As soon as the Baltic states gained independence in 1991, they targeted, in terms of domestic and foreign relations’ development, reorientation to the West and integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. Whereas NATO (under leadership of the United States) is regarded as the “cornerstone” of their security, the European Union (EU) is viewed as a source of financial assistance and the guarantor of economic stability. The article presents an overview of the transformation processes in the Baltic countries in the past two and a half decades, and the practical component of their membership in the EU is offered in detail. Comparative analysis of the political and socio-economic Baltic transit shows the similarity of their development trajectories. However, the positive effect, which joining the EU brought about, is eclipsed by the social and economic costs that resulted from the tough neo-liberal reforms that were required. Despite the rejection of the role of geopolitical and geo-economic “bridge” between Russia and the West, the Russian factor continues to play a primary role in the political processes and foreign policies of these countries, while at the same time the Baltic states themselves prefer not to call themselves post-Soviet. Confrontational position that the Baltic states undertook in relation to Russia, is determined by political and ideological factors and has long-term destructive impact not only on the bilateral dialogue, but also on relations between Russia and the European Union.

 

The article is devoted to relations between Belarus and Russia today. A survey of the history of relations between the two countries over the past 10-15 years, the formation of the modern ideology of the Belarusian foreign policy. aspect of economic relations between the two countries and internal political discussions in Belarus ’s foreign policy in the East. Particular attention is paid to the project of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the problems of the participation of the Republic of Belarus in integration projects with Russia.

The crisis in the Ukraine not only has maximally escalated the relations among Russia, Europe and the USA but also brought Moscow to the brink of direct military conflict with Kiev. In the context of the civil war outbroken in the Ukraine an opportunity to confirm its demands in the sphere of foreign policy by open force is vital for Russia. However, the nature of two level Ukrainian conflict is such that a direct military confrontation is still possible either between Novorossiya and Ukraine or between Ukraine and Russia if the latter makes a decision to support Donbass at a critical moment. But a conflict is impossible between Russia and NATO because an outbreak of an open war will be prevented by the existing strategic nuclear balance. The presence of a nuclear factor makes military demonstration the most rigid form for confirmation of the demands in the sphere of foreign policy by the conflicting parties. Its most possible scenario is a frontal extension of the Russian ground forces deployed on the Ukrainian border to the west even to the Dnieper line and the border with the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic in the Black Sea region. The article sequentially discusses the he strengths and weaknesses of the group of Russian troops on the Ukrainian border, then - the opportunities of the USA and NATO to organize an air bridge to disrupt a possible a possible extension of the Russian troops to the west. The author makes a conclusion that the first units of the rapid deployment forces could arrive to the area near Kiev not earlier than 10-15 hours. Full deployment of the US expeditionary brigade may take from 14 to 18 days. Such a period seems to be excessive. Two-week cushion of time will allow the Russian military to perform all the tasks in the Levoberezhnaya (leftbank) Ukraine while the US troops at the best case will manage to protect the Ukrainian capital. In the nearest time, NATO will tackle obvious difficulties in all the issues related to the projection of force to the South East of the Ukraine. However, in the future in the course of the development of military infrastructure and accumulation of forces this advantage of Russia will be decreasing.

The article attempts to analyze the current situation in Transcaucasia and identify the main actors, factors of influence and forces that shape the processes of domestic development in a number of republics of the region. The author comes to the conclusion that the region is in a state of “cooldown”, after 25 years of almost continual instability which, in turn, was a source of numerous internal conflicts. However, broad analysis of internal situation in the states of Transcaucasia with the inclusion of foreign influences shows a more complex landscape. Major players, such as the US and Russia, avoid increasing their presence in the region, which opens a wideWINDOW of opportunities for regional powers, such as Turkey and Iran. Against the background of decreasing interest in Transcaucasia by the world leaders, the region is returning to its historical status as a periphery. This process is characterized by a reduction in the influence of foreign actors and a rise in the role of the factors that cause general instability. These include, first and foremost, unresolved conflicts, unstable political, social and economic situation at home and specific political behaviors displayed by local elites. The April war of 2016 in Nagorno-Karabakh indicates a violation of the status quo and may lead to a high probability of new clashes in the conflict zone. The war highlighted a complex set of problems faced by Armenia and Azerbaijan in recent years. In both countries, against a backdrop of degrading economies, there is a growing split between the government and the society, as well as tensions within the elites. Similar processes are on the rise in Georgia. The situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is somewhat different, as the two countries could be classified as periphery to a periphery, and thus are developing in isolation from the common Caucasian agenda. Nevertheless, these countries also show a complex set of internal contradictions which tend to break out from time to time. This is symptomatic of a serious challenge facing the region. The countries that emerged on the other side of the Caucasus Mountains since 1991 are still searching for optimal models of national development.

The article deals with the distribution of political forces before the parliamentary elections in Georgia in 2016, their process and results, their influence on the current status of the relations between Georgia and Russia. For 25 years, Georgian political system has passed a difficult way of development. By the early 2010s in fact the country had developed a one-party system on the basis of which the regime of Saakashvili was formed. However, at the parliamentary elections in 2012 the system collapsed. Contrary to numerous predictions a new political force - “Georgian Dream ” led by V Ivanishvili won. Nevertheless, the elections of 2016 has shown that the old system is recurring: the question is about the dominance of one political party without obvious ideology and program. The main advantage of “Georgian Dream” is its pragmatism and realism. The defeated political forces have tackled a situation of deep and almost desperate crisis. However, the ruling party is facing serious challenges. The Georgian economy is going through hard times. The perspectives of integration in western economic, military and political space for the country is unobvious. The relations with Russia despite some positive tendencies have some significant political constraints which every ruling political force in Georgia shall take into consideration. Diametrically opposite positions of Moscow and Tbilisi related to the problem of Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not allow to expect a fundamental change in the political dialogue which has a semi-frozen status.

The features of formation of statehood in Central Asia in the post-Soviet period are discussed in this article. The author makes the assumption that the Central Asian region has lost the homogeneity, said by researches. The way of construction of nation-states after the collapse of the Soviet Union is traced in this article. Also, it tells about the role of clans and family relations in Central Asia.