ПОСТСОВЕТСКОЕ СОДРУЖЕСТВО (СНГ). ОСТАЛИСЬ ЛИ РЕСУРСЫ ДЛЯ НОВОЙ РЕИНТЕГРАЦИИ?

Main Article Content

Nikolay MEDVEDEV
Olga NESTERCHUK
Dmitry SLISOVSKIY

Abstrakt

In the proposed article, the authors set out to consider whether the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) still has the resources for a new reintegration. This question has been raised for a long time by the leaders and political elites of the CIS member States, the history of the formation and development of the Commonwealth, experts and experts, internal and external conditions and circumstances related to the most incredible combinations with the past, present and future of the CIS. We solved the problem of classification and analysis of information available in the public domain: documents, events and facts, representations and views of leaders and elites, experts and specialists. Such a broad task has a significant limitation-only a political view of events, facts, assessments and judgments. Such a broad task has a significant limitationonly a political view of events, facts, assessments and judgments. The results of the study are expressed in the following terms: a) the present and future of the CIS is in the grip of a contradiction between the favorable for the effective development of the countries’ natural, material and human resources, on the one hand, and the stable vices and weaknesses of political governance and governance, on the other; between the natural interests and desires of the peoples of the Commonwealth countries to develop integration for the benefit of the common good and in their rational oligarchic elite demands and selfish policies that objectively lead only to profit by any means; b) to date, the CIS, despite encouraging statements from the leaders and part of the political elite, is on the verge of a systemic crisis as a consequence of a non-critical and delayed reaction to the causes of the crisis and inadequate internal and external challenges reactions and leadership of Russia, and the leaders and elites of a number of CIS member countries; c) the construction of an updated and effective system of relations within the CIS will largely depend on the level and quality of changes in the political and economic segment of the Russian Federation; g) the signs of the Imperial power of the model of behaviour of Russia in the former Soviet Union, increasing the conflict potential of the political processes in the Commonwealth, show the possibility of the destruction of the CIS, and the urgency of replacing Imperial-the Imperial power politics, the spiritual and the enlightened; the CIS is still relevant-political concept, gradually acquiring value and meaning purely historical concept, which in its transformation remains a resource and a potential birth of a new organization – greater Eurasia with the inclusion of all States of the Commonwealth and the region.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
MEDVEDEV, N., NESTERCHUK, O., & SLISOVSKIY, D. (2018). ПОСТСОВЕТСКОЕ СОДРУЖЕСТВО (СНГ). ОСТАЛИСЬ ЛИ РЕСУРСЫ ДЛЯ НОВОЙ РЕИНТЕГРАЦИИ?. Przegląd Strategiczny, (11), 157-172. Pobrano z https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/ps/article/view/16689
Dział
SECURITY IN INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNAL DIMENSION
Biogramy autorów

Nikolay MEDVEDEV, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, (RUDN University)

Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences; Professor of Department of political analysis and management, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, RUDN University (former Peoples’ Friendship University named after Patrice Lumumba), Deputy Minister of the Russian Federation for cooperation with CIS States (1994–1995).

Olga NESTERCHUK, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, (RUDN University)

Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences; Professor at the Department of Political Analysis and Management, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, RUDN University (former Peoples’ Friendship University named after Patrice Lumumba).

Dmitry SLISOVSKIY, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, (RUDN University)

Associate Professor, Doctor of history; Professor at the Department of History of Russia, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, RUDN University (former Peoples’ Friendship University named after Patrice Lumumba).

