Aleksandr A. Irkhin’s research while affiliated with V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University and other places

Introduction. Multinational Russia at various stages of its existence faces the playing out of the national question by opposing geopolitical centers. The discourse of “decolonization” and “deimperialization” of Russia has acquired a new level of relevance in the international arena after February 24, 2022. The purpose of the article is to identify and investigate the features of the destructive form of ethno-political mobilization in the regions of the Russian Federation through the construction and promotion of the discourse of “decolonization” and “deimperialization” of Russia by Western states. Materials and Methods. The materials used in the study include U.S. legal documents, resolutions of the European Parliament, publications and speeches of representatives of the Western political elite and scientific and expert community, materials of the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, content of various organizations, foreign mass media and media foreign agents. The methodological basis of the study is represented by systemic, geopolitical and instrumentalist approaches, as well as such methods as monitoring, discourse analysis and content analysis. Results. The narrative of “deimperialization” and “decolonization” of Russia in the publications of the Western scientific and expert community and media materials is studied, and the political technologies of Western states oriented at the actualization of ethnic nationalism and, as a consequence, separatist tendencies in the regions of the Russian Federation are revealed. Western projects of practical policy oriented at actualization of national contradictions in the Russian Federation are implemented mainly through the following initiatives: holding events dedicated to “decolonization” and “deimperialization” of Russia; using representatives of Western-oriented national elites to actualize separatist tendencies in the regions of the Russian Federation; adopting declarations on “liberation” of the peoples of Russia from “colonial” dependence; popularization of information about the need for “decolonization”; and the use of the “decolonization” of Russia. Discussion and Conclusion. “Decolonization” and “deimperialization” of Russia are focused on the implementation of a destructive form of ethno-political mobilization and fragmentation of the Russian Federation along national lines of settlement. The authors identify five technologies for the formation of ethnic nationalism in the regions of the Russian Federation, which are used by Western states in the process of modern confrontation with Russia. The results of the study will be useful for public authorities at both regional and federal levels to develop a set of measures aimed at countering the playing of the “national card” on the territory of Russia by competing geopolitical centers.

The Black Sea region in its various geopolitical configurations is a zone of priority for the Turkish elite. Prior to the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca (1774), the Black Sea was regarded as the “Sultan’s harem.” Being essentially a peninsula between the Mediterranean and Black Sea, Türkiye is interested in maintaining control over the Black Sea space or in sharing it with another strong power having access to it. The authors aim to identify and explore Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy in relation to the Black Sea region as one of the key geopolitical spaces for Ankara’s national interests. The foreign policy strategy is understood as a long-term mechanism of the subject in relation to objects and competing subjects, which aims to achieve the most favorable spatial position with the help of military and non-military means and appropriate resources, taking into account the timeliness factor. The article solves specific tasks: it identifies the stable characteristics of Turkish foreign policy, shaped by historical experience and geography, which underlie Ankara’s foreign policy strategy; it shows and studies the strategic vision of the Turkish elite in relation to the Black Sea region; it reveals the mechanisms of influence of external geopolitical subjects on the region and the combination of these mechanisms with Turkish national interests. The concept of Turkish balance is introduced as mechanism of Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy whose main purpose is to integrate stronger powers into the logic and algorithms of foreign policy balances of stronger powers with their mutual opposition and further balancing act, which allows Türkiye to receive maximum geo-economic and geopolitical dividends. The research methodology is represented by systemic, geopolitical and civilizational approaches. Given the role of the Black Sea region in the military-political dynamics since February 2022, the mechanisms of Türkiye’s foreign policy strategy in relation to the region are becoming crucial for Russia in various areas of national security. Authors propagate that February 2022 is the inertia of the events of March 2014 and deeper, of the postponed crisis of 1991 caused by the disintegration of the USSR. However, it was the beginning of the special military operation that brought the military and political confrontation at the global and regional levels into the format of open confrontation. Russia has challenged the West and its system of allies.

