| Annotation |
The article analyzes the approaches of Western and Eastern political scientists in the study of political reality in Mongolia. The relevance of the work lies in the fact that the concept of “political reality” in general and in relation to Mongolia in particular was not previously considered in Russian scientific thought. The works of foreign and domestic political scientists-Mongol scholars mainly concerned the study of political processes in this country. A comparative analysis of the information base accumulated by representatives of Western and Eastern scientific thought makes it possible to identify problematic points when Russian scientists refer to it.
Considering the question of the position of Western political scientists to the study of Mongolian political reality, it is necessary, first of all, to compare the development of scientific thought on political issues in the countries of the West and the East. Taking into account the main warring parties in the Mongolian political arena, without belittling the role of the Russian Federation in the region, it is advisable to focus on the comparison of the development of political thought in the United States and China, which is what the article is devoted to.
Western researchers are now studying Mongolia no longer as an object of political interests, but as a subject of revolutionary actions. When developing the question of political reality in Mongolia, Western Mongol scholars adhere to the egocentric concept of democracy in relation to Mongolia. Chinese political scientists mainly consider the Mongolian issue from the point of view of potential threats to the sovereignty of their country, including taking into account the active actions of the United States to restrain China’s foreign policy in the region.
In general, in the analysis of Western and Eastern researchers of the late XIX – early XX centuries, the political role of Mongolia was underestimated. However, a source base of empirical research was prepared, which formed the conditions for further study of this country as an object of political processes. At the same time, Mongolia is often considered as an integral part of Inner Asia, which includes both Mongolia itself and the Russian Altai, the Republics of Buryatia and Tyva, as well as the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of the People’s Republic of China. All this actualizes the need to develop the problem of the Mongolian political reality |
| References |
1. Van Chentszyuan’. Akademiya MID KNR (Wang Chengjuan. Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China), 2011, рр. 37–42.
2. Garmayeva I. B. Vestnik BNTS SO RAN ( Garmaeva IB Bulletin of the BNTs SB RAS), 2011, no. 4. 96 p.
3. Gol’man M. I. Sovremennaya Mongoliya v otsenkakh zapadnykh avtoro (Modern Mongolia as assessed by Western Authors). Moscow: IV RAN, 2009,192 p.
4. Lyu Shumey. Sovremennyye mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya (Contemporary international relations), 2009, no. 4, р. 47.
5. Mikhalev A. V. Yevraziystvo i mir (Eurasianism and the world), 2013, no. 1, рp. 126–137.
6. Rodionov V. A. Politicheskiy protsess v sovremennoy Mongolii v kontekste postsotsialisticheskikh transformatsiy (Political process in modern Mongolia in the context of post-socialist transformations). Moscow: Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, 2018, 359 p.
7. Rodionov V. A. Rossiya i Mongoliya: novaya model’ otnosheniy V nachale XXI veka (Russia and Mongolia: a new model of relations at the beginning of the XXI century) Ulan-Ude: Publishing house of BNTs SO RAN, 2009, 228 p.
8. U TSzyaychzhen. Zhurnal Instituta inostrannykh yazykov NOAK (Journal of the PLA Institute of Foreign Languages), 2007, no. 4, p. 120.
9. Fan Khua. Sovremennyye mezhdunarodnyye otnosheniya (Contemporary international relations), 2006, no. 7, p. 21.
10. Yan Syaoyan’. Zhurnal Sel’skokhozyaystvennogo universiteta ARVM KNR (Journal of the Agricultural University ARVM of the PRC), 2009, no. 4, p. 325–326.
11. Campi A. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 2020, no. 21.
12. Campi A. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 2005, no. 12.
13. Campi A. The Asia-Pacific Journal. Japan Focu (The Asia-Pacific Journal. Japan Focus). 2014, vol. 12, issue 45, nо. 1.
14. Eric A. Me Vadon. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 1999, nо. 6, p. 28.
15. Eric Her. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 1997, nо. 4, p. 62.
16. Magid A., Mansbach R. W. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 1998, nо. 5, p. 8.
17. Quester G. H. The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs (The Mongolian Journal of International Affairs), 1996, nо. 3, p. 57.
18. Reeves J. Mongolian State Weakness, Foreign Policy, and Dependency on the People’s Republic of China (Mongolian State Weakness, Foreign Policy, and Dependency on the People’s Republic of China). London: Department of International Relations of the London School of Economics, 2010.
19. Sabloff P. Central Asian Survey (Central Asian Survey), 2002, nо. 21.
|
