The article is devoted to one of the key subjects of the detente period – the history of development and adoption of Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. The significance of the human rights problem in the USSR, in particular – the right to emigrate, for the development of American-Soviet relations at the peak of detente is shown. Special attention was paid to trilateral negotiations between the Soviet leadership, Nixon and Ford administrations and the legislators headed by Senator Henry Jackson. The Amendment, adopted in December 1974, created serious obstacles for the development of trade and economic relations between the superpowers, and it had a number of negative political consequences also. The Amendment constituted the issue of human rights in the USSR as one of the important components of the U.S. foreign policy, created a negative background for the American-Soviet dialogue, which significantly complicated the outlined convergence of superpowers and contributed to the curtailment of detente.

The political struggle around the Jackson-Vanik Amendment became the quintessence of detente. Each of the parties involved regarded the Amendment differently: Soviet leaders saw it as a rude interference in the internal affairs of the USSR; Kissinger saw it as an untimely and too radical in form and methods attempt to transform the Soviet system; Jackson saw it as a good way to increase his popularity by exploiting a popular in the post-Vietnam era theme that was naturally consistent with American national values and traditions. Both the Kremlin and Jackson had a fairly clear set of concessions that they could make. However, in the context of the systemic crisis of power caused by Watergate, the US administration did not have enough resources to bring them to a common denominator. The Soviet leadership soon also faced new economic and political challenges, and the problem of restoring trade relations with the United States ceased to be a priority.

The Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1974 became the watershed separating the “high détente” from its downward phase. Its real significance far exceeded its immediate meaning embedded in the arguments of its creators. It was not an accident that the Amendment was not canceled in 1987 after the USSR liberated its emigration policy. After the collapse of the USSR American leadership used it as a political leverage against Russian Federation. Boris Yeltsin appealed to Bill Clinton multiple times in 1993-1994 requesting removal of discrimination measures in trade and economic relations inherited from the soviet times. The Amendment was not cancelled it was only temporarily suspended. It was officially canceled only in 2012, but only in order to give way to a law that allows the United States, at its discre tion, to impose sanctions on individuals allegedly responsible for human rights violations in Russia (the so-called Magnitsky Act) and remains an obstacle to the development of equal Russian-American economic ties.

Traditionally the processes of globalization and the issues of world politics related to hegemony are studied separately in the scientific literature. In this article the authors propose the synthesis of both of these approaches based on the model of transactional and innovative economy spatially structured as a system of “global gateways”. The globalization is conceived in the article as a process of reinforcement of network connections of different parts of the globe. The network is distributed unevenly around the world. The increase of globalization processes stimulates the strengthening of the network interactions and saturation of it with resources. The decline of the globalization we are witnessing at the moment results in the weakening of network relations. Spatial heterogeneity of globalization produces inequality in resource distribution on social as well as regional and country level. Due to this fact the system of global economy based on these gateways requires the stability of political institutes. In the 19th-20th centuries the system of maintenance of global stability (known in IR as hegemonic stability) was established. Increasing globalization provides the effective interaction between economic and political spheres. Declining globalization produces a gap between gateways’ demands for political stability and a hegemon’s ability to provide it. Recently the USA’s abilities as global hegemon have shrunk dramatically in relative terms as well as American electorate’s willingness to bear the costs of hegemony. Washington is unable to maintain stable functioning of “the rules of the game” neither separately, nor with its allies. This situation may be described as “the crisis of US-centric globalization”. The crisis of globalization relates to decline of international regimes, rise of uncertainty and conflicts on all levels of world politics. Presumably, it’s a long-term process. And at the end it may cause the establishment of new political form of economic globalization (e.g. transition to the model of hegemony of a group of superpowers, a scenario mostly close to generally accepted in Russia idea of multi-polar world), or emergence of a new hegemon (e.g. China).

The Balkans in general and post-Yugoslav countries in particular have been under significant geopolitical pressure of the political West since the end of the bipolar global order. From the beginning of the Yugoslav Civil War in 1991, followed by Western recognition of secessionist republics in 1992 and NATO attacks on Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994-1995 and on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, the US, NATO and EU have been actively involved in the Balkan crisis. It was in concordance with the logic of unipolarity, or the New World Order, proclaimed by George W.H. Bush, in which there is “no substitute for American leadership”.

