The author has attempted, using the methods of political analysis, to identify in a seemingly chaotic series of initiatives of the new D. Trump’s administration, the so far latent trends of a fundamental reversal – in a number of important directions – of the geopolitical strategy of the United States (which is essentially a bid for a global geopolitical revolution). The author develops a hypothesis according to which the Trump team is proceeding from the possession of a kind of mandate to implement an advanced adaptation of the U.S. hegemonic potential to the tectonic transformation of the world order that has already begun. The key elements of such an adaptation are a radical revision of the previous configuration of the sphere of unconditional strategic interests of the United States and the proactively adopted self-limitation of this sphere to only a part of the global space while rejecting claims to global and total control over the aggregate processes of global development. The arrangement of such a partial sphere of interests presupposes guarantees, firstly, the full provision of the USA with resources for development, secondly, the loyalty of the political and administrative elites of the states oriented towards the USA, thirdly, territorial control of key transport and communication hubs and military-strategic position areas. This triune of tasks seems to be the basis of the goal-setting of the new administration. The final result, imputed to it as a guideline, coupled with the mandate for power acquired by Trump, is the formation of an updated model for the mobilization of U.S. development resources, which will mitigate the consequences of the intensification and consolidation of the activities of obvious and potential opportunistic powers that limit the free access of Western countries to global resources. In the final part of the article, the author discusses the main risks and probable consequences of the U.S.-promoted geostrategic turn, noting the growing likelihood of segmentation of the global market, the global communications system, and the global political and legal space.

The analysis of related concepts ofmovement-dynamics-changes-evolution-development was carriedout, which allowed us to formulate criteria for developmentas a special type of movement (change) and to apply theidea of development to the social (including political) andpersonal spheres. Within the framework of the author'sformulation of the problem of conceptualization ofdevelopment, sociality (including its political aspects)was considered from the standpoint of a systems approachwith an emphasis on the study ofthe elements ofthe binarystructure of complex, developing systems. As a result ofthe study, it was shown that the idea of the binarity ofsocial and political systems is of decisive importance inmodeling political change and political development. Indeveloping these ideas, a model of a modern complex societyas an ensemble of social artifacts, as well as theinteractions formatted by them, was studied. Particularattention is paid to the quality of reflexivity of suchensembles and the organization of cooperative interactionand information exchange within the supersystemconglomerates they form, as well as the opportunities forforecasting previously unknown risks and threats to theglobal community that open up within the framework of thedeveloped model. Within the framework of the concept ofdynamic stability of the political organization of society,an approach to the structural analysis of politicalstrategies as a toolkit of political development isdeveloped. A new approach to the classification andmodeling of political development strategies as formed bycomplexes of components of a number of polar dispositions of political development practices is offered.

Within the framework of the methodology of system modeling and concept analysis, as well as by using a previously developed model of evolutionary cycles of the world political and economic system, supplemented by a model of transmission of leadership and its dysfunctions in the vicinity of the “singularity” of global development, a hypothesis has been formulated to explain the features of the current degradation of the unipolar world order, clarifying its time frame and possible cumulative geo-economic and geopolitical consequences. The possibility of evolutionary transformation of the unipolar world order into a different kind of global order, built on fundamentally different organizational principles, which are not hierarchical, but rather structured like a network, is explored. Among the systemic reasons for such degradation, the most important are, firstly, the evolutionary dead end of the monopolar design of a complex system. Within the framework of such a system, both organic transmission of leadership and institutional and normative-value continuity between the elites of the old and new leader are impossible. Under these circumstances, the hegemon of the monopolar world order is forced, driven by the interests of self-preservation, to destroy the foundations of the system it itself created. Another no less important systemic reason pointing to the inevitability of “creative destruction” of the traditional hierarchically organized world order is the inertia of the prospects for global development for the subjects and actors of world politics operating today, as well as the structural and functional “poverty” of mainstream models of world socio-political and economic changes in the coordinates of global ordering/disordering. Based on the analysis of the primary symptoms of the widespread awakening of actors to subjective activity that has swept the entire modern world, qualitatively new communities have been identified – growth points of new orders, proto-institutions, norms and value orientations, potential structures of political subjectivity.

