Today, the member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) have to respond to a set of challenges and threats that hinder the progressive development of regional integration. Among them are the problems of relations between the member countries themselves, who found themselves in a difficult situation in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. This does not detract from the huge potential of Eurasian integration and the possibility of expanding the range of interested participants in this project. For this reason, Russia and Kazakhstan are obliged to fully protect the constructive, allied, fraternal relations that have developed between them, especially since the success of Eurasian integration as a whole largely depends on this. The combination of objective factors and circumstances, including the spread of Turkey’s influence in Central Asia, puts RussianKazakh relations to certain tests. The Great Turan project, implemented by Turkey and its Turkicspeaking partners, carries certain risks for Russia. The purpose of this study is to clarify the circumstances related to this. At the same time, the author focuses on the development of Russian-Kazakh economic relations in the context of the implementation of the Eurasian integration project. It exposes the myth that the EEU is a politicized institution inspired by the “imperial elites” of Russia. Revealing and analyzing the existing conflict of interests, certain differences in the understanding of the tactical tasks of national development, the author shows that the conflict potential in relations between Russia and Kazakhstan is reliably stopped both by the leaders of the states and by the high level of good-neighborliness and popular will and has no prospects of aggravation. At the same time, the conclusion is justified that no problematic issues of Russian-Kazakh relations can devalue the positive prospects for Eurasian integration. The author also seeks to substantiate the thesis about the inability of the Turkish factor to cause damage to Russian-Kazakh relations and the Eurasian project as a whole. Moreover, the author tries to bring an objective platform under the statement about the compatibility and the possibility of interfacing the Eurasian and all-Turkic integration projects.

Шумилов Михаил МихайловичСеверо-Западный институт управления -филиал РАНХиГС (Санкт-Петербург) Профессор кафедры международных отношений Доктор исторических наук, профессор mshumilov@mail.ru Исаев Алексей ПетровичСеверо-Западный институт управления -филиал РАНХиГС (Санкт-Петербург) Декан факультета экономики и финансов Доктор исторических наук, профессор isaev-ap@sziu.ranepa.ru РЕФЕРАТ Статья посвящена рассмотрению некоторых вопросов экономической истории России XVII -начала XVIII вв. Авторы анализируют торговую политику правительства по ограничению хозяйственной активности иностранных купцов на российском рынке. Они также фокусируют внимание на причинах, обстоятельствах и особенностях перерастания торгового протекционизма в политику промышленного протекционизма, выясняют значение таможенного регулирования, как главного инструмента подавления активности иностранцев на русском внутреннем рынке. Приводятся аргументы в защиту тезиса о том, что такая политика отвечала интересам казны, верхушки русского купечества и Русской православной церкви. Выявляются особенности торговой политики, отличавшие ее от западноевропейского меркантилизма, придававшего особое значение развитию экспортных отраслей обрабатывающей промышленности и вывозу в другие страны товаров с высокой добавленной стоимостью. Авторы настаивают на том, что таможенная реформа середины XVII в. фактически не преследовала каких-либо покровительственных целей по развитию отечественного производства. Одновременно приводятся аргументы в защиту тезиса о становлении в России крупной промышленности в первой четверти XVIII в. При этом ведущая роль в обновлении производственного аппарата страны отводится таможенной и тарифной политике. Авторы утверждают, что в ее содержании проявлялись элементы промышленного протекционизма, которые, в конечном счете, определили основное содержание тарифа 1724 г. торговля, товар, меркантилизм, протекционизм, талер, купец, тариф, таможенные сборы, казна Shumilov M. M., Isaev A. P. КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА Customs and Tariff Protection in Russia in the XVII -Early XVIII CenturyShumilov Mikhail Mikhailovich north-West institute of Management, Branch of ranEPa (Saint-Petersburg, russian federation) Professor of the Chair of international relations doctor of Sciences (history), Professor mshumilov@mail.ru Isaev Alexey Petrovich north-West institute of Management, Branch of ranEPa (Saint-Petersburg, russian federation) head of the Chair of Economy and finance doctor of Sciences (history), Professor isaev-ap@sziu.ranepa.ru И СТО Р И Я И К У Л ЬТ У РА 134 УПРАВЛЕНЧЕСКОЕ КОНСУЛЬТИРОВАНИЕ . № 8 . 2017ABSTRACT The article reveals an important issues of the economic history of Russia in the 17th -early 18th centuries. The authors analyze the government's trade policy to limit the economic activity of foreign merchants in the Russian market. They also focus on the causes, circumstances and peculiarities of the overgrowth of trade protectionism into the policy of industrial protectionism, clarify the importance of customs regulation as the main tool for s...

