2024 Issue №2

The article examines the intangible factors of U.S. influence in Latin American and Caribbean countries and the U.S. ability to utilize them in the context of the entertainment industry at the present stage. The aim of the study is to determine the role and assess these factors, considered through examples of cinema, streaming service content, and the video game industry. The author adopted a constructivist approach and employed the method of statistical data analysis from open sources. A comparative method was used to identify common trends in the examined sectors of the entertainment industry in the context of the U.S. intangible influence and to provide a forecast regarding the extent of this influence in the medium term. The use of intangible tools of influence in the studied area represents an attempt by the U.S. to maintain and strengthen its position as a regional leader in the era of global great power competition. The author concludes that the cultural influence of the U.S. in these sectors of the entertainment industry is predominant compared to the capabilities of other countries in the region, and the available resources allow for the shaping of new norms for the youth of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

Eurasianism is among the traditional and most significant intellectual-political currents for Russia and its geostrategy. The importance of the postulates and approaches cultivated within Eurasianism has notably increased in the context of the sharply manifested conflict in the “Russia-West“ system in recent years and the corresponding reorientation of the Russian Federation’s geoeconomic priorities towards the countries of the “Global Majority.“ The actualization of Eurasianism and its broad entrenchment in Russian academic discourse is combined with its contemporary conceptual “fuzziness,“ variability of interpretations, and the presence of deep contradictions and problematic areas inherent to Eurasian ideological concepts, which the author conceptualizes as “dichotomies of Eurasianism.“ The article emphasizes the essential duality of Eurasianism, combining elements of verifiable scientific knowledge with ideological principles, allowing it to be considered a unique form of geo-ideology. It identifies substantive differences between the positions of classical Eurasianism (works of N. S. Trubetskoy, P. N. Savitsky, G. V. Vernadsky, etc.) and the prevailing directions of Eurasianism in the 21st century (“neo-Eurasianism,“ concepts of “Greater Eurasia,“ “Northern Eurasia“). The simultaneous presence of universalism (on an all-Russian and continental scale) and pronounced “Russia-centricity,“ as well as the combination of geoeconomic and geocultural isolationism with a strong integrative message across nations and countries, inherent in Eurasianism, are demonstrated. The necessity for the further development of Eurasianism, including within the framework of social geography issues, is substantiated.

The ethnopolitical movement of the Sámi in the Arctic region is examined through significant events in its development, including during Russia’s special military operation in Ukraine. The author attempts to assess the current stage of the movement’s development and justify factors of its stagnation, proposing potential positive change scenarios based on the analysis of leading scholarly works in ethnopolitics and international relations, as well as open official internet resources of international organizations and periodical news publications. As a result, the author suggests considering five main stages in the development of the Sámi ethnopolitical movement against the backdrop of gradual formation of close international cooperation and cross-­border interaction among the countries where this indigenous Arctic people reside. It is identified that the collective West’s sanction policy against Russia negatively impacts the national consciousness of the Sámi people and the status of unity, which is unequivocally ignored by their own political leaders, leading the ethnopolitical movement to acute stagnation. This crisis is proposed to be seen as an opportunity to rethink the long historical journey of the Sámi towards relative political autonomy within the framework of pan-­Sámi policy.’