The subject of this article is a forecast of the processes of change in the world order in the period 2020–2040. The aim of the work is to identify and analyze the most likely scenarios for the destabilization of the old world order and the formation of a new one. The research methodology includes the use of cyclical wave and world-system approaches as well as comparative political analysis. The scope of application of the results is the analysis and forecasting of changes in the world order, the impact of these changes on the system of international relations, on the development of Russia and Western countries. The literature on the problems of changing the world order has been reviewed. The main scenarios of destabilization and changes in the world order have been identified, key challenges to international security have been characterized, and preliminary recommendations for countering internal destabilization in the Russian Federation have been developed. Special attention has been paid to identifying the risks associated with processes of destabilization and rapid nonlinear transformation of the world order. The results of the study can be used in recommendations to the government bodies of the Russian Federation, as well as in the development of training courses in political science and international relations. The scientific and practical significance of the study lies in the identification of the main security challenges for Russia in the context of the ongoing changes in the world order and in the developing of possible ways to counteract internal socio-political destabilization on the territory of the Russian Federation.

В статье делается попытка реконструировать комплекс представлений, связывающих в политическом дискурсе современное сложноорганизованное общество с олицетворяющим его в сфере политики территориальным государством. Актуализация потребности в более углубленном изучении этой взаимосвязи обусловлена кризисными тенденциями современной политической динамики, включая кризис текущей версии глобализации. Но также и тем стремительно растущим давлением, которое на территориальные сообщества и политии оказывают макросообщества иной надгосударственной и/или сетевой природы, демонтирующие прежние принципы организации миропорядка и тем самым бросающие вызов принципу территориальной государственности и самому существованию территориально организованных сообществ как таковых. Автор проводит анализ симбиотической связи современного общества и территориального государства, а также эволюционных перспектив обоих ее участников – как по отдельности, так и в коэволюционном сопряжении. Методологическую основу исследования составляет сочетание методов анализа политического дискурса, институционального, концептуального и структурно-функционального анализа, методов идентитарных исследований и ряда других. Ключевыми концептами анализа, осуществляемого в статье, являются сложное общество и территориальное государство как его политическая форма, а также провалы управления, войны за переучреждение государства и экстратерриториальные сообщества. Именно с возрастанием роли последних связан тренд перехода от локальных войн за переучреждение государства к глобальному открытому противостоянию с перспективой переучреждения всего политического миропорядка, при неочевидности в настоящий момент тех новых институциональных форм, в которые он будет облекаться.

The article attempts to reconstruct a set of mental representations (ideas) that link in political discourse a modern complexly organized society with a personifies society in the sphere of politics territorial state. The actualization of the need for a more in-depth study of this relationship is due to the crisis trends of modern political dynamics, including the crisis of the current version of globalization. But it is also due to the rapidly growing pressure on territorial communities and polities from macro-communities of a different supranational and/or network nature, dismantling the previous principles of organizing the world order, and thereby representing a challenge both to the principle of territorial statehood and to the very existence of territorially organized communities as such. The author analyzes the symbiotic relationship between modern society and the territorial state, as well as the evolutionary prospects of both of its participants, both individually and in co-evolutionary conjugation. The methodological basis of the research is a combination of political discourse analysis, institutional, conceptual and structural-functional analysis, methods of identity research. The key concepts of the analysis carried out in the article are a complex society and the territorial state as its political form, as well as governance failure, wars for the re-establishment of the state, extraterritorial communities. It is with the increasing role of the latter that there has been a tendency to move from local wars for the restoration of the state to a global open confrontation with the prospect of restoring (updating) the entire political world order, although the new institutional forms of this future order are currently nonobvious.

