The article examines the key features of Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy in the context of global geopolitical transformations. As a model for its relations with major powers, the authors propose the concept of two-level balancing – a policy of manoeuvring between states with opposing interests (the first level) and of engaging with them through a combination of cooperation and confrontation (the second level). This approach proved effective under conditions of bipolarity and remains relevant in the context of an emerging international order. It plays a central role in Türkiye–US and Türkiye–Russia relations, particularly during periods of heightened tensions among great powers. While this approach expands opportunities for advancing national interests, it simultaneously generates new challenges for Türkiye as well as for both the United States and Russia. To identify the distinctive features of this model, the authors analyse key factors shaping great power relations, including intensifying competition over the formation of a new world order, countering the terrorist organizations, the Kurdish–Turkish conflict, and Russia’s presence in the region. The authors conclude that two-level balancing is not employed by Türkiye merely on an ad hoc basis, but rather constitutes a deliberate response to geopolitical challenges. Its implementation relies on both political and military instruments, which is made possible by the complexity of the international environment and the slow and uncoordinated response of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.
Why are electoral reforms implemented or why are electoral systems used in parliamentary elections changed? The author argues that most previous studies have focused on cases of changes in the electoral system in consolidated democracies. The object of this study is electoral reform in Kyrgyzstan, which was implemented in 2021. The theoretical basis for explaining institutional changes is grounded in sociological institutionalism in general and the congruence model of legitimacy in particular. Applying process-tracing as a case study method, the author seeks to answer the following research question: why did the parties represented in the Supreme Council of Kyrgyzstan (known as the Jogorku Kengesh) support the bill that provided for the introduction of a mixed electoral system in parliamentary elections instead of proportional representation? The results obtained challenge the dominant approach in the academic literature (rational institutionalism), and confirm the central role of electoral legitimacy in stimulating electoral reform in the Central Asian republic. The main conclusion of the author is that the institutional changes were caused by the delegitimization of the results of the 2020 parliamentary elections in the eyes of some participants in the electoral process. The article emphasizes that electoral reform is a response to the decline or loss of legitimacy of the political institution in general and the electoral system in particular. The results allow us to rethink the causes and consequences of electoral reforms not only in Kyrgyzstan, but also in other countries with similar political contexts, and also stimulate further research on the role of legitimacy in institutional change and democratic transition.
This work aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the phenomenon of national conservatism as an intellectual and political movement that emerged in opposition to liberalism and now plays a significant role in the transformation of the American political landscape. Drawing methodologically on the general theory of scientific and intellectual movements (developing Thomas Kuhn’s approach) and on the concept of intellectual genealogy (in the form of Michel Foucault’s discursive organization of practice), the study traces the development of national conservatism through an analysis of the discourse produced by its representatives. National conservatism has consolidated a broad network of intellectuals of various persuasions—nationalists, post-liberals, federal reformers, and constitutionalists. This coalition, possessing a significant institutional infrastructure, has achieved considerable success, influencing not only public debate but also concrete political processes. The right-wing revolution of national conservatives has several key aspects. First, it is a struggle against the hegemony of liberal globalism, associated with a unipolar world order known as Fukuyama’s end of history. Second, it is a break with the fusionist status quo and outdated forms of conservatism, which is referred to as “defusionism.” Third, national conservatives are initiating a fundamental reform of political and bureaucratic institutions, including the abolition of elements of the “deep state,” considered dead and counterproductive. National conservatives’ primary interest is focused on regime change—a process they have already largely succeeded in initiating by shaking the existing status quo. The electoral success of national conservatives poses new challenges for the conservative revolution. Beyond preserving the existing coalition, a key focus remains ensuring the victory of candidates like J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio in the 2028 U.S. presidential election. Alongside maintaining political power, there is a need to move from abstract ideological discussions to concrete actions aimed at supporting the family and promoting the national good, as interpreted by the Natcons and based on the principle of prudence. Thus, national conservatism not only opposes the predominant form of liberalism but also actively promotes systemic reforms and a rethinking of the institutional structures (foundations) of the modern state.
This work reconceptualises the relationship between the political and the technical in the age of artificial intelligence. The authors reject the dichotomy that presupposes their ontological independence and propose a framework of mutual constitution: the political and the technical are two modalities of a single process of human representation and self-organisation. The investigation traces the transformation of regimes of representation from ancient Greek τέχνη – the creative supplementation of nature through knowledge and craft – to the rupture in the modern epoch, when technique was reduced to instrumental rationality and politics claimed to preserve meaning. The digital age transcends this division: mathematics and algorithms form a universal metalanguage, unifying political narratives and cultural codes into a single system of representation. Concrete examples – AI regulation in the EU, platform recommendation systems, social credit schemes – demonstrate that political decisions require technical architecture, whilst technical management bears a political character, determining the boundaries of inclusion and defining the enemy. The central analysis concerns the transformation of sovereignty. The sovereign decision (in Schmitt’s understanding) splits into three levels: developer sovereignty (data and objective function selection), algorithmic sovereignty (real-time decisions), and state sovereignty (control over systems). The enemy is redefined as an outcome of statistical computation, a mathematical category. At the level of subjectivity, AI technologies function as anthropotechnics – practices of human self-formation. From self–knowledge through language models to collective mobilisation via recommendation systems and state governance through algorithms, AI permeates all levels. These processes are ambivalent: technologies serve both subjection and resistance. The authors identify three cardinal problems: the democratisation of metalanguages, the revision of fundamental political philosophy categories, and narrowing the gap between technical velocity and ethical reflection. The work reconceptualises the foundations of political knowledge, proposing that technical governance be understood as inseparably linked to politics. The political does not disappear; it reformats itself, acquiring new modes of articulation through algorithms. The investigation opens a horizon for reconsidering the boundaries and possibilities of political action under conditions of distributed sovereignty and algorithmic power.
The article develops the concept of national interests as the main guideline for Russia’s foreign policy. With reference to the classics of political realism, H. Morgenthau, E. Carr, R. Aaron, it is stated that national interests arise not from abstractions, but from the specific position of the country in the system of international relations, its geography, history, institutions and value-normative guidelines, representing nothing more than long-term vital expressions of the community of the nation in the conditions of an anarchic international system. Further, the modern American experience in determining national interests is examined, including reference to the US National Security Strategy of December 2025. Russian approaches are analyzed through historical dynamics: from the change of ideological foundations to modern strategic planning documents – the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation (2021) and the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation (2022). The author his own systematic classification of Russia’s fundamental national interests in the form of a stable hierarchical structure, on the basis of which it is possible to deploy a system of essential, auxiliary and peripheral interests and which, thus, can serve as the basis for strategic goal-setting in the field of foreign policy and national security.
