1. The distinctive feature of the emerging crisis is the acknowledgement of the Marxism common truth on objective regularity of socialization of the capitalist economy, though, nowadays, not just within the boundaries of certain national economies, but globally as well. Manifestations of this are seen practically in all the countries involved to some extent into the world economic crisis, where the policy of the state proactive intervention into the private business sector is being followed. It could not be otherwise, for the capital is the collective product created by the work of all society, rather than the result of individual entrepreneurs’ amateur performance. The capitalist reproduction is a dynamical system and its working capacities are directly depended upon state regulation.
2. In the world economy, it is marked the steady tendency of increasing China’s influence and, simultaneously, declining that of the USA. China shows high rates of growth of the national economy under the conditions of crisis and difficulties with exporting its goods. The Chinese leadership has timely worked our measures to counteract the crisis negative impact on the economy of the country. In particular, the Peoples Republic of China Chairman, Hu Tszintao, has called all the authorities to the needy implementation of the program of intensification of the domestic consumption, activization of monetary policy, the further reforming the model of economic development.
3. The time for some cardinal changes has not ripened yet, unfortunately. The world is still under the dominance of the OECD states, or the so-called ‘gold billion’, that save no efforts to defend the interests of the capitalist system of management. And although the objective prerequisites for formation change have already quite ripened in many countries, the level of individual and collective consciousness, as well as the morals, the political organization of the masse, unfortunately, are not favorable to raise the peoples willingness to act resolutely. Still, there can be no doubt, that the current crisis will make many people to see scandalous practices being done on our planet, that being its positive role. It is not vainly said, that every cloud has a silver lining! That is the dialectics of historical process.

1. The ideology of the state in crisis, obviously, ought to radically differ from the ideology and ideological work of the state in normal circumstances. PR-activity had chance to substitute the real policy only under the conditions of endless outside dollar injections into the economy. Now, there has to be the policy of truth, the dialogue with the people about hardships, their possible consequences and the ways of their overcoming. Now, the leaders of the country ought to more and more often visit the areas stricken by the crisis, to be closer to the common man.
2. The populace trust to the people in power might be preserved, only if the society would be aware, that the crisis troubles and hardships were being equally allocated throughout all the strata of the population, that the rich had something to lose, something to waive, too. To preserve the populace trust to the authorities, it has to be done what these authorities, by various reasons, paid less attention to before - to more actively fight the drug addiction, the children homelessness, the crime, and, finally, the corruption.
3. The current crisis, with the properly checked work done by the ideological machinery and our mass media, may facilitate a healthier moral and psychological environment in Russia. One cannot help seeing that the high-oil-prices-epoch freebie had corrupted not just the business estate, the officialdom, but Russia’s whole population as well. In Russia, lately, the manual labor has been fully depreciated, and, uppermost, the labor in the real sector of economy.

1. Financial and the economic crisis which begun in the USA and has instantly extended for the whole world, threatens to address global system crisis. Its influence and on a political climate of a planet is doubtless. And, nevertheless, political and military components of global crisis remain as though aside, all attention of "mighty of this world" is concentrated to the finance and economy. The initiative of Russian president D.Medvedev about working out of the new contract on the European safety, put forward by it at OSCE summit in June and concretised in Eviane in October, 2008 while, unfortunately, does not find serious support.
2. It is necessary to reflect seriously on a place of Russia in a new world order developing today, Transpacific relations, and about our strategic line on long-term prospect can become the main bearing which support. Whether the role of "a weak link», clamped between western and east transoceanic communities threatens Russia?

