In the past 20 years, a systematic study of emotions has begun in various fields of knowledge, including international relations. This led to the development of a new methodology for studying emotions, as well as to an increase in the number of works in which this methodology is being used.

The article outlines the prospects of applying the methodology for the study of emotions in international relations on the example of a nuclear arms race. It was an important factor in the Cold War and provoked a variety of emotions among all its participants: fear, anxiety, anger, hope. The chosen methodology allows us to clarify and deepen knowledge about political and social processes that took place at that time, such as the formation of identity, the perception of each other, the conduct of public politics and political decision-making.

This article is devoted to English school of International relations – autonomous community of scientists of International policy, who work mainly in Great Britain. It formed in the end 1950–1970. Historians H. Butterfield, M. Wight, A. Watson, M. Howard, philosophers D. McKinnon and H. Bull took an active part in the creation of this community. Concept “International Society” become a symbol and different mark this scientific community thanks to the books by H. Bull in 1970–1980. B. Buzan, C. Navary, R. Jackson and others scientists continue work of the school now. Such objectives factors as the development of Global International Society, the change of institutional structure of the modern world and the formation process of the World Society explain the end of Cold War into the school. Besides, English school of International relations pays special attention to the problems of justice in international relations in 1970–1980. All this aspects are demonstrating the specific school’s approach to the study of end of “Old Cold War”. Modern period of confrontation between Russia and West explained in school through heterogeneity of modern International Society, absence of international legitimacy, erosion of basic institutes of International Society. However, concept “New Cold War” takes on metaphorical meaning.

On March 27, 2019 at the conference “Turning Points in the End of the Cold War: A Look from the West and the East”, organized by the Russian State University for the Humanities (Department of International Relations and Regional Studies) jointly with the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and in collaboration with the US Embassy in the Russian Federation and the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center, the roundtable “New Cold War as a Concept and Reality” was held. It was led by F.A. Lukyanov, Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Editor-in Chief of the Journal “Russia in Global Affairs”. Short presentations were made by: A.A. Gromyko, Dr. of Sci. (History), Professor, Corresponding Member of the RAS, Director of the Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences, A.B. Bezborodov, Dr. of Sci. (History), Professor, Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities, V.N. Garbuzov, Dr. of Sci. (History), Professor, Director of the Institute for the USA and Canada Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, M.A. Konarovsky, Senior Research Fellow, Moscow Institute of International Relations (MGIMO(U)), Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentionary to Afganistan (2002–2004), M. Kramer, Professor, Program Director of the Project on Cold War, Harvard University, P.R. Palazhchenko, Head of International and Media Relations, Gorbachev Foundation. After the reports of the leading speakers, a discussion took place, in which participated J. Matlock, Ambassador of the US to the USSR (1987−1991).

We publish an abridged transcript of the round table.

In March 2019, at the Russian State University for the Humanities, in the framework of the international conference “Turning Points at the End of the Cold War: A Look from the West and from the East, 1989–2019,” the section “The Role of Public Diplomacy in Ending the Cold War” was held. Its participants, civilian diplomats from Russia and the United States, shared their experience of organizing and participating in projects aimed at contacts between the ordinary people who lived on both sides of the Atlantic – the contacts that contributed to the end of the Cold War in the minds and hearts of these people. The article collects their memories.

A common feature of the testimonies of civilian diplomats is their recognition of the importance of accepting the foreign “Other” in the United States and Russia in the process of experiencing the legacy of the Cold War. The block confrontation ended not only with the efforts of professional politicians who signed interstate agreements, but also thanks to the activities of those individuals who helped to improve the images of Russians in the USA and Americans in Russia.

This article explores the role of historical memory as applied to the presidential administration of Donald J. Trump. Specifically, I survey how the administration of Richard Nixon was used in media representations in order to make a linkage between these administrations. I discuss problems with the use of historical memory as a reliable tool for understanding present situations. Furthermore, I examine the manner in which the Trump-Nixon connection has been made from November 2016 when President Trump was elected to the period immediately after the publication of the Robert Mueller investigation into collusion between the Donald Trump presidential campaign and the Russian State. The other issue examined is the subject of presidential impeachment by Congress and how the impeachment threat to Nixon is instructive to the political and legal situation facing Trump. Finally, I conclude on the inherent problems that historians face in the context of situational bias when trying to use historical memory as an accurate tool to discuss current situations.

With the end of the Cold War in 1991, expectations increased regarding the construction of a democratic world pattern and the implementation of the sustainable development model of the international community.

In reality, the situation a quarter of a century after the end of the Cold War seems to be worse than it was during the period of tough “bipolarity” in the 60s – 70s of the 20th century. The reason for this is the lack of value bases of joint actions based on the common spiritual and moral potential of various nations and social strata. Such foundations can be formed only through the correct understanding of all socio-economic and humanitarian aspects of the information and communication revolution.

The author presents the model of such an evaluation based on the pivotal idea of Russian cosmists (K. Tsiolkovsky and others) who interpreted the religion as a folkloric concept of scientific and technological progress. The implementation of this provision begins at a qualitatively new stage of the Big History started after the end of the Cold War. At this stage, the question arises of changing Homo sapiens itself as a material carrier of the Mind. The risks associated with this change can imply the self-destruction of the humankind. Evaluation of this danger means an end to the political confrontation of various power centers and the formation of new forms of democratic global governance to counter new challenges and threats.

The article discusses the problems of politics, power and morality, interest in which was constant throughout the scientific life of the famous sociologist P.A. Sorokin. This issue was developed both in the Russian and American periods of the scientist’s creative activity.

In the study “Power and Morality: Who shall guard the guardians?” P. Sorokin tried to answer the question of what prevents rulers from having such moral qualities that contribute to the realization of the rights of millions of ordinary people to freedom and the pursuit of a better life. According to this, the three ideologies that allow the moral failings unconditional praise of the rulers; approval of rulers in terms of double standards; condemnation of rulers to justify their criminal conduct.

The following warnings by the famous sociologist are very relevant. The love of power of the head of state fetters the creativity of the masses, and the cult of personality humiliates millions of people. Democracies can be as belligerent and non-living as autocratic regimes. The development of science and technology gives man enormous advantages, but does not guarantee the salvation of the world from social disasters.