The need for “decolonisation” of the Second world and semi-periphery countries (in the terminology of world-systems analysis) is increasingly raised in practical policy as well as in academic publications. However, the very question of decolonisation as applied to countries that were the targets of European colonial expansion is fraught with both negative consequences in political practice and theoretical confusion. On the one hand, the discourse of “decolonisation” encourages separatist tendencies and leads to new conflicts. On the other hand, the notion of “colonialism” is becoming less rigorous: in this perspective, any territorial expansion by any state at any time in history can be described as colonialism. The notion of “colonialism” loses its specific historical meaning and hence turns from a scientific term into a propaganda cliché. Thus, the possibility to correctly comprehend the phenomenon of European colonialism as a concrete historical reality that determined the fate of the peoples of both Europe itself and other parts of the world in Modern times, the only “colonialism” that the peoples of the world have really faced for the last 500 years, disappears. Theoretical and practical, scientific and political aspects of the problem are closely linked. Within an expansive interpretation of “colonialism”, former colonial powers, moreover, states still possessing unequal dependencies, such as the USA, are able to accuse their geopolitical opponents of “colonialism” as they are multi-ethnic powers, formed as a result of long historical processes, where various practices of ethnic interaction have taken place. The very possibility of interpreting the practices of non-European powers (Russia, China, Iran, Ethiopia) as colonial is linked to the popular paradigm of “internal colonialism.” It has emerged as part of the post-colonial theory of international relations in European and American academic centres and by its very nature is an example of a deliberately biased approach that focuses on the most marginalised groups of “subalterns” but ignores major civilisational entities. The author points out the biases and shortcomings of this approach with concrete examples, reveals its philosophical premises and suggests using the findings of fundamental geopolitics, world-systems theory, philosophy of space and philosophy of culture to clarify the concept of “colonialism.”

The article reviews Soviet and East German studies of neocolonialism that have been translated into Russian. A total of more than 60 monographs on Western neocolonialism have been systematically studied and finally compiled into an electronic archive in preparation for this publication. Based on the materials of Soviet studies, the article presents the main features of Western neocolonialism, related both to political manoeuvres and the economic arsenal of the former metropolitan powers. A detailed analysis of the narratives used by Western countries to emphasize their proximity to the “Third World” is given. Particular attention is paid to neocolonial theories, both “variants of well-known bourgeois and reformist concepts addressed to developing countries” and “concepts and theories specially created to support neocolonialism.” Neocolonial approaches were studied both in the context of individual Western countries and groups of states (Great Britain, France, Germany, the European Economic Community (EEC), USA) and by functional areas (technical assistance, food neocolonialism, international organizations). Regarding the UK, the differences in neocolonial policy between Labor Party and Conservatives are examined. The main instruments of France’s neocolonial policy are described and it is concluded that they have hardly changed in recent decades. The role of the FRG in the strategy of “European neocolonialism” is shown, and major characteristics of the neocolonial policy of the EEC are highlighted. With regard to the, authors speak of a new type of imperialist colonialism associated with American leadership in the institutions of the “collective West.” As for the United States, a new type of imperialist colonialism is being put forward, associated with America’s leadership in the institutions of the “collective West.” The origins and “running-in” of the US neocolonial tools are shown in detail, using the actual American colonial experience in the Philippines as an example. The main directions of critical analysis of the participation of Western countries in technical and food aid systems and in the activities of international organizations are presented. In conclusion, some remarks are formulated on the practical component of Soviet studies of neocolonialism. It is also stressed that in the mid-1980s, after the proclamation of the “New Political Thinking” the critical degree of Soviet studies of neocolonialism declined significantly.

The research covers Sierra Leone’s relations with the Second World through the prism of Sierra Leone’s foreign policy. Two periods of Sierra Leone’s foreign policy are considered: during the Westminster bipartisan model from 1961 to 1970, and when the authoritarian regime led by President Siaka Stevens was established from 1971 to 1985. The central issue of the research is analysis of Sierra Leone’s cooperation with the Soviet Union. The aim of the research is to identify the factors that guided the non-aligned countries within the bipolar confrontation of the second half of the 20th century in building their relations with the socialist bloc. The relevance of the topic is related to the fact that the logic and principles of building relations of small non-aligned countries with both limited power resources and little political and economic ambitions with key world powers are less reflected in studies. The research is based upon comparative and historical-genetic methods as well as case studies. The author makes use of materials from the Sierra Leone Public Archives. The author concludes that Sierra Leone’s relations with the Second World were based on economic pragmatism rather than ideological or political proximity. For Sierra Leone, relations with socialist countries served as a tool for diversifying its foreign policy. This set Sierra Leone apart from its neighboring West African states, which either maintained an orientation towards first-world countries, namely France and the US, or reoriented themselves towards the Soviet Union.

