of the EAEU countries amid rapid fintech development and application. The possibilities of its use are revealed by blockchain, Big Data, artificial intelligence, crowdfunding, which can contribute to optimizing customer service, asset management of financial institutions in the domestic market, simplify and increase the speed of information exchange between financial institutions of different countries and the VAT refund process, increase investment flows, develop previously unused business lines, create collective projects and, as a result, contribute to further financial integration and mutually beneficial cooperation. The methodology of the study is based on the synthesis of comparative, structural, expert opinions and statistical analysis methods. Regulatory legal acts of the EAEU and individual countries of the alliance, reports and analytical materials of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) and central banks of the EAEU countries served as the primary sources of the research. It has been revealed that the introduction of fintech in most of the analyzed countries outpaces the formation of the legal basis. At the same time, it was found that the spread of fintech can assist the implementation of all measures outlined by the Concept of Forming a Common Financial Market of the EAEU countries. Owing to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, which are more “advanced” in fintech, Armenia and Kyrgyz Republic have the opportunity to achieve a competitive level in this area in a shorter time.

-

-

-