The article is focused on the evolution of geopolitical arrangements that had initially materialized in the concluding quarter of the twentieth century and had given birth to the contemporary world politics paradigm including the growing role of Russia. The present author maintains that the very process of History is objective (i.e. independent of political establishment’s likes and dislikes) and continuous. This point is argued by appeal to various academic sources, among them the works of Russian and foreign historians, economists, philosophers, political scientists and futurologists. The dismemberment of the U.S.S.R. and collapse of bipolar world suspended, for a short while only, the developments at the sunset of the twentieth century. “Truncated” globalization resulted in “reactive” accumulation of controversies both between the North Atlantic “supercivilization” and the “rest” and within societies that emerged victorious after the cold war. The new vulnerabilities consisted of: deindustrialization as a sideeffect of globalization, “orientalization” of western societies as part and parcel of massive migration inflows from the South, political and economic decline encouraged by disappearance of powerful “counter­centre”
embodied by the Soviet Union, waning of economically active population under existent demographic trends throughout the West, etc. Instrumental of cold war revision have also been: emergence of radical antiWest megaprojects like the “Islamic State”, gaining strength by the erstwhile “new influentials” as well as revival of Russia as an omnipotent world power. Nowadays, Pax Americana has become inefficient to be substituted by a new and workable global consensus on universal collective security system that meets the basic requirements of contemporary multipolar world.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and socialist commonwealth contributed to the reconstruction of integrity of the World-System. These changes became a major global transformation of the second half of the XX century. Then there was an opinion that over time the model of liberal capitalism would be established in all countries. However the restoration of the integrity of the global world did not lead to shaping of its homogeneity. New contradictions emerged both between developed and developing countries and within the core countries of the World-System. All of this undermined stability of the system and contributed to the gradual distraction of the unipolar world order. Russia initially tried to be integrated into the new world reality and become the main partner of the USA as a center of the World-System. However the plans of the United States and its allies did not provide that Russia would retain its role as an important and independent actor in world politics. As a result, Russia’s integration into the West did not take place. Nevertheless having made the transition to an independent policy not subordinated to the USA and its allies Russia could not claim to create alternative global social project as the Soviet Union had. To do this Russia had neither resources nor attractive idea for the rest of the world. As China began to turn into economic superpower it seemed that Beijing was not going to offer the world its own social project alternative to liberal capitalism but it claimed only to take place in existing global system corresponding to its economic impact. Situation was changed after the USA in the middle of the 10-th felt in China a serious rival and moved to the policy of deterrence of it. China began to work out its own model of the world order. Now in comparison with the past many experts suppose that Chinese model of the social and political order may be used by other developing countries. Will this lead to emergence of the new global project alternative to the Western liberal capitalism and to distraction of integrity of the World-System? Will there be a new global transformation as a result of current processes? This article is devoted to the analysis of probable prospects of these tendencies of the world development. 

The gap between post­Soviet Russia and the communist past was demonstrated by a decree of the President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin’s “Establishing the Day of Agreement and Reconciliation” (1996), according to which the 7th of November remained a public holiday, but the essence of the celebration that was intended to symbolize the victory of the working classes over their exploiters, was changed to the reconciliation and unity of various layers of the Russian society. Later, the holiday of the 7th of November was cancelled completely; instead, President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin in 2004, by his decree, approved a new holiday ­ the Day of National Unity, which is timed to events that were much more remote and date back to 1612. For the first time, Russia celebrated a new public holiday on the 4th of November 2005. In contrast to the historical victory of the USSR over fascist Germany, the February and October revolutions of 1917, the Civil War, foreign intervention, the role of V.I. Lenin, I.V. Stalin and other revolutionary leaders continue to provoke heated debates in Russian society, serving as a source of controversy and conflict. Conscious of the potential danger of this subject, the authorities prefer to refrain from potentially dangerous and threatening political stability actions (burial of the body of VI Lenin, etc.), prefer to put everything off and pass on a solution of painful problems to society to future generations. The indistinct position of the federal center on the events of Russian history of the twentieth century, its silence on the themes of the October Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War in Russia led to numerous scandals with new monuments (Mannerheim, Kolchak, Krasnov, etc.) and other contradictory and diverse in their form consequences. In the rural areas, the situation is often determined by the level of education, character traits and psychological characteristics of representatives of the local administration, as well as their sympathies or antipathies of the parties to the Civil War. The article provides several examples of various manifestations of the current “provincial echo” of the Civil War in Siberia (Nizhneingashsky district of the Krasnoyarsk Territory and the Baikal region) and in the Urals (the city of Okhansk, Perm Territory).

