The primary objective of this article is to construct a comprehensive conceptual definition of "post-capitalism." The contemporary global landscape, characterized by postmodernity, is currently undergoing a profound institutional crisis. This crisis impacts both its economic underpinnings, rooted in the dominance of financial capitalism, and its societal foundations, which revolve around a universal model of social development built upon a universalist model of consumption.
Discourses surrounding post-capitalism within Russian and Western academic and expert circles exhibit unique characteristics. However, they share common traits. On one hand, these discourses reflect an acknowledgment of the impasses inherent in existing models of globalization. On the other hand, they recognize the transformation of capitalism as a universal socio-economic system that forms the bedrock of international relations. This article underscores the inescapable rise of non-economic factors influencing socio-economic systems' development, including their role in shaping international relations.

Post-capitalism is best understood as a collection of principles guiding spatial organization and the establishment of economic and political relationships within these spaces, rather than a specific developmental model. Positioned as an element within the broader return to a spatiality, post-capitalism is predominantly discussed within the context of international processes, serving as a transitional phase in international political and economic relations.

This study offers a comprehensive exploration and analysis of "huaqiao nongchang," commonly known as overseas Chinese farms, situated within contemporary China's territorial boundaries. These administrative units, established in the 1950s-1980s, served as an intriguing aspect of emigrant administration and were established in three distinct phases. Initially, they functioned as agricultural entities, predominantly inhabited by ethnic Chinese returning en masse from countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and others to the newlyformed People's Republic of China in 1949.

The author's primary objective is to fill gaps in our understanding of this phenomenon and to dissect the logic behind the stages of their creation, settlement, and subsequent reforms within China. This article excels in its contextualization within the historical framework, shedding light on the unique characteristics of these settlements. A comprehensive analysis of works by Chinese experts uncovers a significant reason for the PRC authorities' adoption of this approach: it provided a swift solution to hunger-related issues and the employment of vast refugee populations.
As time progressed, drawbacks in this approach to managing emigrants became apparent. The initial economic struggles of these settlements, coupled with unfavorable socio-cultural environments and a lack of effective organizational strategies for settlers, necessitated ongoing reforms. The transformation of certain "huaqiao nongchang" units from unproductive state farms into profitable agricultural enterprises occurred due to various factors, including decentralization of decision-making, redirection toward local markets, alleviation of social tensions, workforce training, and their integration into the broader Chinese economy.

This article supplements its analysis with excerpts from settlers' memoirs, offering firsthand insights into the lives and experiences of overseas Chinese emigrants returning to their homeland. Additionally, it provides a concise examination of the terminology associated with this subject matter.

The phenomenon of global migration exerts a substantial impact on nations, organizations, and individuals, yet the focus of scholarly discourse on the potential of migrants has historically not paralleled the magnitude of this phenomenon. This study brings into focus the often-neglected dual nature of immigrant potential, impacting both countries that receive migrants (recipient countries) and those from which migrants originate (donor countries). Prior research within the Russian context predominantly examined the potential of compatriots in post-independence neighboring countries or the potential related to internal migration and the redistribution of human and labor resources regionally. Prevailing perspectives have largely been confined to examining the migration potential of specific socio-demographic groups within defined territories, often characterized by distinct ethnic features. This research illuminates the dual aspect of external migrant potential. It elucidates how migrants contribute significantly to the development of host countries, while donor countries also reap considerable benefits from the migratory capabilities and engagements of their citizens in foreign employment.

The objective of this article is to augment theoretical paradigms in the study of "migration potential," conceptualizing it as an integrative system that combines quantitative and qualitative attributes of a highly mobile and motivated populace. The paper seeks to delineate the conceptual framework of migration potential, establish its structural composition, and elucidate the mechanisms and factors through which migrant potential influences the economic and demographic progress of both recipient and donor nations.

Findings: The study delineates the constituent components of the functional sub-potentials (subcomponents) within the broader construct of "migration potential," synthesizing these through a meticulous examination of extant Russian and international academic literature. Migration potential is approached as a variable that is both fluid and subject to modification. The research critically analyzes the multifaceted impacts – both advantageous and adverse – of migration on diverse sectors of life in donor and recipient countries. A case in point is the correlation between the educational potential and the intellectual prowess of highly skilled migrants, which significantly contributes to innovation within the host regions. Conversely, a deficiency in the integration potential of external migrants may precipitate xenophobic tendencies among native populations. From the perspective of donor countries, the influx of remittances stands out as a pivotal and transformative element within the broader context of global migration.