Bibliografia

  1. Donaj Ł. (2003), GUUAM jako przykład wielowektorowości w ukraińskiej polityce, in: Europa Środkowo-Wschodnia w procesie globalizacji i integracji, (ed.) T. Wallas, Słubice.
  2. Huntington S. (1968), Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University Press, New Haven–London.
  3. March J., Olsen J. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York.
  4. Skocpol T. (1979), States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia and China, Cambridge.
  5. Баймурзаева Ш. Б. (2014), Особенности государственности южнокавказских республик (на примере Азербайджана), „Власть”, № 1.
  6. Владимир Путин: СНГ надо сохранить (2016), Первый канал, 17.09.2016, https://www.1tv.ru/news/2016-09-17/310177-vladimir_putin_sng_neobhodimo_sohranit (2.03.2018).
  7. Воронина Т. В. (2013), Интеграция и дезинтеграция как проявление внутренних противоречий интеграционной системы, „Пространство экономики”, № 1–2.
  8. Гущин А. (2017), СНГ и интеграция: в поисках возможностей, 21.04.2017, http://russiancouncil.ru/analytics-and-comments/interview/sng-v-2017-g-dostizheniyavyzovy-perspektivy/?sphrase_id=5134004 (2.03.2018).
  9. Доленко Д. В., Кониченко Ж. Д., Петухов А. В. (2012), СНГ как приоритет России, „Социально-политические науки”, № 1.
  10. Зиядуллаев Н. С., Зиядуллаев С. Н. (2017), От СНГ к Евразийскому экономическому союзу: дезинтеграция и реинтеграция, „Проблемы теории и практики управления”, № 2.
  11. Итоги заседания Совета глав государств СНГ (город Сочи, Российская Федерация, 11 октября 2017 года), CIS, 11.10.2017, http://www.cis.minsk.by/news.php?id=8362 (2.03.2018). Какие страны входят в СНГ? (2018), http://www.bolshoyvopros.ru/questions/2720066-kakiestrany-vhodjat-v-sng-na-2018-god.html (2.03.2018).
  12. Карапетян Р. (2017), Расширяющееся сотрудничество между Турцией, Грузией и Азербайджа-ном, „21-й век”, № 1 (42).
  13. Мамедзаде Г. (2014), Повышается роль Азербайджана, КАВПОЛИТ, 26.06.2014, http://kavpolit.com/articles/povyshaetsja_rol_azerbajdzhana_v_kachestve_kljuche-6451/ (12.03.2018).
  14. Медведев Н. П. (2015), СНГ: проблемы постсоветской реинтеграции, „Евразийский Союз: вопросы международных отношений”, № 1–2 (10–11).
  15. Минасян С. (2014), Асимметричные отношения между Азербайджаном и Грузией, „Цент-ральная Азия и Кавказ”, № 2.
  16. Неформальная встреча глав государств СНГ (2017), Kremlin.ru, 26.12.2017, http://www.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56503 (02.03.2018).
  17. Путин заявил о положительной роли СНГ после распада (2016), INTERFAX, 16.09.2016, http://www.interfax.ru/russia/528547 (02.03.2018).
  18. Путин подвел итоги СНГ за год и передал представительство Таджикистану (2017), SPUTNIK, 27.12.2017, http://ru.sputnik-tj.com/russia/20171227/1024294574/putin-podvelitogi-sng-god-peredal-predsedatelstvo-tadzhikistanu.html (02.03.2018).
  19. Скаков А. (2008), Россия и ГУАМ, „Центральная Азия и Кавказ”, № 3–4 (5758).
  20. Сулаберидзе Ю. (2007), Грузия в политике России, „Центральная Азия и Кавказ”, № 5 (53).
  21. Сушенцов А. А. (2012), Грузинское направление внешней политики России: негативный сце-нарий, „Вестник МГИМО”, № 6.
  22. Толипов Ф. (2007), Россия центральноазиатская: уход, удержание или возвращение?, „Цент-ральная Азия и Кавказ”, № 5 (53).
  23. Эволюция постсоветского пространства: прошлое, настоящее, будущее (2017), (ed.) И. Ти-мофеев, Издательство НП РСМД, Москва.
  24. Экономический потенциал стран СНГ (2018), http://mybiblioteka.su/11-51579.html (2.03.2018).