The article aims to study the acute controversy spreading in presentday Spain around the assessments of the tragic consequences of the civil war and Francoist dictatorship. The author set the following objectives: to reveal the attitude of the Francoist authorities to the victims and persons responsible for the committed crimes; to analyze “the Pact of Forgetting” in force during the period of the establishment and consolidation of democracy when the issues of the civil war and Francoism were withdrawn from the official discourse; to determine the role of the civil society in overcoming the taboo of the authorities on the attitudes to the historical past; to consider the main stances of the political parties to the problems of historical memory; to show the evaluation of Francoism in the international context. The article concludes that though the governments of the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party in 2007 and then in 2018 undertook attempts to restore the historical truth and justice, only first steps have been made along this route. Those guilty of Francoist crimes have not been punished, and the victims have not been compensated for the legal and moral damage. The attitude to these problems splits Spanish parties and the society. The abolition of the Amnesty law adopted in October 1977 could be the key to solving the problem. According to the Law amnesty was granted to all political crimes committed before 1977 including mass killings of anti­Francoists at the time of the dictatorship. Present legal situation allows many parties to use in their political struggle the interpretation of convenience of the tragic events of the past. It seems that in the near future Spain is doomed to live with this destabilizing factor, impeding the achievement of genuine national reconciliation.

The author explores the farright wing of the political spectrum in Sweden. A small retrospective to the works of Per Engdahl allows us to identify certain similarities between modern Swedish far­right organizations and their ethno­nationalist postwar precursors. The author divides the farright wing into two parts: radicals (mainly neo­Nazis and extremists) and moderates, which offer a special refined strategy of nationalism. Special attention is paid to Sweden Democrats (SD). For 30 years, this party transformed from a small neo­Nazi marginal organization into the third largest national conservative political force in Sweden, according to the results of the 2018 parliamentary election and of the 2019 European election. The far­right Sweden Democrats entry in Riksdag promoted the qualitative and quantitative change of the party political system in Sweden. It’s fragmentarily increased. The former balance of power has shifted. The two largest Swedish Social Democratic and Moderate Parties, traditionally forming centre­left and centre­right blocks, have substantially lost their public sympathy. Trying to keep power, the governance parties are involving in common political trend: they are actively using narrative of right­wing populism and are ready to previously unthinkable party alliances erasing usual ideological boundaries. The total political isolation makes Sweden Democrats move their attitudes towards the center too. Meanwhile there are several new radical right  parties (Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), Alternative for Sweden (AfS), which are setting Sweden Democrats off as a social conservative force.

The article notes special role of military power factor in foreign policy of Prussian state and then German one. The paper also notes consistent willingness of FRG since period of Bonner Republic to strengthen its influence and increase its role. This movement has been becoming the most distinct during the modern period. Based on the crossing of these tendencies the article sets the question about the importance of factor of military power (and the evolution of the forms of its development and usage) for German foreign policy. The scientific paper tries to find the answer based on exploration of German military potential during of Konrad Adenauer`s and Angela Merkel`s eras when this process had been becoming special importance and rapidness. The article explores Adenauer`s measures aimed at shunning of German critics in re­militarization during period of full­scale Bundeswehr growing. These measures are: formula of ,,dissolving,, of Bundeswehr in allied military structures (first of all NATO), the concept of ,,strategic containment,, and limitation of the number of military formations. The article explores the evolution of these elements of German strategic culture by the beginning of Merkel`s era and during this period. In this regard the paper pays special attention to Bundeswehr usage outside NATO`s area of responsibility. The research compares the features of Bundeswehr usage in NATO military groups, the direction and dynamics Bundeswehr growing during Adenauer`s and Merkel`s rules. The article concludes about the degree of succession between the lines of two Chancellors in the sphere of armed forces building.