This editorial introduces a series of papers based on presentations made at the "Soviet Diplomacy during World War II" conference held at MGIMO on June 30, 2023. It draws attention to notable aspects of Soviet diplomacy during the wartime period. Firstly, it highlights the persistent effort and skill in negotiating despite significant divergences in interests and approaches. Secondly, it discusses the adeptness in striking a careful balance between steadfastly maintaining one's stance and employing flexibility and pragmatism to achieve the ultimate objective of victory over the enemy. Thirdly, the article examines the history of international negotiations during World War II as an illustration of the clash and collaboration among prominent political figures, notably emphasizing how I.V. Stalin often outplayed his counterparts in this personalized “diplomacy of leaders.”

The history of World War II compellingly illustrates the necessity of diplomacy, not only during the conflict but also in the transition to peace and negotiations thereafter, as well as in the establishment of a new global order.

Based on an analysis of documentary sources from Russian, American, and British archives, this article delves into the intricacies of coalition diplomacy among the Allies during World War II. It places special emphasis on the adherence to obligations and coalition behavior norms, encompassing respect for partners' interests, maintaining unity amidst divergences, coordinating actions towards shared objectives, and avoiding actions that risk coalition breakdown. The comparative analysis of Soviet and Anglo-American diplomacy reveals that the principal members of the anti-Hitler coalition generally adhered to these norms, contributing to the ultimate defeat of their common adversary. However, the study indicates that the Soviet Union exhibited greater fidelity in fulfilling its obligations and was more proactive in institutionalizing the coalition for enhanced stability and equal participation in strategic decision-making for war conduct and postwar arrangements. This quest for parity was often impeded by the Western powers' reluctance to accept the Soviet Union as an enduring, equal partner and legitimate member of the great powers' club, both during and after the war. This hesitance, the article argues, was rooted not just in geopolitical considerations but also in deep-seated cultural factors, particularly the traditional Western sense of superiority and perception of Russia as a 'lesser' civilization not fit for inclusion in the Euro-Atlantic community. The article brings to light lesser-known documents from US and UK archives to illustrate this mindset. It also acknowledges dissenting voices in Anglo-American political spheres who advocated for a more equitable relationship with the USSR. However, these perspectives did not significantly alter the overarching direction of Western policy.

Through both intelligence channels and foreign policy efforts, Moscow gathered information in early 1941 about the growing alliance between Berlin and Helsinki, including increased German-Finnish military collaboration, the deployment of German troops and military equipment in Finland, the recruitment of Finnish volunteers for SS units in Germany, the construction of fortifications along the Soviet border, and the massing of Finnish forces near the Soviet frontier. Despite initially maintaining neutrality after Germany's invasion of the USSR, Finland declared war on the Soviet Union on June 26, 1941. The initial phase of the Soviet-Finnish front from July to December 1941 saw military successes favoring Finland. Subsequently, from late December 1941 until summer 1944, a "positional war" ensued with little change to the front line. During this period, Stockholm emerged as a key geopolitical hub where Soviet diplomats, led by A. Kollontai, and intelligence officers navigated the complex task of encouraging Finland to engage in peace talks with the Soviet Union and withdraw from the war. Sweden's neutrality in the conflict and its traditionally strong ties with Finland positioned it as an effective mediator in these negotiations. Additionally, Moscow successfully lobbied Washington to apply diplomatic pressure on Helsinki to initiate negotiations, which gradually began to yield positive results. The multifaceted efforts of Soviet diplomats and intelligence, coupled with A. Kollontai’s active involvement in this diplomatic endeavor, facilitated two rounds of Soviet-Finnish negotiations in Moscow in March and September 1944. While the March talks faltered due to Finnish delegates and political stances, the September negotiations succeeded in persuading Finland to agree to a truce, ceasing hostilities. This diplomatic victory contributed to the gradual disintegration of the anti-USSR coalition led by Germany, with Finland becoming a crucial component to exit this alliance.