В статье освещается современное состояние американо-саудовских отношений в контексте нарастающей напряженности в регионе Ближнего Востока, главным образом, конфликта в Йемене. В фокусе авторского внимания оказалась реакция американских властей на малоэффективную и кровопролитную военную кампанию в Йемене со стороны коалиционных сил, возглавляемых Саудовской Аравией. Одновременно раскрываются причины и подоплека самого йеменского конфликта. Защищается тезис о том, что изначальная поддержка в нем Соединенными Штатами саудовцев была обусловлена их стремлением смягчить раздражение Саудовской Аравии относительно ядерной сделки с Ираном. Авторы настаивают на том, что с конца 2016 г. все больше американских политиков выступает против соблюдения ранее заключенной оружейной сделки и осуждает Саудовскую Аравию за негуманные методы ведения войны на чужой территории. Пытаясь выяснить масштабы, глубину и перспективы расхождений двух стран, авторы учитывают основательность сложившихся между ними двусторонних отношений, переплетение их экономических интересов и региональных стратегических приоритетов. В этой связи высказывается мнение о высокой вероятности преодоления существующих разногласий в американосаудовских отношениях при новом президенте США Дональде Трампе.

This paper is devoted to the causes, manifestations, circumstances, results and global consequences of US-China trade war in 2018–2021. Based on the analysis of management decisions, expert assessments, statistics and opinion polls, the author makes judgments and assumptions about the continuity of US policy, provoking and aggravating conflict relations between the two countries, as well as contributing to their penetration into all spheres of politics, economy, culture and even sports. At the same time, consistent and adequate measures on the part of the People’s Republic of China, which have a predominantly defensive orientation, are taken into account. At the same time, the anti-Chinese trade, investment, and technology policy, which was already carried out under Donald Trump in the name of ensuring the national security of the United States, and under Joe Biden actually turned into a hybrid cold war, is interpreted in the context of causal relationships characterizing the crisis of the neoliberal model of capitalism and the intentions of the world elite to restart the Bretton Woods system by switching to “green” energy. The most important resource of the transformation that has begun is the ideology of justifying any sanctions and other strong-willed decisions of the “democratic” Western states led by the United States against the “authoritarian” losers of the energy transition. Consequently, the “trade war” of the USA and China, objectively acting as an instrument of disorganization of the global world and a powerful limiter of globalization based on “market fundamentalism”, becomes the demiurge of the new globalization projected on the platform of “ideological fundamentalism”. In the situation of a multipolar world and the intensified rivalry of nuclear powers, restarting the world economy through a global war seems impossible. On the contrary, the mechanism of collecting a “green” contribution in favor of potential beneficiaries of the new globalization has not yet been tested. Within this perspective, the US-China trade war becomes not only an existential concern of the US and its allies, but also a problem of China’s survival. Obviously, this circumstance explains the emerging rapprochement between the PRC and the Russian Federation in the direction of pooling resources and forming a military-political alliance.

The negative tone of statements about pan-Turkism and Turkey’s policy in the post-Soviet space in the Central Asian region prevails in the Russian media. Indeed, pan-Turkism is a strong factor in the emerging statehood of the newly independent states of the region. At the same time, and it is important to emphasize this, it is not the only and far from defining one. His influence manifested itself mainly in the first half of the 1990s. All the authors note the role of Turkey at the initial stage of the sovereignty of the countries of this region. Then, first, due to lack of resources, its influence in Central Asia began to wane. New players appeared in the region, representing the interests of Western countries and China. Russian economic, military, and political influence also became more stable and weightier. Turkey’s attempts in the XXI century to achieve new successes in promoting its interests based on the values of Turkism did not lead to the expected results. Economic and military-political competitors continued to outpace it, and their successes encouraged Ankara to make measurements during its policy. She became more and more realistic and pragmatic. For a few reasons, during the first decade of the new century, the Turkish upper classes somewhat cooled down to pan-Turkism. At the same time, the elites of the Central Asian countries got a taste of state nationalism and, cultivating their own values, emphasized their sovereignty and the right to a multi-vector foreign policy. Overcoming their dependence on Moscow, they also demonstrated their unwillingness to follow in the wake of Ankara’s interests. In the conditions оf De-globalization and fragmentation that began after the global crisis of 2008–2009 pan-Turkism is once again becoming an important factor in the sovereign positioning of the Turkic-speaking republics of Central Asia. At the same time, it has ceased to act as an instrument of Turkish expansion and today represents a new phenomenon — “collective pan-Turkism”, which testifies to the common interest and solidarity aspirations of its participants. Russia, China and other non-regional actors will have to reckon with this circumstance in the future.