A comparative analysis of alternative scenarios for the formation of a new world order is presented. It is shown that in the early 2020s the former “monocentric” (“unipolar”) world order was destabilized. The main signs of the shifts taking place in it are socio-economic and political oppositions in Western and non-Western countries, the chaotic system of international relations, the increasing number and depth of regional conflicts, the creation of new international associations and coalitions. The forecast is made about the most probable variant of the change of the world order, which can come into being in the period of the 2020-2030s. An assumption has been made of the role of Russia in the changing world order.

The article analyzes the processes of actualization of civilizational discourse in modern political science, facing today the challenge of comprehending political development that generates a global crisis. The perception of this discourse today contrasts markedly with the essentially negative attitude of most of the political science community with the still recently. This attitude was, in fact, a desire for a kind of "cancelling" of such discourse, an interpretation of involvement in it as not meeting the criteria of modern approaches to the analysis of politics and therefore reprehensible. Nevertheless, civilizational issues throughout the 20th century attracted the attention of political philosophers and the most insightful political researchers who are trying to advance in the development of ideas about the fundamental diversity of cultural and civilizational foundations for the development of modern society, as well as the about impact of this diversity on the nature of the current crisis of the world order and its likely consequences. One of the most important problem nodes of the study is the contradictory conjugation of concepts that characterize the universalist and particularist approaches to the conceptualization of a civilizational society. The first approach reduces all civilizational issues to the recognition of the legitimacy of talking about just the only a universal civilization or one that can serve for the world as the only worthy model, an ideal type of social and cultural arrangement. The second approach insists that even within the framework of modern national societies and the territorial states that form them, the persisting cultural and civilizational "otherness" is worthy of the right to continue to exist. Moreover, it often turns out to be an indispensable development resource of these societies. Within the framework of the study, a comparative analysis of the conjugation and latent conflict of these two approaches to the conceptualization of the cultural and civilizational foundations of modern politics is carried out. From a civilizational perspective, the evolutionary limits of universalism and the prospects for the transformation of the world order are discussed.

В статье анализируются тенденции актуализации цивилизационного дискурса в современной политической науке, которая оказалась перед вызовом глобального кризиса, порождаемого плохо отрефлексированными ею процессами политического развития. Восприятие этого дискурса сегодня заметно контрастирует с еще недавним по существу негативным отношением к нему большей части политологического сообщества. Такое отношение, фактически, выражало стремление как бы “отменить” этот дискурс, трактуя включенность в него как не отвечающую актуальным критериям анализа политики и потому предосудительную. Тем не менее цивилизационная проблематика в течение всего ХХ в. привлекала внимание политических философов и наиболее проницательных политических исследователей, пытающихся продвинуться в развитии представлений о принципиальном многообразии культурно-цивилизационных оснований современного общества, а также о влиянии этого многообразия на характер текущего кризиса миропорядка и его вероятные последствия. Одним из важнейших проблемных узлов исследования является противоречивое сопряжение понятий, характеризующих универсалистский и партикуляристский подходы к концептуализации цивилизационного сообщества. В русле первого подхода вся цивилизационная проблематика сводится к признанию правомерности представления лишь о единственной – общечеловеческой цивилизации или же той, которая может служить для мира единственно достойным образцом, универсальной моделью и идеальным типом общественного и культурного обустройства. В русле второго – акцент делается на том, что даже в рамках современных национальных сообществ и оформляющих их территориальных государств за сохраняющейся культурной и цивилизационной “инаковостью” признается право на существование и воспроизводство. Более того, указывается на ее незаменимость в качестве ресурса развития этих сообществ. В ходе исследования проводится сравнительный анализ сопряжения и латентного конфликта двух этих подходов к концептуализации культурно-цивилизационных оснований современной политики, обсуждается цивилизационный аспект проблемы эволюционных пределов универсализма и перспектив трансформации миропорядка.

