In the present context of a sharp aggravation of interstate rivalry and escalation of traditional and new threats, the importance of policy, forces and means of strategic deterrence in ensuring Russia’s national security cannot be overstated. Fundamental decisions on the development of strategic deterrence capabilities were made by the Russian leadership back in the late 1990s. These decisions were based on the long-term political and military forecasts first made by the Ministry of Defense and the Defense Council and then furthered by the Security Council of the Russian Federation. This paper examines how these decisions were put into practice in the subsequent years and how they have permeated the concept of strategic deterrence in Russia’s updated national security policy. The first section of the article identifies the key forces and facilities underlying the policy of the Russian Federation in the field of strategic nuclear deterrence. The author emphasizes that this policy is defensive in its nature and in terms of material capacities is based on achievements of Russian science and industry in general and the defense industry in particular. These advancements, in turn, rely on the foundations laid down in the USSR, and at the same time result from the timely modernization of Russia’s nuclear triad. The second section analyzes the role of non-nuclear deterrence in the national security policy of Russia. The author notes that a formidable threat of using a high-precision long-range conventionally-armed carrier within the framework of non-nuclear (‘pre-nuclear’) deterrence can effectively complement the nuclear deterrence system. That said, the author concludes that the solution to the problem of ensuring both nuclear and non-nuclear deterrence requires working out a large number of different scenarios, not only political ones, but also of a purely military, strategic and even tactical nature. It also necessitates the coordinated and systematic work of both military and civilian specialists representing the widest range of applied and fundamental disciplines.

In recent years, the rising international tensions have raised for the EU leadership pressing questions on the prospects for both the internal development of the union and its global positioning. Against this backdrop, the analysis of the EU sanctions policy as a key tool of its foreign policy strategy is of particular interest. Such an analysis can not only help identify the specific features of the European Union as a subject of restrictions, but also reach a better understanding of the current evolutionary trends of this integration association on the whole. The first section examines the key institutions responsible for the development of the EU sanctions policy, as well as the principles and mechanisms underlying the adoption and implementation of the relevant measures. The author emphasizes the targeted and value-based character of the EU sanctions policy, its commitment to multilateralism and concerns about possible adverse humanitarian effects. The second section traces the evolution of the EU sanctions policy over the period from 1992 to 2022. It shows that it was as early as the 2010s that the EU countries started to switch from using sanctions primarily as a means of conveying an addressee a certain ‘political message’ designed to ensure human rights and democratic values, to harnessing them as an economic leverage. At the same time, evident disagreements emerged between the EU and the United States on secondary sanctions. All this led the EU leadership to realize the need to strengthen its sanctions policy, as well as its strategic autonomy in general. The third section analyzes the key aspects of the qualitative transformation of the EU sanctions policy that began in 2022. The author notes that along with a sharp increase in the number of sanctions against Russia provoked by the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine, the most important element of this transformation was the intensification of the EU’s efforts to combat sanctions evasion. All this indicates the growing readiness of the EU, which previously condemned the practice of extraterritorial sanctions, to apply sanctions measures beyond its borders. At the same time, the European Commission plays an increasingly active role in the development of restrictive measures. This may significantly change the institutional balance within the EU in its favor, contributing to strengthening the supranational principle. The prospects for the implementation of these tendencies, however, will largely depend on the international context and the ability of the EU leadership to reconcile competing interests of the member states.

Donald Trump’s decisive victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election offers a fresh perspective on the nature of ‘Trumpism’, which has now firmly established itself not as a temporary or accidental fluctuation in U.S. political life, but as a stable and powerful social phenomenon. This article attempts to identify the origins and key ideological components of this trend, examining it in the context of contemporary political processes within the Republican Party. The first section of the article traces the changes in Trump’s approach to building relationships with the Republican establishment. It highlights that there were favorable domestic political conditions and an updated campaign strategy that allowed Trump to solidify his electoral position at both regional and federal levels in 2024. This marks a sharp contrast with the 2016 campaign, where he was viewed as an ‘outsider’ and a disruptive actor. The second section delves into the ideology of ‘Trumpism’ in the context of the 2024 presidential election. It notes that while Trump distanced himself from the most radical initiatives of the far-right faction of the Republican establishment during the campaign, his rhetoric was distinctly conservative and combative, especially when contrasted with the conciliatory platform of the Democrats. In conclusion, the article argues that ‘Trumpism’ has evolved into a powerful, independent movement within the Republican Party, one that is likely to maintain its influence in the years to come. At the same time, it suggests that Trump’s and the Republican Party’s victory in the U.S. reflects a broader global trend towards strengthening rightwing ideologies. In this regard, the case of the European Union is particularly noteworthy. It raises the question of how Trump’s victory will impact the positions of conservative and right-populist parties and movements across Europe.

