By the end of the 1960s the first expert and academic centers had been established in the USSR. These centers were to submit position papers and reports containing deep multi-dimensional analysis of international processes. The Soviet leadership used these conclusions, forecasts and specific proposals in the process of making political decisions.

This article examines the place expert-academic Amerikanistika occupied in the system of Soviet foreign policy expertise. Expert’s reports related to international issues were sent to the General and International Departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU. This paper is based on these documents, which are stored in the Russian State Archives of Contemporary History.

The analysis of these primary sources allows us to first specify the range of those Soviet expert organizations that were carrying out research on the USA and then divide expert Amerikanistika into two parts. The notes left in the analyzed reports by the Central Committee staff as well as the memoirs give us an opportunity to examine the role of the expert-academic institutes within the system of the foreign policy of the USSR.

Basing on the study of the reports, the author formulates a hypothesis about the functioning of the expert-academic community as a special channel of information that could not be obtained from any other experts.

According to the hegemonic stability theory (HST), the change of world orders takes place as a result of wars for world leadership. Immediately after the end of such wars, world order becomes temporarily stable. Then the hegemonic power erodes; the “phase of challenge” comes when the other world powers start making plans about replacing the hegemon. At this stage a multipolar world political system emerges, consisting of the hegemon and its challengers who wage the next world war. HST suggests that in 1945 the USA became the world hegemon and the USSR played the role of its rival. The war for world leadership became “cold” due to both parties having nuclear weapons. The article suggests that the USSR – US confrontation was not so much geopolitical, as ideological. This fact made impossible a “normal” hegemonic competition of the superpowers. The 1945–1991 system was not hegemonic in the full sense. It was a pseudo-bipolar system (“pseudo” – because there was no mutual dependence between the capitalist and the socialist camps): the USA was an unequivocal hegemon for the capitalist part; the socialist part, headed by the USSR, has never participated in the geopolitical struggle for world leadership.

The article discusses the digital diplomacy in terms of historical development in world politics and in terms of conceptual approaches relative to the study of the digital diplomacy. The digital diplomacy as a government mechanism to have an impact on users of social networks has been examined through two stages in its development. During the periods of 2019–2012 and 2013–2017, the digital diplomacy modified its conceptual fundamentals (notably from the concept of soft power to the concept of sharp power), revised its approaches (notably from the dissemination of a positive image of a state to the spreading of negatively toned messages about the target countries), and amended its ways so as to influence the users (notably from the establishment of a direct dialogue to the establishment of ideologically opposing publics that amplified discussions). During the period of 2018–2020, the digital diplomacy entered the third stage of the development, when AI and big data became a cohesive part of the digital diplomacy and contributed to the politics of informational deterrence. The author also examines the theories of realism and constructivism that are relevant to the study of the digital diplomacy. The cases of Syria and Venezuela demonstrate the application of the hashtag tracking, network analysis, sentiment analysis, and opinion mining in the study of digital diplomacy.

This article summarizes the theoretical and methodological research conducted on the causes of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA; an attempt is made to answer the questions: Why was it impossible to create cooperative relations and develop the Russian-American dialogue in a positive direction after the end of the Cold War? Why did the current crisis occur in the bilateral relations? What are the opportunities for improving them? A critical understanding of the leading theoretical schools and approaches in the theory of international relations (realism, idealism, Marxism and constructivism) provides the author with the ground to argue that the concept of social constructivism in the best possible way explains the reasons for the current state of the Russian-American relations. It is the ideas, beliefs and norms of the actors that form state interests, which, are able to transform the norms, rules and institutions of the international system. Constructivism refers to the possibilities of changing the nature of the social interaction between the states and gives a fundamental shift in understanding various problems through the formation of common values, expectations in terms of ideas and social discourses.