Social cleavages and their political projections are key systemic elements in the evolutionary transformations of modern societies. Cleavage theory seeks to reflect the ambiguous and dynamic realities of contemporary divisions, but concepts and notions describing them often remain unclear. An overview of the mainstream theoretical and methodological approaches to assessing social and political divisions in contemporary societies indicates three key analytical standpoints: a) classical theory of social cleavages and their political projections (following Stein Rokkan and Seymour Martin Lipset); b) the politicization of new social divisions and of their potential transformation into competitive resources for promoting political projects; and c) political divides as drivers of social development. A correlation of these approaches can contribute to promoting a complex methodology of assessing political transformations in a rapidly changing contemporary world order. Economic and social inequality, cultural divides, and contentious politics are important indicators of growing divisions, alongside an ardent public discussion and a consistent research agenda on cultural and socio-political polarization. The authors consider institutionalized political divisions between identity groups (in the logic of Arend Lipjhart) as one of the possible characteristics (but not the only one) of divided societies, and argue for a wider approach to this concept. Growing cleavages of different natures are integral parts of contemporary social dynamics, but not all are politically relevant: politicizing cleavages is an inherent characteristic of "divided societies", and criteria for their assessment are proposed. These criteria are applicable in the framework of both territorially localized (the nation state) and extraterritorial (non-state) communities. A cognitive map of cleavages and their political projections depicts the current state of the research field and offers insights for updating the research agenda.

Понятия социальных размежеваний/кливажей, идейно-политических противостояний, социокультурных расколов, утвердившиеся в политической науке, характеризуют системные элементы эволюционных трансформаций современных обществ. При этом имеющийся категориальный аппарат не вполне адекватен исследовательским задачам, возникающим ввиду многозначности и динамизма прогрессирующих разделений, а содержательное наполнение описывающих их концептов зачастую остается непроясненным. На основании обзора теоретико-методологических подходов к анализу разделенных обществ как предметной социальной реальности и как категории политической науки авторы выделяют три ключевых ракурса их исследования: а) с точки зрения классической теории социальных кливажей и их политических проекций; б) с акцентом на осмысление практик политизации новых социальных размежеваний и потенциала их превращения в ресурс конкурентной борьбы политических проектов и в) с позиций анализа политических противостояний как фактора общественного развития. Обоснована потребность сопряжения выделенных подходов применительно к прогнозированию траекторий и альтернатив современного политического развития. Верифицируемыми характеристиками разделенного общества авторы считают не только растущее экономическое, социальное, культурное неравенство и конфликтную политическую конкуренцию, но также масштабы и остроту публичной дискуссии вокруг проблем культурной и социально-политической поляризации. В статье предложена типология социальных размежеваний, имеющих политическое измерение в рамках территориально локализованных и формирующихся экстратерриториальных сообществ. По итогам анализа политических дискурсов и практик разработана когнитивная карта соответствующего исследовательского поля. Дисфункции модели национально-территориального государства, проявляющиеся в условиях кризисного и посткризисного мироустройства на фоне растущего разнообразия форм институционализации политических противостояний, дают основания к постановке вопроса о пределах и условиях применимости концептов, сложившихся в ходе анализа социальных реалий западноевропейского модерна. Предлагается глубокий пересмотр подходов к оценке современной социальной динамики, в частности, на основе представленной авторами расширительной трактовки концепта разделенных обществ как категории политического анализа.