The article is focused on the current ethnopolitical dynamics in the EU’ CEE Member­States and on the peculiarities that distinguish this sub­region among another ones in the EU area. The main phenomena analyzed are the establishment of the conservative right regimes in Poland and Hungary, the attempts to build the ethnocratic Nation­State in some Baltic States, the politization of the cross­frontier etnic minorities issue as well as the traditional stigmatization of the Roma minority. There are some frame factors influencing the intensive manifestation of the above­mentioned trends: the peculiarities of the Nation­building process in the region of the traditional imperial domination are juxtaposing with the modern globalization and regional integration trends challenging the ambitions of the adepts of the Nation sovereignty. These are the cases of Poland and Hungary whose historical background has formed favorable conditions for the rightconservative renaissance. Yet the Baltic project of the ethnic Nation­State construction proved its impossibility amid the socioeconomic and demographic trends of nowadays Europe.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Versailles system of international relations. The author emphasizes the fact that it was the product of the first total war in the history of mankind, and as such had a number of characteristics that strikingly distinguished it from the models that had existed in the past. The goal of its founders was to establish a lasting peace in a situation where the course and consequences of the world war preconditioned the use of particularly harsh sanctions against the vanquished party. In addition, the war linked the problems of the post­war settlement and the internal political agenda of the warring countries, marked by the “uprising of the masses”. All this created a special background for the work of the Paris Peace Conference. The leaders of France and Great Britain acted, in many respects, under the influence of these factors, which limited their field for maneuver. It turned out to be impossible to fully implement the project of a democratic world proposed by US President W. Wilson. These contradictions were most clearly manifested during the discussion on the Russian question. As a result, the emerging system of international relations was marked by a number of structural contradictions, which made its disintegration inevitable. According to the author, modern world politics is facing similar challenges.

Combination of internal political and social crisis with armed conflict in the neighbour country behind the less dangerous frontier without any possibility of obtaining fastly any real aid from allies is one of the worst possible political scenarios in the time of peace. France faced such a situation in 1936 after her Popular Front’s electoral victory and the beginnig of military mutiny in Spain provoqued by further escalation of internal political struggle. Mutiny developed into civil war that, beeing local geographically, became a global political problem because it troubled many great powers and first of all France. This article depicts and analyzes position and views on Spanish civil war and its antecedents of French nationalist royalist movement «Action française» leaded by Charles Maurras (1868–1952) and her allies in next generations of French nationalists – philosopher and political writer Henri Massis (1886–1970) and novelist Robert Brasillach (1909–1945). All of them from the first day hailed Spanish Nationalist cause and were sure in her final victory so took side against any French help, first of all military, to Spanish Republican government, propagated Franco’s political program, denounced Soviet intervention into Spanish affairs and “Communist threat”. Staying for Catholic and Latin unity French nationalists were anxious to prevent Franco’s rapprochement with Nazi Germany that they regarded as France’s “hereditary emeny” notwithstanding of political regime. Trips of Maurras and Massis to Spain in 1938 and theirs meetings with Franco were aimed to demonstrate this kind of unity with silent but clear anti-German overtone. Brasillach’s “History of War in Spain” (1939) became the first French overview of the events from Nationalist point of view.

