| Аннотация | In May 2016, analyzing the interim results of the third presidential term of V.V. Putin, as well as the National Security Strategy, signed by the head of state on December 31, 2015, we have concluded that “the contradictions existing today in the public administration system are a natural result of the President’s activities” related to the unresolved task of “bringing the interests of the elites in line with the national security interests” (Source: Ilyin V.A. President Vladimir Putin’s third four-year term: contradictory outcomes – an expected result. Economic and social changes: facts, trends, forecast, 2016, no. 2 (44). pp. 9–21). Five years later, in the middle of 2021, a number of internal and external political events (including the new National Security Strategy signed by the President of the Russian Federation on July 2, 2021) again actualizes the question of the need to analyze the key changes that have occurred in the country during this period. How have the Russian society and the public administration system changed? What conceptual problems are still unresolved? And the most important: what role can the current trends in the development of the state and society play in the context of ensuring Russia’s national security, taking into account the current situation in the domestic and foreign political arena by the middle of 2021? The following material reflects the authors’ point of view on these issues. Based on expert assessments, data of official statistics, and Russian and regional sociological studies, the article analyzes the essence and prospects for the implementation of specific provisions of the National Security Strategy 2021. The authors come to the conclusion that the Strategy objectively reflects the current position of Russia in the domestic and foreign political arena by the middle of 2021, while its key points are aimed at a long-term perspective and are focused primarily on strengthening moral component of the Russian elites and Russian society. This causes positive feelings, but at the same time, based on the analysis of the previous experience in achieving strategic goals and objectives set out in the “May decrees” and national projects, it leaves conflicting expectations about the realism of their practical implementation. |
|---|