1. Europe’s future is to be envisaged as some bipolar pattern for the European Continent, as an inter-civilization dialogue between West-European and East-European traditions. Charles de Gaulle's famous formula of ‘Europe - from Atlantic to the Urals’ is to be transformed into the Greater Bipolar Europe project, the alliance between Russia and the true continental Europe, supplementing each other. These principles are expedient to build the Council of Europe activity upon. The East-European countries, being the Council of Europe member-states, are to uphold their own civilization identity rights.
2. The foundation of the all-European security cannot be built on the basis of NATO under the US leadership. The Western Europe has to get rid of its role of the American vassal at the Continent, while Russia has to give up its totalitarian way of thinking. The geopolitical Berlin - Paris - Moscow - Rome axis serves as an important basis for all-European security. Within the Continent’s economic space, it is expedient to create the European Union – East-European community geo-economical axis, with a Strasbourg of its own. Nowadays, the creation of the ‘East-European Union’ finds some supporters in the European Parliament, as well.
3. In Europe, the critical fatal boundary has run between the new EU member-states’ desire to live beyond their means in hope for the "proper" elder brother and the nature of the Western expansion, where the economic killing plays a major role. The international financial institutions, where the Americans and Europeans play the leading part, are willing enough to give credits that, as a result of bankruptcy, have to be paid off in kind – with material and other resources. Russia was the first country of the former Socialist Camp to sober itself up from the thoughtless yearning for the West’s rich "paunch". What is left to be done is to rationally dispose of our own riches and ignite the creative human energy.

1. The venturesome US policy in Georgia, the deep both financial and economic crisis that staggered the whole Western world, have definitively revealed inability of the United States to control the modern history course. The models of contemporary world order based on contraposition - the East-the West; the North-the South, the Center–the Fringe – do not seem working any more for the geopolitical scenarios of the future. The multi-polar approach towards alliances and conflicts between the world scene actors allows us to geographically point out the Latin America and Eurasia as the major centers of the new world order.
2. It has to be noticed, however, that the decline of the unipolar world under the US aegis is by no means an evidence of the end of the Washington hegemony, its presence, including the military one, is being kept at the vast territory of our planet. The new geopolitical forces will have to confront this, now diminishing, hegemony, for years. Compared to the past, such hegemony, it should be specially stressed, is, perhaps, even more dangerous to the international stability precisely because of its unsteadiness and vulnerability. That is why, to maintain it Washington and the Pentagon have to hardly keep the balance, as the Georgian conflict has so evidently shown.
3. To confront the USA, or, in other words, to find reasonable and weighed decisions that would decrease the risk of troubleshooting on the planet without some new turmoil China and Russia have to proceed from the assumption that the ex-superpower, though being the ‘confused nation’, today, is still the geopolitical unit of the continental scale, the master of its own coastal territories. With its Navy and Marine Fleets still going strong, this nation is still everywhere-ever-present actor, whenever ‘the game of chess’ is going to be played on the planet.

1. Practically lacking the economic inter-augmentability and juxtaposition of economic interests prevent India from active participation in all-Asian integration. Moreover, the Republic tends to restricting the outer ties of those countries for which it has real levers of pressure. Under these conditions, in the foreseeable future, India, while continuing to develop economic interrelations, would give special value to cultural-civilization, military-political, and, primarily, political relations. The Asian giant’s prospects are good enough, in view of increasingly more countries in the region are coming to positively perceive India.
2. In general, the East Asia becomes India’s more important political and economic partner. The Republic’s economic ties with the states in the region are being actively strengthened, though still are at rather a low level. Thus, India - Japan economic relations are, in main, of political character, rather than have any real economic background. This is much to do with the India’s marked focus on the domestic market that predetermines certain economic isolation of the country. The Asian giant has no developed complimentary interdependence with the neighbor-states.
3. In general, it is China that is to play a key role in building up the Greater East Asia. At that, the policy followed by the USA and Japan would have the proportional impact to the effect of transforming the macro-region. At present, Russia’s positions are not strong enough (mainly, due to lack of understanding the priority ranking of developing ties with Asia), though it has rather high potential, and its Far Eastern and East-Siberian economic regions have already been integrated into Asia, their economic ties with Asia are closer than those with the European Russia. As far as India concerns, it might well become the second big actor in the Greater East Asia in the long run.

