1. All over the world, the true civil society structures come into being spontaneously, voluntary, as they say in America, spring out of ‘grass roots’, i.e. are born from the very midst of the popular life. In our country, this sometimes happens too, when, for example, the deceived depositors or stakeholders rally for a while; though, upon achieving some results or, more often, having not achieved them, these groups would break up - more often because of despair, weariness, and hopelessness. Thus, the civil society structures rooted in spontaneity of their occurrence, are notable, especially in our country, for their brittleness, fragility.
2. It would be wrong to see the cause of occurrence and development of the civil society just in many-century-old development of the history; it is the modern civilization that have experienced, as was shown, the processes of impetuous civilizational transformations. To add – the civil society concepts are quite often postulating spontaneity, voluntariness of occurrence as the characteristics of its structures. Here, the modern history brings about its corrective amendments, too, in the sense that forming up the civil society might not as well proceed just spontaneously, but, in some of its part, develop according to a plan of its formation, which is to be implemented with the participation of the state - including such to which realization will be - though certainly together with ‘the public’.
3. In the ‘living world’ and by the Russian social scientists, some valuable and important particular suggestions have already been offered that may assist more intensive processes of the civil society formation in our country. To add to the before said general tendencies and opportunities, I am going to further consider a number of more specific objectives of forming up the civil society in Russia, leaning on the literature to the subject and adding my own suggestions and ideas.

1. The world financial and the economic crisis to a great degree negatively affect the economic situation in the CIS countries. The crisis influence force varies from one the CIS country economy to another and depends upon the degree of their integration into global economy, the state of their financial and bank systems, and their stock market. Thus, it is quite clear, that it is not possible to develop the integration processes within the Commonwealth, in the interests of the member-countries, relying on modernizing its instruments and mechanisms, as it had been suggested before.
2. In the process of globalization, the regional states may take in just those efforts of the leading countries that secure solving the problems of primacy with no damage to the political mentality of the countries with lower level of social and economic development, poor countries. There is enough justice in such a statement, “the political dignity is also the ethnic and national self-determination, religious self-consciousness”; and all this in the world where sharp awareness of economic, racial and ethnic inequality has become universal.
3. Building up common mechanisms of financial stability in the countries of Commonwealth could not help resulting in bringing the foreign policy objectives together, in transformation of all the system of the relations of partnership into these of alliance, based on community of ends and tasks of political and economic development, geostrategic and national interests. This is to be provided for, primarily, by the Strategy of the CIS Economic Development up to 2020, adopted by the CIS heads of Governments in last November. The very fact proves, that the countries of Commonwealth have an understanding of their common vector in economic development. Nowadays, the draft plan of implementing the Strategy’s first stage of 2009-13 is being worked out.

1. The problem is, the political technologies, with their function to adapt the political system to the needs of the society, as a rule, in most rational and effective ways serve the interests of the limited circle of political actors, undermining the principles of social justice and, hence, the true legitimacy. In the systems built according to the Liberalist ideas, the formation of the socio-political order is seen as spontaneous movement, as some free mutually advantageous exchange, ruled by ‘an invisible hand of the market’ (economic and political), as the spontaneity ordered by necessity of the coordination of interests only.
2. Speaking of the relations of ruling, it is impossible to exclude the moment of legitimacy of such political order by which the interests of some would be satisfied in the same measure than the interests of others. Political technologies in this context are used as the instrument of manipulating political behavior of the masses, becoming the means to legitimize political events, actions, projects that break the principles of social justice.
3. If there is needed political will, based upon the ideas of social justice, available, political technologies can be used to serve the truly democratic values. The idea of gradual social engineering, which ties up the knowledge of action structure, its technology, with predictability of result, guided by the assumption of regularity, norm-conformity of the social reality, cannot secure the final barrier in the way of irrational political practices.