This article delves into the dynamics of ethno-confessional factors influencing Russian-Turkish relations, exploring the Russian and Turkic worlds as geopolitical constructs within the Eurasian sphere. Employing a synthesis of critical and classical geopolitics methodologies, the study emphasizes the civilizational aspect as a pivotal element in the intricate interplay of competition and cooperation between Russia and Turkey in the Eurasian context. The research methodology integrates a civilizational perspective with critical geopolitics. The authors examine various strategies utilized by Turkey and Russia to implement ethnoconfessional policies in their quest for geopolitical influence. These strategies encompass the creation of narratives around 'fraternal nations', the promotion of shared historical, cultural, religious, linguistic, and heroic narratives; the cultivation of pro-Russian and pro-Turkish national elites; and the exploitation of ethno-national factors during domestic political crises. This analysis traces these phenomena from historical imperial contexts to contemporary interstate relations. Furthermore, the article underscores the significant impact of individual leadership in shaping the concept of the Turkic world, with a particular focus on the current President of the Turkish Republic, R.T. Erdogan. Erdogan is portrayed as a key figure actively advocating for and reinforcing the unity and identity of the Turkic world.

The mode of operation of the Black Sea or Turkish straits is again becoming a matter of international discussion following the clash of two globalization projects: the American Greater Black Sea region and the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, as well as Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine, which is primarily realized on the ground. Being the Black Sea straits a core object of international agreements between the World War I and the World War II, the Montreux Convention of 1936 secured the Black Sea from major naval clashes and accidents. The Convention, which is more than 85 years old, has the longest regime for regulating the passage of military and civilian ships through the Black Sea straits since 1783 and has reflected the geopolitical reality, in which the Black Sea littoral powers, which have been Türkiye and Russia for 240 years, have noticeable advantages over the navies of non-littoral powers. This provision contradicts the modern American aspirations to open the Black Sea region and the Black Sea - Caspian space for the military-political expansion of the United States and the coalition. The purpose of the article is to determine, on the basis of a discursive analysis, the goal-setting of the main geopolitical actors in relation to the Montreux Convention and to predict the possible transformations of the Black Sea region, which has become the center of a clash of interests of global and regional powers. The research methodology is based on the principles of systemic and interdisciplinary approaches to provide a combination of methods of political linguistics and geopolitical analysis and synthesis. The article examines the discourse of the leading actors of international relations around the Montreux Convention following the special military operation, which makes it possible to identify its transformations between the status quo or denunciation at the level of conceptual discussions. Türkiye traditionally balances between the interests of Russia and the West due to the role of a neutral “gatekeeper” of the straits, technologically applying Article 19 of the Convention, which so far fully meets the interests of Russia; while the USA shows a tendency to revise the Convention or circumvent it legally. Therefore, the Montreux Convention will remain at the center of public and real politics until the end of the formation of a new system of international relations that should ensure the stability of the development of the world for the next political era.

Introduction. Modern Russia and Türkiye are dynamically developing geopolitical centers actively participating in the formation of a new model of international relations. The purpose of the research is to determine how historical models and patterns of interaction of the two states have influenced on current cooperation and their possible clash in the near future and compare their main resource opportunities for obtaining the status of a power in the new world order. Materials and Methods. The study is carried out within the framework of the paradigms of classical geopolitics using system, geopolitical, civilizational and historical approaches. The authors consider the historical experience of Russian-Turkish relations in the form of the interaction of imperial systems. Results. It’s seen that although Russia and Türkiye can be seen as historical antagonists, their imperial nature is based on Eurasian spatial projects that influence their contemporary foreign policy. Despite the12 Russian-Turkish wars, the powers have never posed an existential threat to each other and have had unprecedented periods of political rapprochement, while at the same time they have faced the existential challenges from the united West. Now, having a significant space for cooperation in the economic and geopolitical sphere, Russia and Türkiye clash in three key regions: the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, the Black Sea region, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The central issue of interaction is the problem of the functioning of the Black Sea straits. The issue was updated after the start of the Special Military Operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, when Ankara, on the basis of the Montreux Convention, blocked the straits for all warships that benefits Russia. Discussion and Conclusion. The sovereign revival of Russia and Türkiye is a reason for an extremely unstable climate of bilateral relations, within which a positive agenda is currently being formed due to the personal factor of the two presidents: painful issues to be postponed for future. This state of affairs requires a qualitative scientific examination of the historical and political experience of the interaction of the two powers and modeling of future bilateral relations.