Amidst the sharp escalation of great-power rivalry on the world stage, almost all spheres of public life are facing increasing politicization and even securitization. Historical studies are no exception, as they are becoming an essential element of governments’ efforts to strengthen the ideological cohesion of their societies by revisiting history and constructing new historical narratives. Given the significance of the strategic partnership with the Republic of Belarus for the Russian Federation, the study of history politics of the former is of particular interest and relevance. This paper attempts to identify the logic of the Belarus official historical narratives’ transformation since independence up to and including 2024. The research provides a discourse analysis of a wide range of primary sources, i.e. legal acts, media materials, political speeches, reports from official institutions in charge of the implementation of Belarus’s politics of memory. Its evolution falls into several stages, each being a result of a complex intermix of domestic, foreign policy and economic factors, as well as attempts by the republic’s leadership to maneuver between its eastern and western neighbors. The author concludes that the corpus of scholarly texts, documents and ‘places of memory’ created over the years of the republic’s independence contains various ‘entry points’ allowing the government to change its historical policy in almost any way to its liking. This situation persists despite the noticeable decrease of the Republic of Belarus leadership interest in accentuating the European component of national memory after the events of August 2020, and, on the contrary, a pronounced rapprochement with the Russian historical narrative (primarily with regard to the World War II). The author claims that in these conditions, an uncritical perception of common historical memory as an unshakable cornerstone underlying the unity of the Belarusian and Russian peoples may prevent Russia from adequately predicting possible changes in the geostrategic aspirations of its partner.

The new Trump administration considers the U.S. nuclear energy industry as one of the most important and promising tools for maintaining the country’s global leadership in the international arena. In order to assess the validity of these calculations, this paper provides a retrospective analysis of the development of U.S. nuclear industry, identifies its strengths and weaknesses and the overall state as D. Trump is about to enter his second term. The first section outlines the key stages and drivers of the U.S. nuclear energy industry evolution in the second half of the 20th century. The author notes that the development of the industry was steadily slowing down after a period of rapid growth in the 1960–1970s due to both purely economic reasons and extraordinary factors, including the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. The second section compares the approaches of the administrations of George W. Bush, B. Obama, D. Trump and J. Biden to regulating the national nuclear energy industry. The research shows that, despite active government support of the industry, the trend towards a ‘nuclear renaissance’ emerged only with D. Trump's coming to power, as he set a course to restore the competitiveness of the country’s nuclear industry and establish dominance in this segment of international energy market. The author concludes that the U.S. nuclear energy technologies have significant potential in terms of strengthening the country’s global competitiveness, which, in particular, became possible thanks to the policy of the last two administrations to subsidize and technologically upgrade the nuclear industry, as well as to develop new markets in Europe and Asia. At the same time, as the author notes, there are still certain capacity constraints, related, in particular, to the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and the transition to cost-effective production of small modular reactors.

The United States positions itself as a global leader and upholder of the world order whose pivotal role in the system of international relations is legitimized through its active participation in multilateral institutions. At the same time, it was the United States which resorted to unilateral actions more often than any other state, exerted significant diplomatic and financial leverage on international organizations to achieve its national interests, undermining the very principle of multilateral cooperation. This inconsistency has been most clearly manifested in the U.S. conflict behavior towards UNESCO — an integral part of the UN system, which focuses on addressing the global issues of the present. In terms of providing a better understanding of the logic behind the formation of the U.S. policy towards this organization and to the UN in general, the case of the first U.S. withdrawal from UNESCO in 1984 under the Reagan administration is of particular interest. On the basis of K. Waltz’s methodology of multilevel analysis the article reconstructs the chronology of the decision-making process, identifies its internal and external determinants, and outlines its key actors. The first section focuses on the systemic constraints that forced the Reagan administration to reconsider its attitude towards the UN system in general and UNESCO in particular. The second section examines the domestic political determinants of the withdrawal decision, centered around the results of complex bargaining between the key players in the American political system, government agencies and interest groups. The third section outlines the motivation and politicalpsychological portraits of individual politicians who were personally interested in pulling USA out of UNESCO. In this regard, the emphasis is given to the figure of the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs G. Newell. In conclusion, the author argues that the withdrawal decision was deliberately made by ideologically motivated politicians in the Reagan administration, despite the alternative voices from Congress, a number of government agencies and civil society. It became a sort of response of the conservative-minded American establishment to changing international status quo, including the realignment of power in the UN specialized agencies.

In the last decade, digitalization has had an increasing impact on the world political processes and is turning into an integral element of international life. Diplomatic practice, given the growing importance of the digital diplomacy, is no exception. In this context, the need for continuous improvement of the methods of studying these processes and phenomena is all the more pressing. This paper examines the key methods used in Russian studies on digital diplomacy, and identifies their strengths and weaknesses. The first section of the article covers publications built on the discourse analysis of small texts on international policy or their excerpts. The author concludes that such an approach allows for a correct description of the communication strategies of various political players. However, it is more suitable for linguistic research, since it does not address the issues crucial for political scientists, namely those concerning the evaluation of the effectiveness of digital diplomacy tools. The second section considers the research works based on the content analysis. The author argues that although this method provides an opportunity to process a larger amount of data and to reduce the impact of subjective factors, it has its limitations, particularly, inability to take into account the visual component of publications and to place them within a wider information context. The third section focuses on the scholarly papers drawing on the most time-consuming and demanding method of Big Data (hashtags) processing. The author stresses that its application is fraught with a whole range of quite specific methodological and purely technical problems, in particular, screening out bots and other ways of traffic manipulation. Against this backdrop, the author advocates further improvement in the methods of studying digital diplomacy by fostering a culture of data analytics and making a more active use of developments from other disciplines (philology, sociology, cultural studies, etc.).