This article explores the current approach of France to the issue of regulating migration in the context of Emmanuel Macron’s European diplomacy. Today the French government believes that taking part in the elaboration of a common EU migration and asylum policy is a necessary addition to the measures at home, paying particular attention to this topic since 2017. On the basis of public speeches, international documents and the elements of comparative analysis, the article summarizes the main initiatives put forward by France at European level and the challenges they faced. It points out that a part of Emmanuel Macron’s proposals regarding the governance of the Schengen area and the strengthening of the external borders control was implemented to some extent (taking into account the buildup of border capacities or the establishment of the “Schengen Council”), even if these proposals did not fully correspond to his initial project. On the contrary, France’s bilateral relations with its major neighbors (Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom or Italy) demonstrated a generally controversial dynamics because the partnerships on migration issues clearly depended on the political parties in power. In this regard, Italy, with the pro-European periods quickly followed by sovereignist shifts, looks like a particularly illustrative example. Moreover, numerous steps proposed by Paris to deal with the migration fl ows outside Europe often lacked any details and common ground with the partners. This is particularly noticeable in the African direction where French eff orts, from settling regional confl icts to restoring dialogue with Maghreb countries, produced insuffi cient results. The article concludes that from 2017 to 2023, France continued to seek balance between “responsible” and “solidarity-based” approaches to migration policy at the European level, and this would be the case until the end of current presidency. Yet, in 2027, the situation could change according to ideological preferences of Macron’s successor.

The article deals with the main stages of the formation of migration policy in Germany, as well as the issues of its current state. The authors compare how Berlin’s approach to the topic of mass migration fl ows has changed in diff erent periods over the past decades, depending on the key domestic and foreign policy trends in Germany and around its borders. The researchers believe that the problems of German migration policy are primarily related to the political costs that accompany the German leadership’s eff orts to form a balanced migration policy. The authors conclude that the German migration policy, initially aimed at saturating the labor market in dire need of personnel, on the contrary leads to growing economic and fi nancial diffi culties and becomes a serious problem in the political life of the country. Thus, the controversy over Germany’s migration policy can be attributed to one of the key topics that increase the polarization of German society and generate public disagreements and dissatisfaction with the government’s actions.

In the modern world, migration crises are likely to become commonplace. Denmark, Norway and Sweden are countries that attract migrants from both European and non-European countries. Today they face the diffi cult task of developing a common migration policy, which is hindered by a number of reasons: economic, ideological and political. The article attempts to assess the prospects for cooperation between the Scandinavian countries on migration issues in the near future. Based on the provisions of the Copenhagen School of Security, the author examines mass migration through the prism of the risks it poses to the culturally homogeneous societies of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, to the unique Scandinavian model of the welfare state and to Nordic Co-operation. Comparing the Nordic countries’ approaches to migration management, the author concludes that they are united by the excessive involvement of the state in the processes of adaptation and integration of migrants. Despite the fact that the migration policies of the three countries have undergone signifi cant changes since 2016, the emphasis is still on the management of quantitative indicators (through the issuance of residence permits or deportation) rather than on the creation of social partnerships between migrants and natives. In Danish, Norwegian and even Swedish society, the idea of the need to promote “right” (European) immigration and limit “wrong” (foreign cultural) immigration prevails. There is a situation in which the main integration eff orts are directed at those groups of immigrants who are already suffi ciently integrated. Non-European migrants, regardless of their professional qualifi cations or personal qualities, are still perceived as a threat to Nordic identity.

Since the start of the previous decade, the European Union has been actively engaged in political aff airs in the Sahel region. This area, which comprises some of the poorest nations globally, has become a top priority for Brussels’s foreign policy, mainly because of the 2014 migration crisis that aff ected Europe. A region destabilized by transnational terrorism saw hundreds of thousands of people fl ocking to Europe. Following this, the EU initiated the development of a comprehensive system to manage migration fl ows. This was achieved via the implementation of civilian and military missions, the creation of a trust fund to fi nance border management projects and the deployment of technical solutions to be jointly managed with the IOM and Interpol. As of 2016, there has been a decline in migration fl ows. Nevertheless, there have been several unintended consequences in the region owing to EU policies. The securitisation and criminalisation of migration fl ows and the services of Sahel «carriers» have resulted in this area merging with transnational crime and extremism. The implementation of digital migration monitoring systems has negatively impacted residents of border regions and local power factors, disrupting customary practices of daily life. This article analyses the impact of EU migration management strategies on the Sahel region and evaluates their contribution to destabilising neighbouring countries.