The article analyzes how global socio-political destabilization manifests itself, and how this is associated with the growing inefficiency of many international institutions due to an increasingly dysfunctional "unipolar" world order model. By focusing on the examples of the EU and the Russian Federation, this article studies the influence of global destabilization on the dynamics of political institutions both on the level of individual states and on the supranational level. Some general characteristics defining the modern political and institutional dynamics across EU countries are analyzed; these are associated with processes for strengthening socio-political destabilization. These trends, in particular, include: the decline in the effectiveness of traditional political parties, the growing polarization of party-political systems; the rise of populism, euroscepticism and right-wing radicalism; intensified contradictions in interactions between central and regional political institutions, amidst the growth of separatist sentiments; and the collapse and fundamental transformation of the structure and functions of the national state (nation-state) as an "ideal". It is shown that the supranational political institutions of the EU as a whole are not effective enough in responding to the new challenges of external cultural migration, political polarization within European societies, the crisis of the social state, and the global COVID-19 epidemic. The reasons for this inefficiency are analyzed. In Russia, which is yet to fully take the form of a Western European-type nation-state, the political institutions introduced in the 1990s are undergoing intensive changes, adapting to this global destabilization in accordance with the model of institutional tracks that is different from the model of the national state. This involves applying elements of an imperial socio-political organization. Therefore, the first part of the study is devoted to the analysis of the problems and symptoms of increasing global destabilization and the formulation of the research problem; this is then solved in the next three parts. In a comparative perspective, three cases of institutional dynamics were studied: the EU as a whole, the EU at the level of national states, and the Russian Federation as a paradoxical state (national in form, but evolving in a different direction). The final part discusses the results and main findings of the study. From 2020 to 2030, as the EU and Russia are entering a period of deep and critical institutional, it is predicted that they must transform and adapt to the upcoming dramatic remodeling of the world order.

The destabilization of world politics over the last decade has actualized the need fora deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the nature of a modern state and its ability to adapt to changes both in the sphere of interstate relations and in domestic politics (the relationship of the state apparatus with its national political community, i.e. outside and within the legitimate territorial control of the state). An major - and in many respects irreplaceable - contribution to solving this problem is the foundational monograph by Bob Jessop, translated into Russian last year (Jessop B. 2016. The State: Past, Present, Future. Cambridge: Polity). Due to the complexity and versatility ofJessop's monograph, this article it will inevitably be limited to only a partial reflection; moreover, this will be approached from an obviously subjective point of view, and in the format of free reflection. The purpose of the article is to draw readers' attention to the invaluable resource of conceptualization and polymorphic analysis of the state as still being the key concept of political science it remains today. Jessop combines his original approach (in his words, strategic-relational) to this phenomenon of our political imagination with a critical analysis of other, widespread approaches (Marxism, liberalism, con.savatism, realism, neorealism), In fact, he offers a method to fundamentally synthesise these approaches, leading to a new quality of political analysis. Historicism, comparativism, the global context, and the evolving nature of statehood are the basis of this alternative approach to the systemic study of the state and state power. Almost conventional in modern political science, the concept of the modern state as such - including its fundamental, institutionally separate components, as well as the principles that integrate it descnbes, according to Jessop, only a special case of the capitalist-type state. Along with this essentially "idealized" state, there are still states of a different type, which also effectively ensure the interests of their political communities, without possessing all the nonnative characteristics (as they are defined by the canons of political science) of the institutional structure and without strictly observing the general principles of organizing social , economic and political life.