The year of 2008 marked the start of profound changes. The changes we are witnessing today are of the magnitude described by Paul Kennedy’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia crossed Russia’s red lines and exposed the latter’s ambitions to regain the superpower status; China symbolically showed the same ambition with the Olympics in Beijing; the crash of the US real-estate market triggered the global economic crisis; and the NATO-sponsored unilateral declaration of secession by Kosovo Albanians set a precedent and introduced uncertainty in international law and the entire system of United Nations. By the beginning of 2020, many problems had accumulated in the EU – against the background of the ongoing migration crisis, right-wing and nationalist movements became more active, and differences between members increased. Long before COVID-19, Brexit became a serious stress test for the economy and social structure of the European Union. Dramatic changes took place on the other side of the Atlantic too, resulting in the shocking victory of staunch anti-globalist Donald Trump. The rules established during the 1991-2008 unipolarity have thus been challenged. Subsequently, post-Cold War ideological consensus in the West has also been challenged even further by the growth of non-systemic political movements – many of them directed not only against the EU expansion, but also against the EU itself.

The significance of all these events for the Balkans is somewhat surprising and paradoxical, as the mainstream forces that have been weakened in the West forcefully push for a stronger Atlantic integration of the remaining Balkan countries. At the height of the pandemic, on 27 March 2020 Northern Macedonia became the 30th member of the Alliance, having previously undergone a humiliating procedure of changing its own name for this purpose. Three years earlier, Montenegro was admitted to NATO, but its population did not have the opportunity to vote on this in a referendum. The negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina on ‘normalisation of relations’, continued pressures on the prerogatives of Republic Srpska, Croatian initiative for a new Intermarium and many other similar efforts are stages in the process of NATOisation of former Yugoslavia. Based on the analysis of a large body of narrative sources and recent literature, the article presents the main trends and possible prospects for developments in the Balkans, depending on the outcome of the ongoing ideological and political struggle within the West.

The ongoing global systemic transition is transforming international relations from its erstwhile unipolarity to what experts agree is either multipolarity or, less popularly, bipolarity. However one chooses to describe the present world order, it's clear that the US and China are the main global players, which places Russia and India – decades-long strategic partners – in a junior position vis-a-vis both of them, especially their mutual Chinese neighbor with whom they share membership in BRICS and the SCO. The neorealist school of International Relations Theory preaches the need to pursue national interests, which sometimes align with others', and it is argued in the article that it is with this idea in mind that both countries have a motivation to jointly improve their strategic positions relative to the People's Republic, albeit in a non-hostile manner that avoids the risk of inadvertently triggering a security dilemma and reversing the recent gains made in Eurasian integration.

Two articles published by Russia's Valdai Club in 2019 indicated the possibility of creating a new Non-Aligned Movement, with the most recent one proposing that it be jointly led by Russia and India in order to advance the aforementioned neo-realist objective of balancing China. This suggestion is very intriguing and deserves some further elaboration, to which end the present research was conducted in order to place the new Non-Aligned Movement proposal in a strategic context relevant to the ongoing global systemic transition. Nearly a dozen articles and reports by Russian experts were analyzed, resulting in the conclusion that the proposal is a promising one but requires much more research into its challenges and opportunities in order to become more than just a proposed concept. In the event that any tangible progress is made on it, however, it must be done so extremely carefully in order for China not to misunderstand its intentions.

The article deals with authoritarian regimes based on charismatic leadership which can be also called caesarean. It analyzes the existing caesarean regimes of the Middle East and North Africa: their nature (progressive vs. conservative), characteristic features and prospects of their evolution. To achieve this goal the author uses a synthetic analytical approach based on ideas of Max Weber and Antonio Gramshi. This approach includes analysis of a number of key factors, such as conditions for eruption of a charismatic leader (‘Caesar’), sources of legitimization, mechanisms of control and power transit, progressive or conservative nature of the regime, potential for turning the caesarean regime into a permanent one based on tradition of charismatic rule. The main conclusion of the paper is that the Middle East and North Africa are witnessing the arrival of the third generation of charismatic leaders, who will follow conservative instead of progressive agenda. On the regional scale it will bring relative stability to international relations (at least among the Arab states) while at domestic level the pressure of unresolved political, economic and social problems will be mounting resulting in a new wave of revolutions and instability in the midterm.

