The article is devoted to the study of the role of the Russian Federation in American plans to combat global warming. In the context of the Soviet and Russian participation in solving environmental problems, the possibility of using the potential of interaction between Moscow and Washington, previously developed in the climate sphere, to initiate constructive relations is analyzed. It is indicated that since the beginning of the 21st century, the Russian Federation has shifted its focus in this area from reducing carbon emissions to neutralizing them, as well as adapting to changes. The administration of J. Biden criticized this approach because it sought to draw Russia into the United States’ anti-Chinese climate plans based on a general reduction in emissions. However, in the ranks of the American political class, the administration’s approach did not have full support. Within the Democratic Party, a group of centrists believed that Moscow had chosen the right climate strategy for itself, and therefore, the administration’s “separate” policy could be quite effective. Their fellow party members from the progressive camp denied the “separate” approach and talked about the possibility of serious strategic concessions to Russia for climate cooperation. In the Republican Party, “moderate realists” argued that Russia’s climate strategy has more minuses than pluses for the country, and the West should have chosen a policy of combining pressure on the Russian Federation with incentives for regional cooperation. Experts from the conservative group feared that in the context of the radical “green transit” of the Biden administration, Russia’s climate policy could give Moscow a military and geopolitical advantage. In general, most political groups in the United States are confident that Russia, although it does not agree with Western methods of combating warming, will not get off the green trajectory. It is concluded that in the previous period, a fairly solid foundation of the climate dialogue between the United States and Russia had been formed, and the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine only preserved it, but did not destroy.

In the article, the editorial Board of the journal refers to a significant event in the life of the region of recent times – the awarding of the honorary title of «City of Labor Valour» to Saratov Saratov. The reasons for making such a decision by the President of the Russian Federation are considered. It shows the contribution of Saratov as one of the largest military-industrial centers of the country in ensuring victory in the Great Patriotic War and the most important facts of the labor feat of its residents.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the J. Biden administration policy in relation to the “green transition”, i.e. the shift from the use of fossil fuels in the economy to renewable energy sources. In the context of the B. Obama and D. Trump administrations’ attitudes to the problem of climate change, the authors study achievements and failures of the current American leadership on this path. Particular attention is paid to the obstacles faced by the Biden administration. Among them are the inability to consistently finance environmental initiatives through Congress, inconsistency in the implementation of the “Green Course” within the country, the lack of readiness of key emission countries (China, India) to actively participate in achieving the Paris climate goals, etc. In addition, the contradictions within the Democratic Party on the issue of environmental policy between the “centrists” and supporters of the “Green New Deal” program are analyzed, which consist in different stances on the role of a state in the “Green Transit”, importance of social measures, main spheres for investments, the role of America in global transit, etc. It is also pointed to the fierce opposition to the administration’s climate policy from the Republican Party. Its conservative faction is convinced that the scale, pace and role of a man in the crisis are artificially inflated by the Democrats, so there is no need to rush and resort to semi-military methods of centralized resource mobilization. Market forces, which simply must not be hindered, will cope much more successfully with the problem of the impact of warming on humans. The neoconservative group believes that the resources of humanity should be directed not to the fight against greenhouse emissions, but to economic development, which will allow the country and civilization to adapt to climate changes. It is concluded that there is a potential possibility of reaching a bipartisan consensus on climate change, but at this stage, under pressure from radical groups, this possibility seems unlikely. Therefore, in the coming years, it is questionable that the Biden administration will be able to actively promote its domestic climate agenda and new model of globalization.

The article is devoted to the study of the role and place of transatlantic relations in American strategic plans. Amid a decline of globalization, the American approaches to the problem of interaction with Europe with the aim of forming a new international relations system are analyzed. As a part of its strategy of the world economy fragmentation, the administration of J. Biden plans to create a bloc of “friendly” countries, the foundation of which should be a strengthened transatlantic community. However, the leading American political and ideological groups disagree with many aspects of the administration’s plan to develop transatlantic relations. For example, the conservative democrats think than it is necessary to carry out reindustrialization by expanding functions of a State. The progressives demand to base the new transatlantism on the general transition to renewable energy and ideas of social equality. The moderate republicans propose to focus on deepening the European integration. The conservatives are confident that true transatlantic solidarity can be built only on the basis of center-right ideological unity. All the groups agree that it is necessary to stimulate the activity of the EU on the anti-Russian direction. Regarding the administration’s demand for Europe to sever relations with China, the progressives, conservative democrats and moderate republicans believe that the administration’s policy splits the transatlantic community. Although to some extent, most of the groups (except progressives) are concerned about protectionist measures on both sides of the Atlantic, it is still believed that such steps are permissible during the transitional stage of the restructuring of the world order. In general, the Biden administration’s policy receives only partial support for its transatlantic course, so quick consensus on the transatlantic future is unlikely.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the political, scientific and practical activities of the director of the Kennan Institute, Matthew Rojanski. In the context of the statements of the Biden administration on the need to de-escalate US-Russian relations and taking into account the attempt to appoint Rozhansky to the post of Russia Director on the US National Security Council, the evolution of his worldview, the system of views on the modern world order, the role of Russia in the contemporary world and nature of relations between Washington and Moscow are considered. It is concluded that Rojanski’s foreign policy views are close to the liberal-universalist ideology of the progressive grouping in the Democratic Party.