Articles

This article examines the Russian-speaking diasporas in Argentina and Mexico. Based on a study conducted in 2019–2020, the article analyzes the education and employment patterns of migrants, as well as their participation in events dedicated to Russia, Russian culture, and the Russian language (festivals, concerts, exhibitions, film screenings, etc.). The study revealed that the majority of migrants are interested in Russian news. Representatives of the diaspora actively participate in the political life of their countries, to the extent permitted by national legislation (in Mexico, political participation is only possible with Mexican citizenship). The Russian-speaking diaspora is well integrated into Argentine and Mexican society, allowing Russia to build relations with Argentina and Mexico, including through soft power. The Russian-speaking diaspora in the studied countries actively contributes to the development of Russian-Argentine and Russian-Mexican dialogue. The study found that representatives of the Russian diaspora in Argentina and Mexico contribute to the dissemination of Russian culture and the Russian language.

The article presents an analysis of the goals and approaches of the United States and the European Union in Central Asia in the context of fundamental shifts in the post-Soviet space caused by the beginning of the Special Military Operation of Russia in Ukraine. The study focuses on the consideration of foreign policy concepts, programs and projects proposed to the region in the field of security, socio-economic and cultural-humanitarian spheres. It is concluded that the United States and the EU, seeking to maintain the status of influential geopolitical players and obtain economic and energy benefits, have intensified their activities in Central Asia. The presence of the European Union in the region is based on the instruments of “normative power” implemented through a system of bilateral agreements and multilateral programs. The emphasis is on promoting logistics projects to diversify resource sources, as well as the concept of sustainable development of the region. Unlike the EU, US policy is characterized by less consistency and reactivity aimed at ideological and value confrontation with Beijing and Moscow. The US declaration on the need to strengthen connectivity both within the region and beyond is not supported by proportionate, mutually beneficial projects. Moreover, the policy of sanctions and trade wars conducted by the US towards states adjacent to the region creates significant obstacles to the implementation of many regional initiatives. The current configuration of political forces in Central Asia reflects the aggravation of geopolitical rivalry along the West-East line. As a result, the Central Asian states continue to adhere to a multi-vector foreign policy, striving to preserve sovereignty and develop regional cooperation.

In the context of confrontation between Russia and Western countries, the “anti-Russian turn” in the memory policy of neighboring countries is a complex problem that has developed since the collapse of the USSR. Decommunization in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is of particular interest: having begun earlier than others, it has been developing in the form of “exporting” Russophobia on the borders of Russia and in the world. The purpose of the article is to consider the manifestations of Russophobia as an element of decommunization in the Baltic countries. The article characterizes the conceptual foundations of the memory policy in terms of interpreting the Soviet past, the Russophobic ideas at the legislative and practical-political levels, the use of Russophobia in the process of forming public consciousness and refraction in it of the beginning of a special military operation. In the post-Soviet Baltics, the memory policy uses the concept of “occupation” by the Soviet Union in close connection with the task of building an ethnocratic statehood. The phenomenon of historical trauma has become entrenched in collective perception, and the distribution of the roles of “aggressor” and “victim” has an ethnic dimension. The experience of combating the “Russian threat” is being transmitted to the post-Soviet space and supported by Western countries. The problem of manifestations of Russophobia in the Baltics, caused by decommunization, is a matter of Russia’s national security.

The article was devoted to the study of foreign influence on the sphere of interethnic and religious relations, as one of the main tools of Western states for destabilizing Russia after the start of a special military operation. Author considered theoretical justifications of that tool, also highlighted main stages of the formation of the activities of separatist projects, the main personalities, activities and evolution. He described technologies to incite ethnic and religious enmities, promote radical ideas and use so called “decolonization”, how a citizens of the Russian Federation enrolled in extremist and terrorist activities. Conclusion consists the goals and objectives of external influence in the short and long terms, analyzed the main points declared by the leaders of separatist projects. The article used content analysis of external resources of separatist projects as the main method. Author studied more than 20 000 information messages (publications in Telegram and YouTube channels, foreign media and thematic sites) from February 2022 to October 2024, and systematized result of this data.

This article presents the results of focus groups reflecting the regional specifics of the perception of narratives about colonialism and decolonization in the Krasnodar Territory and the Republic of Dagestan. The author identifies and presents topical aspects of the internal attitude of residents of the studied regions to the problem of separatism on their territory, as well as the level of involvement in the official and oppositional discourse of the “decolonization of Russia”.
The author has developed and tested a methodology for empirical analysis of the perception of official and oppositional narratives about colonialism, organized a series of focus groups using incentive material to assess differences in the degree of loyalty of different segments of media consumers to these narratives.
The empirical basis of the study was the materials of focus groups conducted in the second half of 2024 among students and teachers of higher educational institutions in regions with increased separatist potential.
The respondents are well aware of the decolonial narrative and the history of the separatist movement in their regions, however they assessed negatively the prospects for disintegration processes.