В статье проанализированы основные проявления глобальной социально-политической дестабилизации, связанные с растущей неэффективностью многих международных институтов и с усилением дисфункций “униполярной” модели мирового порядка. На примере ЕС и РФ исследовано влияние глобальной дестабилизации на динамику политических институтов на уровне отдельных государств и на наднациональном уровне. Проанализированы некоторые общие тенденции современной политико-институциональной динамики в странах ЕС, связанные с процессами усиления социально-политической дестабилизации. К этим тенденциям, в частности, относятся: падение эффективности традиционных политических партий, растущая поляризация партийно-политических систем; подъем популизма, евроскептицизма и правого радикализма; усиление противоречий во взаимодействии центральных и региональных политических институтов, рост сепаратистских настроений; кризис и принципиальная трансформация структуры и функционала национального государства как идеального типа (nation-state). Показано, что наднациональные политические институты ЕС в целом недостаточно эффективно отвечают на новые вызовы, связанные с инокультурной миграцией, политической поляризацией внутри европейских обществ, кризисом социального государства, глобальной эпидемией COVID-19. Проанализированы причины этой неэффективности. В России, где национальное государство западноевропейского типа по ряду причин не сформировалось, политические институты, имплантированные в 1990-е годы, претерпевают интенсивные изменения, адаптируясь к условиям глобальной дестабилизации в русле иных, нежели модель nation-state, институциональных треков, с элементами имперской социально-политической организации. Итак, первая часть исследования посвящена анализу общих проблем и симптоматики нарастающей глобальной дестабилизации с выходом на исследовательскую задачу описания в трех последующих частях в сравнительной перспективе трех кейсов институциональной динамики (ЕС как система наднациональных институтов, ЕС на уровне национальных государств и РФ как особое в институциональном плане государство, национальное по форме, но эволюционирующее в ином направлении). В заключительной части обсуждаются результаты и основные выводы исследования. Прогнозируется вступление стран ЕС и России в 2020-2030 годы в период глубоких и критически важных институциональных трансформаций и сложной адаптации к ожидаемым кардинальным изменениям миропорядка.

В статье исследуются теоретико-методологические основания, позволяющие прогнозировать трансформацию современного политического мироустройства, анализируются альтернативные сценарии преодоления современного кризиса глобальной управляемости. Особое внимание уделяется выявлению латентных возможностей эволюционного самопреобразования современного мира и условий их актуализации и активизации. В ряду приоритетов авторского анализа – природа современного государства и те эволюционные изменения, которые претерпела его базовая национально-территориальная модель за последнее столетие, а вместе с тем – особенности новых системных практик государственного строительства, выходящих за прежде общепризнанные нормативные институциональные рамки. Существо нынешнего кризиса, по мнению автора, сводится к преодолению униполярной дисфункции, возникшей в результате распада биполярной системы и ставшей, парадоксальным образом, венцом развития плюралистической международной системы демократических наций-государств. Ярким проявлением этой дисфункции являются, с одной стороны, растущее несоответствие возможностей национально- территориальной модели государственности потребностям развития сообществ глобального мира, а с другой – не находящая решения проблема трансляции мирового лидерства, диагностирующая глубокую неадекватность иерархического принципа мироустройства сегодняшним вызовам глобальной управляемости. Неэффективность прежних рецептов при отсутствии новых эффективных стратегий развития, приемлемых для всех основных субъектов мировой политики, формирует на обозримую временную перспективу ситуацию глобальной интерлюдии, ожидания и отложенного действия.

The article analyzes the main factors and trends in the transformation of national state as a result of deep social and political shifts in the modern world. The key determinants of this transformation include the rising role of non-Western countries, ethno-social and ethno-political changes in the developed Western countries, the split of elites, growing political tension in societies, formation of supranational and transnational political entities, the divergence of transnational and national elites' interests. The EU member states face numerous challenges caused by demographic shifts, mass foreign cultural migration, identity crisis, ethno-political conflicts, separatism, as well as by political consequences of technological shifts and social innovations, formation of new regional alliances and centers of power in the single global world. The article investigates adaptive changes and politico-institutional transformation paths of national states as a response to these challenges. The authors study the main prerequisites and reasons for the strengthening of Euroscepticism and populism in the EU member states, concluding that these political phenomena are closely connected with the crisis and transformation of the classical European national state. Furthermore, it is shown that attempts to forcefully form a nation and build nation-states in the post-Soviet space often lead to serious social, cultural and political problems in multi-ethnic post-Soviet societies. Such countries face political instability, up to the onset of symptoms peculiar to incapacity of a State and fundamental degradation of national statehood. These problems are caused, on the one hand, by the lack of social consolidation, the presence of powerful clan and oligarchic structures, political divisions and the alienation of elites from the general population; on the other hand - by global processes and external pressure on the post-Soviet states.