The history of Soviet-Hungarian interactions from the establishment of diplomatic relations until Hungary joined World War II alongside the Axis powers offers valuable insights into the dynamics between small and great powers, as well as the efforts of small European states, particularly Hungary, to navigate their national interests in foreign policy amidst Nazi Germany's encroachments. This period was defined by two primary factors: the Hungarian political elite, led by Miklós Horthy, sought to join a quasi-"crusade" against Comintern Soviet Russia, while simultaneously striving to avoid deep involvement in major conflicts between the great powers. This dual approach aligned with the policies of Hitler's Western appeasers, who aimed to redirect German expansion eastward. In this geopolitical scenario, American and Western European actors (including Great Britain and France) were relegated to the role of observers, anticipating a prolonged conflict between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that would drain both. Hungary, as strategized by Budapest, hoped to secure a position among these observers, avoiding direct conflict participation, and to later engage in territorial reconfiguration post-World War II. However, the reality in Europe by the early 1940s diverged significantly, with Western powers (the USA and Great Britain) unable to redirect Hitler's global domination ambitions eastward. Facing an existential threat, these powers were compelled to enter the war. Against this backdrop, Soviet diplomacy endeavored to deter Hungary's alliance with Nazi Germany. Although ultimately unsuccessful, examining these diplomatic efforts offers valuable lessons in the context of the current evolution towards a multipolar world. 

This article offers an in-depth analysis of Soviet policy and diplomacy in the Far East during the tumultuous period spanning from the 1920s to the 1940s. These policies were profoundly shaped by two key factors: firstly, the ideological considerations rooted in the political framework established in the USSR following the 1917 revolution, and secondly, the geopolitical dynamics reflecting the evolving global and regional political landscape in the Far East. The ruling Bolshevik Party and the Soviet government faced formidable challenges as they sought to safeguard the nascent Soviet Republic amid mounting international tensions, both on a global scale and within the Asia-Pacific region.
This study aspires to present a comprehensive and integrated examination of Soviet policy and diplomacy during this era. It delineates four distinct chronological segments, each characterized by its unique features, priorities, and challenges. At the same time, these segments are united by the overarching goal of consolidating the Soviet Union's position in the Far Eastern region and the broader Pacific theater. The four discernible stages in Soviet policy and diplomacy in the Far East encompass:
1.    The period spanning from 1927 to 1932, marked by an initial deterioration in relations between the Soviet government and the Kuomintang administration following the 1927 split between the Kuomintang and the Communist Party of China (CPC). This phase also witnessed the 1929 conflict on the Chinese Eastern Railway and culminated in the reestablishment of Sino-Soviet relations, all set against the backdrop of escalating Japanese aggression in Northeastern China (Manchuria). This phase demanded adroit diplomacy balancing strength and strategic statecraft.
2.    The 1930s, especially in the aftermath of Japan's aggressive incursions into China, saw limited interaction and collaboration between the USSR and the Republic of China. This period featured cautious Soviet-Japanese relations and included significant events such as armed clashes at Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin-Gol River, as well as the signing of the USSR-Japan Neutrality Pact.
3.    The era of the Great Patriotic War from 1941 to 1945, during which the Soviet Union's foremost objective was the defeat of the German Nazi aggressor. During this period, Soviet diplomacy was primarily preoccupied with relations with Anglo-American allies, with particular emphasis on the contentious issue of opening a second front. Consequently, Far Eastern and Pacific policy concerns assumed a somewhat marginalized role within the realm of Soviet diplomacy.
4.    Finally, the period spanning from the winter to the summer of 1945 emerged as a pivotal juncture. During this time, the Soviet Union intensified its political, diplomatic, and military involvement in the Far East, all against the backdrop of preparations for the impending entry into the war against Japan. Diplomatic endeavors reached their zenith during this critical phase.

This article endeavors to delineate the conceptual landscape occupied by the notions of prospective multipolarity within the strategic discourse of Soviet diplomacy during the latter phases of the Great Patriotic War. Particular emphasis is placed on the intellectual contributions of two prominent Soviet diplomats, M.M. Litvinov and I.M. Maisky. The author substantiates these insights by drawing upon both published and archival source materials, including the diaries and records maintained by officials within the Soviet Foreign Office, as well as documents emanating from the "Litvinov commission."

