Over the past 30 years, NATO-Russia relations have come a long way. The present paper provides a retrospective analysis of the NATO-Russia relations that may shed new light on their current state and prospects for development. The author shows that after the collapse of the bipolar world, and the Russian Federation’s emergence on the international scene as a sovereign state, Moscow did not exclude the possibility of establishing partnership and even allied relations with the North Atlantic Alliance. In fact, during the 1990s2000s, Russia and the Alliance cooperated successfully in such areas as the fight against piracy and international terrorism, rescue at sea, etc. However, hopes for a full-fledged partnership between Moscow and Brussels did not materialize as a result of the Alliance’s advance to the East, to the Russian border. NATO’s eastward enlargement — combined with the firm position of the official Washington and Brussels on the unacceptability of Russia’s membership in the Alliance — meant a complete exclusion of Russia from the decision-making process on the European security. At the same time, for a variety of reasons, in the post-bipolar world the military-political dependence of the Western European subregion on Washington did not decrease, as many hoped, but, on the contrary, has increased, thus excluding for Moscow the very possibility to play on the contradictions between the United States and its European allies. Accession to the Alliance of the Eastern and Southern European ‘recruits’ (many of which shared strong anti-Russian sentiments) further limited the Russia’s possibilities for such maneuvering. The Alliance thus became an instrument of the US global domination — a domination which Moscow rejects categorically. The author concludes that in these circumstances, it will not be easy to overcome the military-political contradictions between Russia and NATO.

The study of regional subsystems dates back to the 1950s, when it became clear that the models developed to explain the logic behind the bipolar international system could not adequately reflect the specificities of regional processes. Therefore, there was a pressing need to complement traditional system level analysis with a new, subsystemic approach. The paper provides a comparative analysis of both Russian and Western definitions of the regional subsystem concept. The author examines the evolution of the regional subsystem concept research field, its current state and identifies the key competing approaches, as well as their methodological and theoretical foundations. The first section covers definitions of the subsystem concept developed by the Western researchers during the Cold War period. The author emphasizes that this initial foundational phase for the development of the research field was marked by extreme heterogeneity of views, opinions and assessments. The experts suggested various principles and criteria for identifying regional subsystems, while the very meaning of a ‘regional subsystem’ has not yet been settled. At the same time, the author shows that all the discussions during that period revolved around one central issue that is how the regional subsystem is linked to the ‘dominant’ one — a bipolar. In that regard, it is only natural that with the end of the Cold War the studies of regional subsystems faced new challenges but also gained a new momentum. The second section examines views of contemporary Russian and Western scholars. The author identifies the key discussion points, which include primarily the nature of relations between subsystem actors: whether they should necessarily be cooperative or not; if they need formal institutionalization and whether they should be organized hierarchically with a strong leading state. The author concludes that despite the absence of expert consensus on these issues, the studies of regional subsystems have come a long way from extreme heterogeneity, even fragmentation of the very basic theoretical premises, to a much greater terminological consistency but have retained the pluralism of views, opinions and assessments.

A sheer volume of multibillion concessional flows from leading international donors makes monitoring and evaluation of aid projects a sine qua non of development discourse and practice. The assessment criteria vary significantly and depend on the objectives and interests of donor countries promoted through development cooperation.

This paper examines national systems of monitoring and evaluation of aid effectiveness established by leading donors. Among the most noticeable recent trends the author emphasizes a transition from aid effectiveness to development effectiveness paradigm and an inclusion of indicators of diplomatic engagement and security provision in evaluation matrices.

Special attention is paid on the hierarchy of goals in national systems of development cooperation, which is illustrated with an example of the United States. The US case shows key principles of ensuring policy coherence at different levels of goal-setting — from the National Security Strategy to planning individual projects and programs. In conclusion the author shares his view on the applicability of foreign experience in evaluating development assistance projects in the Russian Federation.

Political instability in the Middle East and North Africa in the early 2010s, accompanied by an escalation of the terrorist threat and uncontrolled migration, caused serious concern in the European Union about the situation in the Arab world. As a consequence, the EU has noticeably increased assistance to Iraq, providing Baghdad with substantial support in the fight against the Islamic State, preventing the humanitarian crisis, stabilizing the situation and promoting post-conflict reconstruction. However, these efforts have not yet been explored in depth by the Russian experts, who traditionally focus on the EU relations with the Southern Mediterranean countries.

The author aims to reveal the logic behind the evolution of the European Union’s policy towards Iraq since 2014, as well as its impact on the EU assistance programmes to this country. The paper consists of three sections: the first one outlines the evolution of the EU strategic priorities in Iraq during 2014–2019, the second covers the major assistance programmes implemented by the European Union, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in Iraq; the third examines the EU reaction to the rising tensions in Iraq at the turn of 2019–2020.

