The emergence of multilateral initiative states and integration associations of the world, including the “Belt and road” of China, the “Greater Eurasian Partnership” of the Russian Federation, the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific Region” of the USA and Japan, the “Global Gateway” of the EU is an element of the rivalry between the mentioned powers. Within the system of international relations, this trend creates a complex interdependence among States with a different position in the global socio-political and economic hierarchy. Comparing multilateral initiatives represents a relatively new and promising research topic. The authors examine the convergence or divergence of separate multilateral initiatives by an assessment of the trends in income inequality among participating States. The income inequality is obtained through a calculation of cross-border Gini index for GDP per capita.

The research conclusions are following. First, the presence of the authors revealed multilateral initiatives in cooperation with developing groups in all major states - development centers and details of such projects by the PRC, USA, Russian Federation, Japan and EU. Second, the elements of goal-setting and in the composition of the participants lead to a conclusion that multilateral initiatives of great powers at the same time constitutes an example of both power projection and complex interdependence typical to the periods of globalization trend in the evolution of international relations.

Furthermore, the study results showed that the rising powers Russia and China, alongside Japan – a traditional power – have less inequality and better convergence rates within their multilateral initiatives. The US initiative has the highest level of inequality, but there is a convergence. The EU initiative has both a high inequality and the minimal dynamic convergence.

Thus, the approach used by the authors to assess the inequality and convergence of multilateral initiatives based on the calculation of the cross-border Gini index demonstrates comparative inequality with sufficient completeness and characterizes the processes of convergence and divergence of multilateral initiative.

The article analyzes changes in the foreign policy of the Republic of Korea regarding the Arctic, namely the factors and reasons prompting Seoul to consider the Northern Sea Route as the main logistics route for the supply of goods, as well as the benefits of strengthening cooperation with the Russian Federation in this area. The main factors increasing the importance of the Northern Sea Route for the Republic of Korea embrace the dependence of the Korean economy on foreign trade, the geopolitical situation (difficulties in relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the aggravation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the situation in the Middle East as a whole), the need to reduce delivery period and other transaction costs, and the rise in the cost of deliveries along traditional routes. The author assesses the impact of Western anti-Russian sanctions on the implementation of projects in the Arctic, including the construction of icebreakers, the development of routes, etc. The article also compares the interests of Russia, the Republic of Korea and other Arctic states in the development of the Northern Sea Route, which is mutually beneficial.

Since the second half of the 20th century, issues related to the provision of water resources have become of paramount importance for the countries of the Greater Middle East. First of all, this is due to the fact that against the backdrop of a continuous increase in demand for a vital resource, there is almost no publicly available alternative.

The water crisis in Iran has become a national problem over the past 10 years. Against this background, the country’s leadership is forced to defend its rights to the joint use of transboundary water resources in a more stringent manner. At the same time, while with some neighboring states problems of joint water use began to appear relatively recently, with Afghanistan water disputes over the re-sources of the Helmand River already have a history of more than a century and a half. During this time, the countries have managed to accumulate many contradictions, which still do not allow them to find a way out of the current situation that suits each of the parties.

The author concludes that the current situation with the distribution of water resources of the transboundary Helmand River does not suit either side. While Iran, located in the lower reaches of the river, is in a clearly losing position, Afghanistan can use its advantageous geographical position to advance its own interests. The situation around the dispute between Iran and Afghanistan over water resources is extremely unstable and has the potential for a sharp aggravation. The problem, fueled by historical contradictions and other factors discussed in the article, is acquiring critical status for both countries, and its further ignoring might lead to an aggravation of the conflict.

The purpose of this article is to describe the geopolitical structure of the Middle East and analyze the factors that hinder the formation of a regional subsystem. Among the key reasons for the immaturity of the regional subsystem of international relations in the Middle East, the author highlights the absence of a leading state or organization capable of becoming the core of the subsystem, the lack of desire among regional entities to act on the basis of common interests, as well as the absence of an inclusive regional identity due to cultural and ethnic heterogeneity, the presence of conflicts, as well as other chronic security problems (terrorism, etc.). Integration initiatives capable of drawing the region into a subsystem are also currently experiencing a crisis. The author argues that the Middle East is rather an international political space where intercultural, political, economic and other interactions take place without political unity. Three possible scenarios for the development of relations between regional centers of power in the process of forming a regional subsystem are given.

National projects in the post-Ottoman space drew scholarly attention with the growth and institutionalization of political activity of ethnic minorities in Iraq and Syria, which was caused by the US operation in Iraq (2003) and the events of the Arab Spring. Is there a place for minorities, the largest of which are the Kurds, in the national projects of these countries? On the analysis of the Turkish and Arab versions of nationalism, it is shown that initially they have features of both the French (civil) and German (ethnic) models of nationalism and imply the implementation of minority rights subject to the acceptance of the majority culture.

However, according to the constructivist approach, a civic component is expected to develop. This shift occurred in the Iraqi version of nationalism when the democratic constitution of 2005 granted minorities administrative-territorial (Kurds) or cultural (Turkomans, Assyrians) autonomy. Changes towards the recognition of the cultural rights of the Kurds have also been recorded in Turkey. In Syria, the ruling elite still adheres to the ideas of Arab nationalism, however, many Syrian opposition organizations are ready to recognize the multi-ethnic character of the Syrian nation, thus the Syrian national narrative is also becoming more complex.