1. More people die of starvation not because of short-term food stuff missing, but because of long-term underfeeding brought in by poverty. That is, indeed, the true reason of starvation death of millions people! Poverty and famine are inseparably put into irons which, at least, a billion people have to carry today, that is, each the sixth human-being on the Earth. And half of the planet’s populace have no balanced dietary intake containing necessary nourishments to live healthy valuable life, that, certainly, affects their physical and intellectual development.
2. Inequality of income distribution existed, since the early days of civilization, when man by man exploitation came into existence. And this truth is known to everybody for a long time. Hence, there was a purely practical conclusion: to put an end to the famine it is necessary to eliminate the social regime when some men exploit others. Private property on the means of production is to be terminated, except for that which serves one’s own work. But solving this everlasting problem which belongs to the economic sphere is being hampered by the political problem.
3. So, if to be separated from unneeded verbal chaff, the true reasons for growing foodstuffs scarcity are exposed - the US currency policy; structural changes in agricultural crops production in favor of the ethanol, strengthened by corresponding stimulating financial levers under the conditions of tight domestic food markets in the developed countries; and, of course, speculative operations in a rush for the maximal profit.

1. As the conflict in the South Ossetia proved, the policy of balancing on the brink of war Saakashvili used in his relations with the rebellious regions has gone in the past forever. Still, the Kremlin has not met its major goal in this war as well – the war was not resulted in Saakashili overthrowing. Besides, it became obvious that the completion of the "hot" stage of the conflict would be followed with the West’s making everything possible to protect Tbilisi against the threat from outside.
2. To prove its right to carry out some independent policy Moscow needed a convincing victory, an impressive move towards any the CIS member-state, even under the condition of unpredictability of the reaction on the part of the West. Russia were to demonstrate to these states that the USA would be of no help to them, while Russia, having overcome its many-year disregard of the international problems, was willing to stand for its interests within the post-Soviet space.
3. The Caucasian conflict has also shown the geopolitical possibilities of the three major players, the EU, Russia, and the USA. At their dramatic divergences in motivations and interests, the behavior of the parties during the conflict predetermined to some degree those changes in the world alignment of forces that give ground to some suggestions on how the multi-polar world is to come functioning in the future, at least, as far as the European dimension is concerned.

1. Today's financial and economic crisis of the West-bound system and structural regionalization of certain markets (South America, Eurasia), being the manifestations of re-dividing the planet into larger geopolitical spaces (multipolarity), accelerate a decline of the necessary nation and oppose globalization. This process, firmly based on the principle of economic interdependence, in the mid-term perspective might be displaced by a process of continental regionalization that is closely connected with the principle of augmentability.
2. The markets’ regionalization in the two hemispheres of the planet that, until recently, was closely tied up with the process of globalization and, most important, integrally followed geopolitical doctrines of the world supremacy, which were the US policy guidelines for the several decades, now seem increasingly evolve towards larger continental formations and promote, in the mid-term perspective, the geopolitical integration of extensive self-sufficient spaces.
3. The principle of globalization and adherence to the world economic interdependence at the planetary level, is being displaced by the principle of augmentability, being the new basis for rallying the variety of economies at a continental level with due respect to the specifics and cultural traditions of various nations of the world. The 21st century, in the scales of all-planet economy, would be noted by the contradiction between the globalization and the processes aimed at forming the continental spaces economically supplementing each other.

1. There has been an important recent shift in American discussions about nuclear policy, away from an exclusive emphasis on stopping other states from acquiring nuclear weapons to a focus on the creation a new nuclear order in which all the nuclear powers to move to eliminate nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament has moved to the center of the policy debate alongside nuclear nonproliferation..
2. Those who advocate the elimination of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear nonproliferation has to be accompanied by nuclear disarmament. A nuclear order based on discrimination – with some countries possessing nuclear weapons and others denied the right to have them – will not work over the long term. It will not be legitimate in the eyes even of those states that do not wish to have nuclear weapons. They may be less willing to sustain and enforce a discriminatory nuclear regime than a regime in which nuclear weapons are prohibited altogether.
3.  The United States and Russia possess about 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons. Cooperation between them is therefore vital if the world is to move toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. Only if the two countries can agree on a vision of a shared future will it be possible to take the first steps on the path toward the elimination of nuclear weapons. Relations between the two countries are, however, at a low point, with signs that we are on the verge of a nuclear arms race. The US-Russian relationship needs therefore to be put on a new footing. The goal of nuclear disarmament could form the basis for a security dialogue.