Self-perception in the international arena plays a great role in the development of a country's foreign policy strategy. Not all states can answer the question «who are we in relation to others»? In particular, we can describe the past 20 century and the first decades of the 21st century as the time of Tehran's search for its foreign policy identity, which is not finished even today. Despite many discussion, the Iranian political elite has not only failed to find a single definition of its foreign policy selfhood, but has produced several more formulas of its own identity, which often contradict each other, although they coexist. The events of 1979, when the new leadership that came to power in the course of revolutionary upheavals announced the rejection of the traditions of the Shah's Iran and the building of a new "revolutionary" nation with its own special foreign policy identity, had a significant impact on the process of forming the Iranian selfhood. The article analyzes the main trends that exist in the Iranian foreign policy self-perception, in order to confirm the hypothesis that the «revolutionary experiment» did not lead to a break in the continuity in the issue of Iranian self-identification. On the contrary, there is an attempt by the country's leadership to combine Islamic, revolutionary and nationalist principles in determining the role of their country in the international arena, which let us speak about the multi-component foreign policy identity of modern Iran.

The article analyzes the integration process in the Gulf Cooperation Council group countries (GCC), which was founded in 1981. Regional economic integration in the GCC has passed through the several traditional stages: the Free trade zone, the Customs Union and the Common market. Certain exceptions remain in the GCC integration, but the countries aim to create a full economic Union by 2025. Currently, the GCC is one of the most advanced and successful integration associations in developing countries. However, the GCC is the only truly functioning integration bloc in the MENA region. The author's analysis confirms that the share of intraregional trade is growing in the GCC, but this share is less high than in other integration blocs. The author emphasizes that the GCC countries have significant success in the world market of goods and capital. The GCC trade turnover is growing steadily, although it depends on fluctuations in world oil prices. The GCC region attracts a lot of foreign investment and technology. This allows them to continue to diversify their national economies. The level and quality of life in the GCC is improving. These and other achievements are largely the result of regional economic integration and cooperation between countries in various areas on the world and regional markets. At the same time, the GCC is one of the most strategically important regions in the world economy and politics. Economic and political processes are influenced by many factors, both internal and external. Therefore, there are many contradictions in the GCC, and sometimes crisis situations are formed. One of them is the current "diplomatic crisis". It began in 2017 and has so far created numerous problems in the region and in the Arab world as a whole. It also has a negative impact on the development and deepening of integration processes. The author analyzed statistical data for 2009-2018 and justified the conclusion that the "diplomatic crisis" damages intraregional trade, reduces the dynamics of macroeconomic indicators, and worsens the position of the GCC countries in the world market of goods and capital. It also creates difficulties for citizens of GCC countries and companies that operate in the region. Now GCC countries should develop a mechanism to de-escalate the crisis, as this is in the economic and political interests of all participants and the Middle East as a whole. The relevance of the research is due to the need to analyze regional economic integration processes in the subregion in the context of growing global instability. The research makes a significant contribution to understanding the nature and features of integration processes in the Middle East.

Qatar lobbied its interests in the US in order to ease tensions with the Gulf c tries which declared a blockade on Qatar in June 2017. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt accused Qatar of supporting terrorism, demanded to break off all ties with Iran and to close the Turkish military base on its territory. The article analyses the lobbying campaign against the blockade. It uses the facts and data disclosed by the consulting and lobbying firms according to “The Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938” and “The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995”. Three main conclusions are drawn: 1) The US is not interested in settlement of dispute through the support of one party. The White House prefers the “divide and rule” strategy. 2) There is little chance of successful lobbying in the US for any state that cooperates with Iran. 3) The balance-of-power approach in analysing of the development of Qatari-Saudi crisis shows that attempt of the both parties to “buck-pass” by one superpower is uneffisient. The reason is that both Qatar and Saudi coalition act like US's clients. Although Qatar is not as powerful as its rivals, but it uses the “defensive realism” strategy, that allows it to disrupt aggressive efforts and increase the costs of the Saudi coalition.

A review of a recently published monograph by E.M. Kozhokin. Revolution and its overcoming. Essays on the history of the Russian mentality. Moscow, MGIMO-University, 2020, 270 s.