The processes of political centralization in Rus’ in the late 15th and early 16th centuries were accompanied by attempts by Russian intellectuals to understand the new political reality. Th e works of Russian writers of this period reveal several alternative ideologemes that had the potential to develop within the ideology of autocracy. Comparing these ideologemes and examining the history of their construction allows us to identify patterns in the formation of the fundamental principles of political ideology. The problem of finding an answer to the question of the value of the new sovereign state for the Christian ecumene and its pleasingness to God was closely intertwined both with public perceptions of the contradictory processes in Greco-Russian church relations and with the rise of the figure of the Grand Prince of Moscow in the political and ideological discourse of Rus’. In the context of the late Middle Ages, the formulation of new ideological principles was inevitably influenced by the identity of the political collective of the Russian centralized state, which was religious in content but can simultaneously be characterized as a proto-national identity. 

The changing nature of migration processes in the post-Soviet space, the sharp asynchrony of the demographic behavior of various ethnic groups and other modern factors are aggravating society’s attitude towards diaspora practices. The main motive for uniting the diaspora is ethnofavoritism. It
is possible to interpret both tribalistic and familistic preferences, characteristic of traditional societies, as manifestations of “extended egoism.” These preferences undermine the multi-level and extremely complex system of impersonal trust in a multicultural society and reduce the overall quality of its social capital. Today we are faced with an obvious contradiction in the issue of managing ethnocultural diversity: on the one hand, the diaspora model of behavior in a multicultural society is inevitable, on the other hand, government bodies, civil society institutions, and the media are not coping with the task of stopping the
influence of diaspora practices on increasing interethnic competition in the Russian society.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the state national policy of the Russian Federation, the problems of national unity in the light of the concept of Russia's civilizational identity. Taking into account the growing turbulence of the modern world, the authors stress the importance of measures to ensure the national security of various states associated with the understanding of their civilizational identity, their role and place on the world stage. These processes directly affect Russia. The understanding of Russia as a distinctive state-civilization is currently enshrined in official documents. The task arises of ensuring Russia's civilizational security, which is closely related to ethnopolitical security. However, solving the problems arising in this area - first of all, the problem of ensuring all-Russian national unity - faces a number of difficulties. They are connected mainly with the insufficiently clear elaboration of ideas about the content of Russian civic identity. The latter, as experts note, should take into greater account the importance of the ethnocultural factor in the life of the country. Understanding the role of this factor and its place in the system of governmental administration is now an urgent task for government authorities and the expert community.