This paper examines Africa’s evolving role as a preferred destination for external migrants, specifi cally highlighting Rwanda’s emergence as a hub for resettling illegal refugees and failed asylum seekers from select Western European countries. Despite Africa’s atypical status as a migrant hotspot, there has been a rise in refugees and asylum seekers arriving on the continent. Notably, Rwanda, which traditionally has not hosted such migrants until 2016, has become an unexpected choice. This study analyzes why Rwanda, a country with limited economic power, has taken on the responsibility of processing and transferring asylum seekers as outlined in recent bilateral agreements with the UK and Denmark. The research examines alternative motivations to Rwanda’s presumed altruistic or fi nancial intentions, including political leverage and the acquisition of lowcost labor skills. By shedding light on Rwanda’s motivations, this paper contributes to a deeper understanding of migration and resettlement dynamics in a changing global landscape.

Illegal immigration, particularly from Latin American countries, remains a major issue that divides the political process in the United States. Both Republican and Democratic candidates are exploiting this problem for political gain, as they compete for voters' support in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election. While representatives of the two main political parties align on negative attitudes towards the issue, their approaches to addressing the problem are signifi cantly divided. This study aims to examine the impact of the polarising eff ects of Latin American illegal immigration on the political process in the United States within the context of the 2024 presidential campaign. The article takes a regional approach, examining presidential candidates from the Democratic and Republican parties who have formally declared their intention to run on September 1, 2023. The article concludes that the ongoing migration crisis in the United States and related socio-economic issues will remain a major concern in the future. Overall, discussions on this matter extend beyond domestic political discourse in the United States and now encompass the contentious interAmerican relations and the outlook for the liberal-democratic model as a whole.

The study takes as its starting point the incorporation of the socio-cultural factor into the cognitive schemes of politics as a key trend in changing the interpretive logic of political ontology. The depletion of conventional epistemological instruments for interpreting modern world socio-political constructions prompts inquiry into new cognitive perspectives. Migration is one factor that concentrates the spectrum of ongoing transformations within the conceptual and discursive spaces built around it. The article examines the contradictions between the generalisation of Western experience and forms of collective identity, the evolving understanding of the border, and the diversifi cation of political actors that have arisen due to migration fl ows. The reimagining of migration in the context of security is a theoretical, political, and instrumental force in shaping contemporary society. It alters the customary fi elds of politics, value hierarchies, dominant cognitive frameworks, and global order. The reimagining of migration in the context of security is a theoretical, political, and instrumental force in shaping contemporary society. The reimagining of migration in the context of security is a theoretical, political, and instrumental force in shaping contemporary society. Drawing on various narratives, this article shows that the securitization of migration in public consciousness and political practice perpetuates a fear of a total security vacuum and perceived threats.

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election intensifi ed the divide within American society and the political climate in Washington, causing a signifi cant impact on the relationship between Moscow and Washington. Despite the US political system overcoming the challenges faced during Trump’s presidency, there was also a surge in tensions between the US and Russia. The deterioration of bilateral relations can be attributed to the dysfunctional interagency communication channels and the tightening of sanctions through the CAATSA law. Moscow ultimately shifted its stance from aspiring to normalization to recognizing the likelihood of military-political confrontation. This article presents a hypothesis that comprehensively explains the factors contributing to this shift. The hypothesis underscores the lack of coherence among American political leaders, as four unique interest groups – President Trump, Republican hawks, oppositional bureaucrats, and Democratic Congress members – all contribute to shaping US policy toward Russia. Each group advances its specifi c objectives, sometimes joining forces to bypass the president’s policies. Consequently, a “split subject” phenomenon emerges in US-Russian aff airs. The author concludes that the lack of constructive dialogue with Washington during Trump’s presidency was due to the “split subject.” The victory of J. Biden in the 2020 elections and the alignment of American bipartisan elites amid the Russian-Ukrainian confl ict temporarily shifted this phenomenon to the background. Nevertheless, the author raises the question of whether this “cleavage” might reemerge if Trump or his close associates win the 2024 US presidential election.