This article examines the primary directions of contemporary urban development policy, along with the issues and contradictions associated with its scientific research and practical implementation. The study aims to conceptualize the concept of “responsible urban development” as a complex of approaches and practices that hold promise for integration into practical urban and regional development policies, and to typologize potential approaches to implementing such policies. The authors use an institutional approach, the methodology of identity studies, the structural-functional approach and a case study. The article investigates quantitative and qualitative indicators, the key challenges and tasks of urban development policy, with a particular focus on the resources of modern urban development. The authors note that relying on a limited set of indicators does not provide the capacity for decision-making necessary to update and transform urban development policy to ensure its ability to promptly and flexibly respond to the numerous problems and challenges arising under conditions of socio-political instability. The article addresses and analyses several cases of contemporary urban development and the implementation of corresponding policies. Based on this analysis, the authors conclude that one of the central and most pressing issues in the policy of responsible urban development and the socio-political dynamics of cities is the inefficiency of the communication process between civil actors and stakeholders, on the one hand, and city authorities and the city administration, on the other. This communication deficit can only be partially addressed through digitalization, as the primary obstacles to improved communication are administrative barriers and the dominance of the interests of certain groups, such as large corporations and financial institutions.

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.

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 problems of the political subjectness of local civilizations and their role in world politics have gained renewed relevance due to the processes of globalization, the transformation of the world order and the formation of international regional alliances. The article analyzes the monograph "Civilizations in the modern world" (Moscow: LENAND, 2022), written by the prominent Russian political scientist and historian V.G. Khoros. The author of the monograph explores the main characteristics of modern civilizations, immersing into the key factors of political development, such as the features of internal social differentiation of each civilization and related internal political confrontations, as well as the distinctive features of non-linear dynamics and modernization processes. The monograph combines different political science approaches and provides extensive historical material. From the political science perspective, the study of non-Western civilizations - Chinese, Indian, African, Islamic, as well as Russian civilization appears to be most remarkable. All in all, the monograph provides a valuable contribution to the study of civilizations and their role in modern politics. It also provides answers to many topical issues discussed by domestic and foreign scholars.

Проблемы политической субъектности локальных цивилизаций и их роли в мировой политике актуализировались в связи с процессами глобализации, изменения мирового порядка и формирования международных региональных союзов. В статье анализируется монография “Цивилизации в современном мире” (М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2022), написанная видным российским политологом и историком В.Г. Хоросом. Автор монографии исследует основные характеристики цивилизаций современного мира, обращая внимание на ключевые факторы политического развития – особенности внутренней социальной дифференциации каждой из цивилизаций и связанных с этим внутренних политических противостояний, отличительные черты нелинейной динамики и процессов модернизации. В работе сочетаются различные подходы политической науки, приводится обширный исторический материал. С точки зрения политической науки особо значимо исследование незападных цивилизаций – китайской, индийской, африканской, исламской, а также российской цивилизации. В целом монография является важным вкладом в исследование цивилизаций и их роли в современной политике, она отвечает на многие актуальные вопросы, которые ставятся отечественными и зарубежными учеными.

The article analyzes the significance of Eurasian ideology for modern economic integration, the reasons for its limited use in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and the possibilities and prospects of adapting Eurasianism for the purposes of economic development and integration. Many international economic integration associations (e.g., the EU, USMCA, ASEAN) have a common or similar ideological and value-based foundation, which ensures stronger integration. The EAEU was initially established without a common, integrating ideological basis, although the first president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, suggested using Eurasianism as the ideology of integration. Sergey Glazyev also wrote about the importance of integrative ideology for the development of the EAEU. However, these attempts to introduce Eurasian ideology for a stronger integration were not supported by the rest of the EAEU countries. This was largely because most EAEU members, including Russia, were driven by short-term economic interests, forgetting about more important long-term, strategic goals. Moreover, there are important ideological divisions in society and in the political elites of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan - primarily the division between adherents of the ideology and practices of Western liberalism, oriented toward EU integration, and supporters of an ideology close to Eurasianism and defense of traditional values, oriented toward the development of integration in the Eurasian space. The reproduction of such divisions in the EAEU countries, as well as the absence or weak development of an integrative ideology, largely determines the inconsistent and not always effective integration in the EAEU. Eurasianism can become an integrative ideology, which, if developed and adapted to modern realities, can ensure a stronger economic integration. This requires overcoming illusions about the possibility of integration of Russia and other post-Soviet countries into the EU, pursuing an active information policy in the Eurasian countries, showing the commonality of geopolitical and economic interests of EAEU countries and the opposition of these interests to those of the USA. Eurasianism can effectively counter the threat of ethnic nationalism in the EAEU countries by emphasizing Eurasian integration as a necessary condition for preserving the sovereignty of Eurasian countries, their traditional values, and the combination of tradition and innovation.

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.

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.

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.

The article deals with the major problems and risks of Russian society in early 20th, as well as 21st centuries. The author shows that the social crisis and 1917 revolution were caused primarily by alienation of the elite from the citizens and by loss of communications between them, as well as by public distrust to power, absence of ideology acceptable for majority of the population, and the ideological and political split of the educated social groups. The prime threats and development risks faced by modern Russian society are determined by large-scale social and political shifts generated by transition to a new technological and social paradigm. Moreover, significant risks arise from the erosion of national and cultural identities, by destructed unity of society, its value system, traditions and social norms. The author outlines three vectors of social and political activity in modern Russian society represented by various social actors. These actors barely interact with each other, creating a threat of social destabilization. It is concluded that successful adaptation to the profound changes requires to combine traditions and values that form the cultural features of a given society with social innovations. This combination ensures a successful and dynamic development of such countries as China, South Korea, Singapore, India and a number of other

КИБЕРБЕЗОПАСНОСТЬ: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ ЕДИНОЙ ПОЛИТИКИ В ЕВРОПЕЙСКОМ СОЮЗЕ В. И. Пантин, Н. В. Кардава 1 Цель статьи -анализ наиболее сложных и актуальных проблем обеспечения кибербезопасности в странах ЕС и формирования единой политики в этой сфере.Рассмотрены общие политические и экономические факторы актуализации проблем кибербезопасности на национальном, наднациональном и глобальном уровнях.На примере Германии показано, что политика в сфере обеспечения кибербезопасности в ряде развитых стран ЕС более эффективна, чем политика на наднациональном общеевропейском уровне.Сделан вывод, что отличительной чертой немецкого подхода к обеспечению кибербезопасности является его комплексный и фундаментальный характер; этот подход включает целую систему нормативных актов, планов и институтов.Выявлены основные подходы, тенденции и противоречия, связанные с выработкой на наднациональном уровне ЕС единой стратегии в области кибербезопасности.Проанализированы основные документы и действия Европейской комиссии и других органов ЕС в этой области, включая киберстратегию ЕС (2013 г.), директиву ЕС по кибербезопасности (2016 г.), общий регламент ЕС о защите данных (2018 г