1. The European Union expansion of the last four years, has stimulated tendencies already existed before: towards regionalization, towards strengthening the principle of subsidiary, and towards activating the special policy of neighborhood. Strengthening of these tendencies should be viewed as the reaction to formation of increasingly more bulky and less transparent association.
2. There are two financial instruments the European Union uses to develop the member-states regions. Both are being used within the frameworks of implementing the Lisbon Strategy approved at the Summit of European heads of states and governments in March 2000, in Portugal’s capital. The strategy points out to transforming the European Union into the most competitive and dynamically developing on the basis of economy of knowledge region in the world, in ten-year-period of time, i.e. up by 2010. Based on this strategy, the EU is planning "within the frameworks of solving the global problem of maintaining the steady development, to become the etalon of economic, social, and ecological progress for the whole world."
3. The European Union is the association unprecedented in history, with the population of 500 million, founded according to the principle of "unity in variety". Despite of all the complexity and length of the coordinating positions procedures, the 27 states, among which there are no commanding ones due to their sizes or influence, nevertheless, have been able to come to common solutions, quite often based on consensus. Various interests of the certain countries are being taken into consideration. Still, they know, that no state can be in opposition to all the rest for a long time, thus damaging the Union’s legal capacity. Various forms of regional cooperation show, that the European Union is not a unitary community.

1. As it seemed, there would have been no use to discuss establishing some sovereign Kurdish state, when the situation in the Near and Middle East region has been really so strained. Still, we are informed, “the Kurds are planning to make the world community grant them the status of the subject of confederation in all the four countries of their compact residing, thus putting claim for the territory of about 500 thousand sq. km”. This, one suggests, might have been possible just under the conditions of the general reformatting the political map of the areal, changing constitutions and state structure of the above mentioned countries.
2. “The Kurdish question”, obviously, might have been solved more satisfactorily with terminating the socio-political discrimination of the Kurds and granting them the opportunities to develop their national culture. It is not excluded also their gaining the rights and authorities for an autonomy within the frameworks of the federal, confederative or weakly-bound state structure of the soft confederation type.
3. In various periods of history, “the Kurdish trump card” has been expertly played by many influential world "players" - the Great Britain, the Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union. While the representatives of the Kurdish ethnos themselves played rather insignificant and, by large, the dependent and subordinated role in many political and geopolitical processes in the Near and Middle East.

1. During cold war the strategic concept of the NATO represented the document limited on the subjects focused on military aspects of planning, the organization and expansion of armies. The plan of times of cold war answered necessity of carrying out of fast military operations in reply to aggression as prospective scenarios of development of conflicts did not leave time for an estimation of variants and revision of strategy. After 1990 the document has turned to (as it then named) the declaration on the primary goals of an alliance.
2. President Obama would like, that by the NATO was easier entered in partnership frameworks. In this case the NATO should aspire co-operate more effectively with any partner (including the states, the international organizations and not state structures) which can promote success of peace-making operations within the limits of the universal approach uniting military tools with political and economic resources. The only thing that can prevent realization of this tendency, is a strengthening of fears that one or several allies on the NATO can face considerable growth of threat of their territorial integrity, political independence and safety.

1. The alliance is evolving: it is a comprehensive security provider that must consider a range of threats to its member states. These threats, which include energy security, are widely accepted as threats by both the international and national policy making and academic communities – yet there is a reluctance among many to accept a role for NATO in addressing them.
2. The proposed agenda for a NATO role in energy security is widely misunderstood and subject to considerable speculation, almost entirely negative. Too often, such a role is oversimplified and understood to be an either/or response – either the EU or NATO should deal with energy security. Too often NATO involvement is considered a simple military response – “boots on the ground”. And too often such speculation, driven by uncertainty about the alliance’s actual intentions, is exacerbated by an advanced but unrealistic agenda. Yes, it is important to have a strategic horizon, even a provocation to discuss, but such an agenda should not wholly overshadow the nature of the current agenda. Such signals are all important, given that they create the international context in which the alliance works.
3. The alliance has encountered the same difficulties as other organizations, national and international, in discussing energy security. In defining its role in energy security, the alliance faces two parallel debates centering on the definition of the term “disruption”. For NATO, given the nature of its enlarged composition and consensus nature of its decision-making – and thus the definition of its role, this is key. Understanding the different definitions of the word is central to grasping both the two roots of energy discussions in NATO and the difficulties of achieving consensus on a NATO role; it is central to understanding the tension between whether the alliance seeks a wider thematic and constructive role or the more focused, regional, and potentially confrontational role.