1. Just as crisis in economy has forced even the most conservative world players to recognize necessity of emergency measures on coordination of interstate efforts, changing all architecture of world economic system, crisis of system of the non-distribution, provoked by actions of a management of Iran, demands creation of the of "system of fast reaction». The working group top-level, at the first stage - with participation of a management of the USA and Russia, with the subsequent joining of the European Union, for counteraction to nuclear terrorism can become its basis.
2. It is time to stop, masking the destructive purposes and intentions by beautiful phrases, to oppose one people to another, in whatever part of the world these people were – in Europe, the USA, Russia or the Near East. Consecutive following to this course, finally, will lead to such changes in a management of the countries and the movements provoking collisions with neighbors which will make possible a peace exit of the outlined and begun crises today resolved with application of force.

1. The scenario approach is known to be a necessary component of the strategic foreign policy planning. Scenario thinking enables to rather effectively control tens of the major factors influencing development of crises and conflicts. As a rule, a man is capable to simultaneously operate with 5 to 7 factors only. Besides, the scenario approach allows to substantially improve selection and the analysis of event catenae. Finally, having an appropriate scenario is the necessary prerequisite for developing the strategic thinking, applying the reflective strategies, game models, etc. in dynamic conflict zones, such as, for instance, the Middle East.
2. As it is known, since the mid-1950s, the balance of forces in the Middle East was determined, primarily, by the antagonism between the USSR and USA. Later on, when Russia gave up protecting its strategic interests, the balance of forces in the Middle East has been destroyed. For almost two decades, the United States did had a sort of global carte blanche to put its Mid-Eastern strategy into practice. But Washington failed to put the whole under its control. Moreover, the American Mid-Eastern policy has led to substantial strengthening of the political Islam in the region.
3. In the past 5 to 7 years, the fundamentally new balance of forces has finally established and boldly enough structured in the Middle East. The basic confrontational line divides two de facto brought into being military-political unions opposing each other. On the one hand, it is the so-called Northern Alliance - Iran, Syria, HAMAS, Hezbollah. It is opposed by the so-called Pro-Western Coalition - the USA, Israel, Egypt, the Palestinian Autonomy Administration. To some or another extent, the first alliance are supported by Russia, China, Turkey, Libya, Qatar, Algeria, Sudan, Venezuela, Bolivia, as well as hundreds anti-globalist and thousands of Muslim organizations and movements all over the world. The second alliance are in touch with the majority of the NATO member-states.

1. The forthcoming June 2009 presidential elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran have prompted Iran’s political classes and the Iranian society to actively discuss the outcomes of the policy by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and brought in a series of speculations about the country’s future after the elections. Those opposing M. Ahmadinejad criticize his rigid course in the foreign policy and suggest, that if the 2005 presidential elections had resulted in some more moderate leader coming to power in the country, Iran could have followed the road of democratic transformations. Others think, that, thanks to M. Ahmadinejad’s unshakable policy, Iran has managed to firmly establish itself as a regional superpower and to keep its independence in promotion of the country’s nuclear program.
2. To put the American-Iranian relations right demands both parties to concede. First of all, that means changing approaches to the Iranian nuclear program, removing political and economic sanctions against Iran, and terminating the information war against IRI and attempts to isolate it in the international arena. As for Iran, it means a more moderate leader coming up after the 2009 presidential elections, expanding economic and cultural relations with the Western countries. But the settlement of the conflicts in the Middle East does not seem possible, while there if mistrust between the states in the region, especially between Iran and a number of the Arab countries.
3. At the same time, it is unlikely, even if the leaderships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia had changed, these states would have been quick to get rid of cooperation with the USA in military-political and economic spheres. The elites in these Arab states are so strong adhered to the USA militarily and economically that will long see it as their main partner and the guarantor of the safety of their own regimes. In any case, the beginning of normalizing the American-Iranian relations would serve the interests of the US allies in the Europe, as well as those of China and Russia that stand for strengthening stability and security in the Middle East region and seek after equal right access to the Mid-Eastern energy resources.