The author concludes that the EU’s growing interest in Iraq in recent years stems not only from concerns about transformation of this country into a source of cross-border challenges and threats, but also from the conviction of the EU officials that Iraq might potentially become the cornerstone of a new regional security architecture. On the basis of these considerations, the EU provides a comprehensive support to Iraq, including both humanitarian aid and development assistance aimed primarily at eliminating the fundamental causes of instability and radicalization. At the same time while demonstrating its commitment to develop cooperation with both government agencies and non-governmental organizations, the EU clearly prefers to assist Iraq through international organizations, rather than directly. Although the EU’s ability to influence Baghdad remains limited, compared to that of the US and regional actors, the European Union is perceived in Iraq as a neutral player and this might facilitate the achievement of its policy objectives. However, taking into account such factors as a high level of corruption in Iraq, substantial resources for reconstruction already available for the country, as well as Brussels’ focus on Syria, the scope of the EU’s further involvement in Iraq remains unclear.

In the 2010s amid the destabilization of the region and the outbreak of new armed conflicts the influence of the Republic of Turkey in the Arab world has significantly increased. The proclamation of the Islamic State in the neighbouring countries in the sphere of Turkey’s interest — Syria and Iraq — became a kind of watershed. And whereas Ankara’s strategy in Syria has received substantial attention of researchers, its policy towards Iraq which included both military and non-military measures remains understudied. The paper aims to uncover the logic behind Turkey’s assistance to Iraq to counter territorial expansion of the Islamic State and to remedy the negative impact of its presence. The paper is divided into two sections. The first section focuses on the military-political interaction between the Republic of Turkey and Iraq after 2014. The second examines specifics of the Turkish non-military assistance to its neighbour. The author stresses that Ankara’s military support to Baghdad in the fight against ‘ISIS’ included expansion of the Turkish troops’ presence in Iraq and escalation of tensions with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party. That has, in turn, led to the growing tension between Turkey and Iraq. As for the civilian assistance, Turkey has focused on its humanitarian dimension implementing relatively small projects — mainly in the areas populated by the Iraqi Turkomans. After declaring victory over the Islamic State, Ankara did not rush to increase the level of its grant assistance that remained relatively low. At the same time Turkey sought to create, particularly through tied loans, advantageous conditions to attract Turkish construction companies to the reconstruction of destroyed infrastructure in Iraq. Thus, the paper shows that during this internationalized internal conflict, as well as after its formal end, Turkey has tended to prioritize its national interests, aiming to strengthen its strategic and economic presence in the neighbouring country through a combination of military and non-military measures. However, a recent destabilization of the situation in Iraq poses new challenges to the Ankara’s strategy towards Iraq and highlights the need for further monitoring of the development of Turkish-Iraqi relations.

In the present paper the author continues the study of the challenges faced by Colombia in its struggle to overcome the internal armed conflict, as well as the role of the United States in this process. By 2010 the confrontation between the government forces and the armed rebels had reached a breaking point opening the way to a successful conclusion of the Government of Colombia–FARC peace negotiations and the beginning of the country’s post-conflict reconstruction. The paper thoroughly examines the negotiations process, identifies the key disputed issues and the measures outlined for their resolution, including mechanisms of transitional justice, agrarian reform, programmes for demobilization and reintegration of the former combatants. The results of these talks laid the foundation for the historic Peace Accord of September 26, 2016. However, against all hopes and expectations, the agreement failed to bring an end to the long-standing internal conflict in Colombia. The failure of the national referendum, which was designed to approve the agreement, not only revealed deep divisions in the society, but forced the government to make serious concessions to the opponents of the negotiations with FARC. The author emphasizes the growing erosion of the hard-won consensus in the Colombian society, accompanied by the consolidation of the right-wing conservative camp. In this context the role of external sponsors of the peaceful agreement in general and the United States in particular becomes crucial. The paper presents a comparative analysis of approaches to providing aid to Colombia demonstrated by the administrations of Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The author concludes that despite substantial differences, for both administrations the ultimate objective was national security of the United States. That was clearly demonstrated by the fact that the US foreign aid to Colombia focused primarily on the fight against the illegal production of and trafficking in drugs, while the issues of peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction received less attention. Assessing Colombia’s experience in overcoming the internal conflict and the role of the United States in that process, the author concludes that although prioritization of security issues may have a considerable organizing potential, at the same time it may be detrimental to the process of post-conflict reconstruction in general.

The book under review is a collection of essays ‘Qu’est-ce que le macronisme?’ (‘What is Macronism’?), published by ‘Philippe Rey’ in 2018. The reviewer thoroughly considers the structure and the contents of the book. Each chapter represents an essay, an interview or an article by a prominent scholar, a politician or a journalist who present their views on the presidency of E. Macron and prospects for the development of France. The reviewer notes that the general tenor of the book is positive: all authors emphasize high intelligence and ambitions of the French leader, which facilitated greatly his career development from a little-known politician to the head of the state. The reviewer concludes that this popular science edition offers a sufficiently accurate political portrait of E. Macron, provides interesting biographical details and can be recommended for IR scholars, political scientists, journalists, and linguists since it is written in an impressive and elegant French language. The book under review can also prove useful in studying the role of an individual in history.