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the tendencies of the development of post-Soviet Eurasia. Contemporary Eurasia is not regarded as the perspective center for economic growth within the model of regionalization of the global economy, but, from the point of view of resources and logistics potential, that environment remains important at the global scale. The author considers that the activities of the non-regional actors in the post-Soviet space will be on the rise, and he regards this fact as an indication of the growing potential for the manipulations which are facilitated by the degradation of not only “soviet” but also “post-soviet” models of development. Eurasia is transforming into the environment of competition with the participation of the outside players. They do not regard Russia’s dominating role both in the peripheral part of Eurasia and in its heartland as something taken for granted – neither from the political, nor from the economic point of view. The outside players will base their policy in post-Soviet Eurasia upon the multi-vector nature of the processes with the understanding that economic and institutional consolidation of the environment is not at all a priority for them. The author makes a point that the scenarios of chaotization and the creation of exterritorial enclaves might become quite a possible option. The internal transformation of some of the regions in proximity with Eurasia that interact with it politically and in the economic sphere increases the anti-integration potential. It creates a number of important challenges for Russia and demands reconsideration of the traditional approach to the political and economic processes. Basing on the conducted analysis, the author comes to the conclusion that the greatest of these challenges is the transformation of Eurasia and especially its Southern and South-East periphery into the environment for the competition between different extra-regional actors for influence, access to resources as well as for the control over the territorial potential. That would inevitably make Russia confront with the challenge to revise its strategy connected with the processes in Eurasia.

The article is devoted to the study of the concept of “soft power” in the foreign policy of the Kingdom of Spain. It analyzes the development of its national interpretation, the nature of Spanish “soft power” and the implementation of the “Marca España” state project in 2012–2018. The main objective of the project was creating an attractive image of the country in the world so as to provide the state with more influence in international relations. The particular attention is paid to the investigations of Spanish foreign policy by the research centers, which were involved in the theoretical and practical development of the project, mainly to the role of the Elcano Royal Institute. Within the framework of “Marca España”, some series of programmes were initialized in the analyzed period, and the public position of the High Commissioner for “Marca España” was created. His duties included coordinating the activities of governmental and non-governmental structures in order to assure maintenance of a positive national brand and its effective promotion in the world. As a result of the study, key successes achieved by the programme were identified, as well as the reasons for its replacement in 2018 with a new project named “España Global”. The authors conclude that despite a series of flaws, the project “Marca España” proved to be an important step towards improving the Spain’s national management system.

Drawing from the methodology of historical semantics and conceptual history, this article addresses an intricate interconnection between the concepts: West, Nation, and Abendland in German sociopolitical discourse. Regarding concepts both as indicators and factors of sociopolitical “we-groups” makes it possible to take a new look at a wide range of social and political processes in contemporary FRG. A historical perspective on how these basic concepts acquire new meanings and build semantic interconnections will help better understand Germany’s sociopolitical experience after World War II. I will demonstrate how semantic interconnections between the chosen concepts change in key texts of German political thought, public debates, and political programs. First, I will focus on FRG’s postwar integration in western political institutions and attempt to overcome traditional self-understanding as a “cultural nation”. I will also indicate the role of the concept West in this process. Then, I will explore how the concept Abendland, which has a long intellectual history, becomes popular in sociopolitical discourse at the beginning of the 21st century. I will demonstrate how this concept ascribes new meanings and resonates with the concept of “cultural nation” in “Alternative for Germany’s” rhetoric and political program.

For many years, experts considered think tanks to be an exclusively American phenomenon. However, since the 1920s, countries across the world, including Russia, have been using the American experience to design their model of organizing analytical resources. People have been spending millions of dollars on the development of think tanks all over the world. A lot of work has been done to understand why governments, businesses, and taxpayers are investing resources in these institutions and the key factors that affect their efficiency. This article explores variables that correlate with the effectiveness of think tanks within the Anglo-American tradition, suggested by scholars. It looks at three think tanks based in Russia included in the top positions of the “Global Go to Think Tanks” by the University of Pennsylvania – IMEMO, MGIMO, and Carnegie Moscow Center through the lens of these variables. It also addresses specific characteristics of their work, which can be practical in assessing think tanks outside of the United States.