The article analyzes postcolonial theory in terms of risk of its use as a tool of cancel culture in relation to Russia. The shortcomings of postcolonial optics of research related to the presumption of the moral superiority of colonies in relation to metropole, as well as the use of Western European discourse to build an alternative colonial identity, are justified. Methodologically, it is important to distinguish postcolonialism as an academic theory and decolonization as a form of social activism, but these shortcomings lead to the fact that the actual difference between theory and ideological construction can practically disappear.
The example of a number of Western European concepts reveals the mechanism for transferring the model of maritime colonial empires to Russian history, which opens up scope for ideological speculation. The maximum expression of post-colonial nationalism in the post-Soviet space is the building of an equivalence chain between the Russian Empire — the USSR — the Russian Federation, as a continuous “imperial oppression” of subject peoples. In this case, postcolonialism becomes a tool for forming the negative appearance of the present and past of Russia. For a productive study of the processes of colonization and decolonization, especially from the point of view of comparative political science, an analysis of the concept of “empire” is proposed to identify its essential characteristics and cultural characteristics of manifestation.

The article is devoted to the defense of the historical truth about the Soviet Union’s decisive role in the defeat of Nazi Germany, the historical truth that is being subjected to new and often unprecedented attacks in the contemporary world. The challenges, prospects and potential of actualizing a set of facts and evidence that in the postwar period became the basis for the formation and strengthening of a reliable academic system of ideas about the causes of World War II, the USSR’s role in that conflict, and the USSR’s decisive contribution to the victory over Nazism are analyzed. The problems associated with Western governments’ deliberate attempts to delete many facts about World War II, its course, and causes from educational and public and civic discourse are considered. Within the complex of testimonies, which are not always given due consideration in the contemporary world, the article examines the high praise given by the anti-Hitler coalition countries’ leaders for the heroism and heroic deeds of the Red Army. Protecting the historical memory of the dedication and unity of people on the frontline and on the home front for the approach of Victory, and the historical memory of the great price paid by the Soviet soldier, the Soviet people for the liberation of Europe and all of humanity from Nazism, is seen as a necessary condition for creating a decent, secure future for the entire world.

The article, based on the results of an empirical study, devoted to some features of the formation of modern youth planning horizons. The images of the country’s future in the next five and ten years were considered and compared. Young Russians’ planning horizons are mostly blurred and include assumptions about many risks and challenges that the country may face. Young citizens rarely see themselves as an active actor participating in the creation of the fate of the Motherland. The obtained results allow us to state that when forecasting the future of the country, the topics of transformation of the political system are more relevant for young Russians than the topics of economic, technological and cultural development. The image of the future is noticeably politicized. There is a significant differentiation of young people with respect to political orientations. It determines optimism and pessimism in assessments of the future of the country. The study allows us to speak about the preservation of problems, at the moment supported by the generational specificity of political socialization, requiring attention in the formation of national and state identity in Russian society.

The article demonstrates the possibility of identifying discrepancies between respondents’ perceptions of what constitutes their personal success and what they consider to be the indicators of success for future Russia, through the use of reversible modes of stimulus material presentation. The materials of empirical research are presented, confirming the validity of the assumption that the productivity of identifying the true political preferences and expectations of our fellow citizens can be increased by using visual stimuli demonstrated through eye trackers, with which respondents work in a reversible mode. The obtained data also indicates that the use of such modes allows for the identification of even those components of personal representations that, according to the respondents, may contradict the most socially desirable ones.

The article analyzes textual descriptions of youth policy at Russian universities participating in the Priority 2030 program. The study sample consisted of 119 universities with diffe rent status (federal universities, national research universities, flagship universities, etc.), as well as of different institutional affiliation. Computer text analysis using the Python programming language was used to analyze models of youth policy.
The article substantiates the point that universities’ youth policies are overly differentiated and poorly integrated both within the university community and in terms of its compliance with federal regulatory documents regulating state youth policy. The author points to the fact that the youth policies of Russian universities do not have a unified socialization vector, and this, in the context of escalating geopolitical tensions, could become a factor of social disintegration and a decrease in the level of solidarity within Russian society.
As the conducted research has shown, the values of individualism, personal success and self-realization, orientation towards ‘world’ models and patterns are implicitly embedded in the models of youth policy. This circumstance may reduce the effect of educational influence on the younger generation, contributing to the formation of absenteeism and low civic and social activity.