Muslim Brotherhood is listed as prohibited organization in a number of countries, including Russia. Nevertheless, in different periods and in different countries of the MENA region it turned out to be well represented in the legal political field. The temporary failures of this largest branch of political Islam of a radical nature have not yet led to a fatal loss of the organization in the competition between different Islamic groups, or to defeat as a result of repression. The author explores the problem of such stability of an extremist organization for many decades. He defends the hypothesis of its long­term strategic action planning along with the accepted tactics of waiting for a convenient moment for the realization of power ambitions. To analyze the strength of the social base, a variant of the deprivation theory is proposed, which was considered in detail in other works of the author. The historical origins of the organization are identified using published as well unpublished archival documents. A historical retrospective substantiates the assumption that a prototype of this structure used to be existed in Istanbul and Damascus back in the period immediately following the Young Turks revolution in the Ottoman Empire. The strongest external factor in the development of MB is emphasized. It is support throughout the history of the movement from forces outside the region, which have seen and continue to see the possibility for themselves of a tactical alliance with the Islamists of this direction to realize their own ideas and pursue their interests in the East.

The paper is devoted to the analyses of the evolution problems of such key for African states phenomena as globalization, regionalism and neo­colonialism. The attempts of transnational corporations to realize the “vertical” integration with the post­colonial African economies had stimulated the development of the “horizontal” inter­African integration – on regional and continental scales. In 1980­1990­s, after the extra measures for the African economies’ liberalization, the integration processes had made more active. Later they were transformed and the formal declarations about interstate cooperation were changed by the complex programs, adopted by all the members of African Union – “A global strategy to optimize use of Africa’s resources for the benefits of all Africans” (2013­2063), based on the successful practices of eight African regional economic groups, and African Continental Free Trade Area, AfCFTA (2019). New regionalism, emerged after including the problems of ecology, culture etc. in the sphere of intergovernmental cooperation, was a result of deep changes in the  international division of labor. It needed the structural transformation of economies­members of the regional groups. Nowadays the growing interaction of the economic integration and globalization processes in Africa does not insure against the influence of modern neo­colonialism. Apart from this, the globalization is not equal as to “westernization” so the neo­colonialism according to, firstly, growing influence of the “East” within the world economy and, secondly, the differences between the objective process of the globalization and the static model of neo­colonial interconnections between developed and developing economics. In the “new regionalism” conditions, African countries as the parts of the world economy periphery are simultaneously the subjects of globalization and the objects of neocolonial influence. This situation contradicts with the needs of the Fourth industrial revolution, but stimulates African states to develop interactions between continental institutes and international economic organizations. 

The aim of the work was to trace the trajectory and to identify key factors of social transformations in Latin America. Among the main tasks included analysis of major political and socio­economic processes underway in the region in the 20th­21st centuries. In the article the historical growth model, showing the conditions under which they become the obstacle on the way of development and modernization. The structure of the thesis reflects the tasks: the evolution of the role of the State in the politics and economy of the countries of the region reflects the stages of neoliberal reforms, listed three causes of populist waves are particularly modern period. The study authors found that transformational process in Latin America is extremely fragile. Statecentered (populist) and market (neoliberal) modernization models succeeded each other in the logic of the “negation of the negation”, with fierce regularity course on building an open economy was substituted by dirigisme policies and vice versa. Because of this, reform cycles are short­lived, being replaced by other conversion politico­ideological content. Currently, the trajectory of public transformations came to new milestone: the region has accumulated considerable potential for change, but it is controversial, it reflects different motion vectors. Adequate assessment of the historical experience of modernization is essential in the current difficult circumstances. The third decade of the 21st century can be a turning point in the economic and social development of Latin America. In case of implementation of the optimistic scenario, in these years will be drawn the contours of the future place of the region in world economic and political system; will rise its role in global affairs.

The article provides a description of the military evolution of the XIX–XXI centuries. The development of the operational forms and organizational principles are on focus. October war of 1973 and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 prove the new principle of deployment of troops. A continuous strategic front is no longer the predominant principle of deployment in the theater of operations. Although war had rose to a higher level of scientific and technological development, modern organizational and operational forms are increasingly reminiscent of the local conflicts of the XIX century.