The article reveals the main methods of influence of Islamic states on the Crimean Tatars since the 1990 s. The object of the study is the policy of Islamic states in the post-Soviet space, the subject is the Crimean Tatar factor in the policy of Islamic states. After the repatriation of the Crimean Tatars to Crimea in the 1980 s, various subjects of international relations, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iran, etc., financed economic, socio-cultural, religious projects on the peninsula. The Republic of Turkey has had the most significant impact on the Crimean Tatars since the 1990 s in comparison with other Islamic states. Until 2014, Turkey carried out systematic work in relation to the Crimean Tatar ethnic group on the territory of Crimea. A significant role in the formation of the attractive image of the Turkish Republic for this ethnic group was played by: state structures of Turkey, representatives of business circles, the Crimean Tatar diaspora of Turkey, religious organizations and foundations, higher educational institutions of Crimea and Turkey, mass media. After the Crimea came under the jurisdiction of Russia in 2014, the work of Islamic states, including Turkish organizations on Crimean Tatar issues continued from the territory of Ukraine. Since the Crimean Tatar issue plays for Ankara one of the key roles in the system of checks and balances in cooperation with Russia.

In historical retrospect, the use of national issues and contradictions has repeatedly become the weakening mechanisms for some great powers in regard to others. In this case, various technologies to construct national myths and ideologies based on tribalism and national exclusiveness and superiority were applied. After the “Crimean spring” in 2014, the Crimean Tatar issue gained a new level of relevance. The Republic of Türkiye and Ukraine are actively using the Crimean Tatar factor to oppose the reintegration of Crimea into the Russian Federation and, consequently, to weaken Russia’s positions in the Black Sea and Mediterranean region. In the article the authors analyze the peculiarities of the influence of the Republic of Türkiye on the Crimean Tatars, as well as the Ukrainian initiatives in relation to the Crimean Tatars and joint Turkish-Ukrainian projects, with the target group consisting of the Crimean Tatars. The methodological basis of the research is system-based, geopolitical, civilizational and institutional approaches, which are implemented both directly and by using a number of general scientific and political science methods. The current policy of Türkiye and Ukraine on the Crimean Tatar issue has common features. Firstly, it is currently topical for the policy elites of these states, both at the domestic and international political levels. Under these circumstances, if the Crimean Tatar issue is an opportunity for Kiev to re-establish its jurisdiction over Crimea, then for Ankara the Crimean Tatar population helps to enlist the electoral support, as well as to consider Crimea and the Black Sea region as a Turkish sphere of influence. Secondly, the conditional Turkish-Ukrainian alliance presents itself as a “protector” of the Crimean Tatars from “Russian aggression.” Thirdly, Türkiye and Ukraine are projecting a positive state image by demonstrating protection of interests and observance of the Crimean Tatars rights on the territory of Russia. Fourthly, the actions of Türkiye and Ukraine in terms of the Crimean Tatar can be characterized as a double standard policy. This thesis is confirmed by the national policy of the Republic of Türkiye, and the approaches of Ukraine to the solution of the Crimean Tatar issue before the reunification of Crimea with Russia.

Introduction. The strengthening of Russia’s subjectivity in the Black Sea region makes it the center of the Western media and expert-analytical agenda. The authors of the study aim to define the mechanisms of metaphorical construction of the Black Sea region as a space of conflict in the discourse of the Western think tanks. Materials and Methods. The reports of the leading Western think tanks developing the region concept are used as research materials. The methodological basis of the study is a systematic approach that combines the methods of political linguistics and geopolitical analysis and synthesis. The authors use the methods of discourse analysis to interpret the materials of foreign think tanks devoted to the study of the region, and based on the definition of dominant metaphorical models in the discourse of the Black Sea region, consider possible scenarios for the leading actors in the region. Results. The narratives of the leading American, European and British think tanks are considered and the main metaphorical models characterizing the geopolitical processes in the region are highlighted. The American discourse is dominated by the sports metaphor and its subspecies associated with gambling: the region is perceived as a space of competition, but not war, as evidenced by the lack of military metaphor, which, however, appears in the narratives of the European experts. The Black Sea region is a platform, a springboard for the projection of Russian power in the Mediterranean, which is realized through metaphors with the component “aggressive”. For the British, the Black Sea region is metaphorized as a space of information warfare. Discussion and Conclusion. There are two main types of perception of the Black Sea region as a geopolitical unit by the Western think tanks: the American think tanks see it as a space of global competition of the great powers; the Great Britain has made the Black Sea region a platform for a return to the global arena of Global Britain by drawing on the rhetoric of universal values. The materials of the article and the methodology may be useful for information and analytical support of the foreign policy of the Western countries and for design of response from part of Russia under the condition of intensification of contest of the main Black Sea region actors