The article refers to one of the integral parts of the of Russian soft power foreign policy, which lies in its interaction with the Russian-speaking women’s communities on the African continent. This topic has not previously been given an appropriate consideration in the domestic scientific discourse. The processes of current social and political transformations in the African countries require the significant increase in soft power, which could become the instrument of developing and consolidating relations between Russia and new African elites and African people. The Russian-speaking communities in Africa and organizations they create are largely composed of women and are developing thanks to their own initiatives. The potential of Russian-speaking women’s communities in Africa, as well as of associations of African graduates of Soviet/Russian educational institutions as prospective soft power providers is quite significant, yet seriously underestimated and untapped properly. Today a variety of associations, clubs, fraternities, unions comprised of Russian-speaking women is widely occurring in the majority of African countries. There are such associations in Zambia, Cameroon, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, Togo, Angola, Mauritius, Madagascar, Senegal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Mali, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, and other countries. Russian-African mixed families are considered as the most probable potential mediators in Russian and African societies, cultures and markets. At the same time, the development of ties with the Russian-speaking diaspora in Africa would contribute not only to supporting the foreign policy activities of the Russian Federation on the continent, but also to the implementation of such important national priorities of our country as supporting compatriots abroad and promoting the “Russian world.” This acquires particular importance on the threshold of the second Russia - Africa summit in 2023.

In historical retrospect, the use of national issues and contradictions has repeatedly become the weakening mechanisms for some great powers in regard to others. In this case, various technologies to construct national myths and ideologies based on tribalism and national exclusiveness and superiority were applied. After the “Crimean spring” in 2014, the Crimean Tatar issue gained a new level of relevance. The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine are actively using the Crimean Tatar factor to oppose the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation and, consequently, to weaken Russia’s positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean region. In the article the authors analyze the peculiarities of the influence of the Republic of Türkiye on the Crimean Tatars, as well as the Ukrainian initiatives in relation to the Crimean Tatars and joint Turkish-Ukrainian projects, with the target group consisting of the Crimean Tatars. The methodological basis of the research is system-based, geopolitical, civilizational and institutional approaches, which are implemented both directly and by using a number of general scientific and political science methods. The current policy of Türkiye and Ukraine on the Crimean Tatar issue has common features. Firstly, it is currently topical for the policy elites of these states, both at the domestic and international political levels. Under these circumstances, if the Crimean Tatar issue is an opportunity for Kiev to re-establish its jurisdiction over Crimea, then for Ankara the Crimean Tatar population helps to enlist the electoral support, as well as to consider Crimea and the Black Sea region as a Turkish sphere of influence. Secondly, the conditional Turkish-Ukrainian alliance presents itself as a “protector” of the Crimean Tatars from “Russian aggression.” Thirdly, Türkiye and Ukraine are projecting a positive state image by demonstrating protection of interests and observance of the Crimean Tatars rights on the territory of Russia. Fourthly, the actions of Türkiye and Ukraine in terms of the Crimean Tatar can be characterized as a double standard policy. This thesis is confirmed by the national policy of the Republic of Türkiye, and the approaches of Ukraine to the solution of the Crimean Tatar issue before the reunification of Crimea with Russia.

The article examines the mechanisms of quasi-voluntary and coercive dissemination of neoliberal models of development at the global level through the targeted activities and agendas of international organizations. At present, the legitimacy of both the process of promoting global neoliberalism itself and its results appear contradictory and widely challenged. This process has been accompanied by a decades-long erosion of state sovereignty, mandates and powers of nation-states. The result has been a “vacuum” in their ability to fully implement the sovereign state doctrine. However, today, with a multipolar world order transit states are again claiming the need to implement sovereign approaches to their own development, actively forming strategies and operational development plans alternative to neoliberalism. The author extensively analyzes neoliberal models of intervention, as well as those spheres in which there has been the greatest weakening of state powers. The article puts forward the thesis of the necessity for states to formulate national independent models of development alternative to the neoliberal programs globally imposed. This involves providing a broad ideological and philosophical framework and understanding of sovereign development for restoring the nation-sates ability to formulate sovereign state doctrine, vision, and strategy. In order to design and implement operational plans to revitalize the functional capacities of nation-states, it is important to restore relevant knowledge and practical skills, platforms and tools. It seems that this is what will allow nation-states to formulate their own development strategies in the context of dynamically emerging multipolarity. The article puts special emphasis on the doctrine of a sovereign state in the sphere of the economy. However, a similar approach can and should be applied in related spheres of social and political development.

-

-

-