While the diplomatic theories formulated by Litvinov and Maisky during the years 1943–1945 have been subject to analysis by Russian and international scholars, the majority of extant scholarship has traditionally focused on the content and nuances of their perspectives on specific international "questions." Departing from this convention, this article adopts a methodological approach that seeks to explore the underlying conceptual foundations upon which the ideas of Litvinov and Maisky were constructed. Additionally, the essay introduces a novel dimension by surveying the viewpoints of other Soviet diplomats (S.A. Lozovskii, B.E. Shtein, Ia.Z. Surits, E.V. Tarle), who have garnered relatively less scholarly attention.

Of paramount interest is the manner in which Litvinov and Maisky envisaged the post-World War II international landscape, albeit without explicitly employing the term "multipolarity." The article addresses critical questions, such as their perception of the global scenario following WWII, their consideration of the inevitability of Soviet-American bipolarity, and the factors and circumstances that influenced their conceptualizations. The contemporary resurgence of discussions surrounding the trajectory of multipolarity in the twenty-first century underscores the pertinence of this historical inquiry.
The article's key conclusion posits that the conceptual framework embraced by Soviet diplomats during 1943–1945 was not centered on notions of bipolarity or an imminent Cold War. While acknowledging the potential escalation of tensions between the USSR and Western nations led by the USA and Great Britain, they favored collaboration among the principal powers of the antiHitlerite coalition, grounded in an implicit understanding of their respective "spheres of influence." Although Soviet Foreign Office officials did not discount the possibility of the formation of a united Anglo-American front against the USSR, they believed that Soviet diplomacy should actively work to prevent such an outcome by capitalizing on the fissures between Washington and London.

This article delves into the dynamics of ethno-confessional factors influencing Russian-Turkish relations, exploring the Russian and Turkic worlds as geopolitical constructs within the Eurasian sphere. Employing a synthesis of critical and classical geopolitics methodologies, the study emphasizes the civilizational aspect as a pivotal element in the intricate interplay of competition and cooperation between Russia and Turkey in the Eurasian context. 
The research methodology integrates a civilizational perspective with critical geopolitics. The authors examine various strategies utilized by Turkey and Russia to implement ethnoconfessional policies in their quest for geopolitical influence. These strategies encompass the creation of narratives around 'fraternal nations', the promotion of shared historical, cultural, religious, linguistic, and heroic narratives; the cultivation of pro-Russian and pro-Turkish national elites; and the exploitation of ethno-national factors during domestic political crises. This analysis traces these phenomena from historical imperial contexts to contemporary interstate relations.

Furthermore, the article underscores the significant impact of individual leadership in shaping the concept of the Turkic world, with a particular focus on the current President of the Turkish Republic, R.T. Erdogan. Erdogan is portrayed as a key figure actively advocating for and reinforcing the unity and identity of the Turkic world.

In the 1920s, visits by foreign delegations to the USSR served as a crucial yet challenging avenue for showcasing the achievements of the nascent Soviet state. Drawing on previously unexplored materials from the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (F. 537, inv. 2), this article examines the strategies employed in hosting these guests. It explores the planning of their itineraries and leisure activities, aiming to understand how Soviet sports leaders, during the early stages of state formation, skillfully concealed various shortcomings (especially economic and infrastructural) and highlighted sports and cultural triumphs to craft a positive global image of the USSR through what was ostensibly a non-political institution.

Soviet physical education leaders did not shy away from inviting foreign teams to the country; instead, they actively welcomed all interested parties who could manage the journey. An ideally orchestrated visit seamlessly integrated four key elements: sports (the competitions), culture (theater, cinema, sightseeing), daily life (direct interaction with Soviet workers), and team recreation. When executed well, these visits garnered positive international feedback, thereby enhancing the USSR's global prestige as the inaugural socialist state. This became the primary objective of Soviet sports diplomacy in the late 1920s, marking a significant stride in breaking through international isolation.

However, these visits were not without limitations and challenges. The level of indoctrination varied significantly among delegations: while European proletarians often visited sites significant to the October Revolution, guests from the East were predominantly exposed to the country's cultural facets. Despite the Red Sports International's encouragement, delegations rarely ventured beyond major urban centers like Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkov, and Odessa, as provincial visits were not feasible. Furthermore, even in these key cities, visitors encountered organizational challenges such as transportation difficulties, inadequate economic support, and issues with food provision, which diminished the effectiveness of propaganda efforts. These shortcomings were largely attributable to the absence of a standardized protocol for receiving foreign guests during the first decade of Soviet sports diplomacy and the general uneven infrastructural development of the country.