Why Being a Periphery is not Honorable, and why It does not Threaten Russia

The foreign policy of theRussian Federationattracts the attention of experts and researchers not only during the days of obvious victories, but also during periods of serious trials.Russiamanaged not to become the periphery of any Center; this is the fi st, necessary, but not the only condition forNationalStatedevelopment. The second condition is the formation of such a foreign policy, which does not focus on cooperation with any exclusive partner, but clearly and unequivocally declares:Russiaitself is the center of power

Review of the monograph: “Extremism in the modern world”

The review of the unique monograph devoted to extremely relevant, but very difficult question — to extremism. Authors make a start from the fact that the problem of fight against extremism is insufficiently studied in the Russian and foreign social and political sciences, and make a significant contribution to the solution of this problem. The appeal to extremism in the Russian Federation should be considered understandable. This phenomenon is recognized as one of the most serious threats of national security of our country

Nationalism, Authoritarianism, Fascism: Why in the Baltic States the Past Becomes the Future (Article Two)

The Great Patriotic War was not only the opposition of countries, but also the struggle of ideologies. Fascism was defeated, communist ideology and democratic practices won and began to compete among themselves. Mutual deterrence in post-war Europe contributed to fascism and neo-Nazism not becoming a threat to society.The weakening of external political governance and the collapse of the USSR led to a qualitative increase in nationalism in Eastern Europe. However, in the Baltic States, transformation of nationalism into authoritarianism, and authoritarianism into fascism, which took place in the 20th-40th years of the last century, is repeated again. Two articles are devoted to the specifics of this process. The first tells about the specifics of the political systems of the modern Baltics, the history of the Baltic countries and the genesis of fascist ideology in the Baltics. The second article is devoted to Baltic nationalism as a factor in the formation of authoritarian and fascist practices, the assessment of the prospects for the revival of fascism in the Baltics and the analysis of this danger for Russia. The anniversary of the Great Victory is not only an excuse for pride in the past, but also a good reason to find threats to the future

Nationalism, Authoritarianism, Fascism: Why in the Baltic States the Past Becomes the Future (Article One)

The Great Patriotic War was not only the opposition of countries, but also the struggle of ideologies. Fascism was defeated, communist ideology and democratic practices won and began to compete among themselves. Mutual deterrence in post-war Europe contributed to fascism and neo-nazism not becoming a threat to society.The weakening of external political governance and the collapse of the USSR led to a qualitative increase in nationalism in Eastern Europe. However, in the Baltic states the transformation of nationalism into authoritarianism, and authoritarianism into fascism, which took place in the 20-40 years of the last century, is repeated again. Two articles are devoted to the specifics of this process. The first tells about the specifics of the political systems of the modern Baltics, the history of the Baltic countries and the genesis of fascist ideology in the Baltics. The second article will be devoted to Baltic nationalism as a factor in the formation of authoritarian and fascist practices, the assessment of the prospects for the revival of fascism in the Baltics and the analysis of this danger for Russia. The anniversary of the Great Victory is a good reason not only for pride in the past, but also for finding threats to the future

On the Issue of Verification of the Concept of “Path Dependence” for the Former Soviet Union in the Light of Thirty Years of Intuitive Practices

Radical reforms cannot be an independent goal of economic development. Since 1990–1991, various management and economic practices have been oriented to various degrees to overcome the “path dependence”. However, it was not possible to get out of the effect of dependence on the previous path more than one country of the Former Soviet Union. D. North’s theory of variable reform processes proved to be ideal for explaining key problems of institutional development of the Former Soviet Union

Sovereignty vs Development. Belarusian Economy in the Context of Current Trends in World Development

The concept of sovereignty is now a cross-cutting and general scientific problem. In relation to Russian-Belarusian relations, it is primarily related to issues of economic sovereignty. Ideally, the solution of theoretical questions and practical actions in the field of integration should be spaced over time. However, in practice this is not always possible. Country economic models are not a new subject of study. However, there are not many such works in Belarus. In the article, the authors tried not only to indicate significant points of the Belarusian economic model. The need to develop integration within the framework of the union state of Russia and Belarus is practically not disputed by anyone. In practice, however, this integration has been slow. From our point of view, one of the reasons for this situation is the inattention to the fact that over 30 years of post-Soviet development in Belarus, as well as throughout the post- Soviet space, different economic models have developed. Understanding economic sovereignty in the era of globalization 2.0 is a difficult task for theorists and practitioners. How to reconcile the traditions of sovereignty and the need to deepen integration? This article is devoted to these issues

Memories of the Future: Traditional Russian Administrative Practices in New Foreign Policy Conditions. Article Four. Between Empire and Federation. End of the XIX — beginning of the XX century

The territorial-political structure of the Russian Empire has been studied quite well. The challenge is adapting historical knowledge to current management practices. Russia was not an empire, but it was also not a classical federation. Approximately 35 % of the country was governed in special regimes. This design can be criticized, but this management model did not catalyze the disaster of the beginning of the 20th century. The causes of the crisis were related to public administration issues. In turn, the study of the territorial-political structure will reveal not only the weak, but also the strengths of the management model of imperial Russia