The author argues that modern protectionism has a more moderate character than that in the middle

of the past century. Besides that it does not, as a rule, go beyond multilateral rules of the regulation of

international trade. This allows us to define it as a legitimate one. The author estimates the probability of the

execution of the approved program of the negotiations of the Doha round which aims at further liberalization

of agricultural and non-agricultural trade as well as services. It is stated that the deadlock situation during

the negotiations forced the members of the WTO to step back from the batch method of decision-making and

the principle “everything is compulsory for all”. This opened the way for the progress in reduction of trade

barriers with the help of agreements between limited number of the participants (selective liberalization)

and preferential regional trade agreements of the new type (“liberalization for those who care”). A fear is

expressed that the current trade conflict between the US and China may lead to the opening of wide-scale

trade war between the two countries and may give an impetus for the outbreak of similar “wars” between

other participants in the world trade and, at worst, for the collapse of the multilateral trading system that has

been built during the past seventy years. In this case, international rules, though not perfect and outdated,

might be substituted by chaos and anarchy which may result in the aggravation of problems of the world

development. Further on, the author pays attention to the fact that the level of tariff protection in Russia

somewhat decreased after the WTO accession. Still, the membership in this organization does not create any

serious problems for most sectors and branches of the national economy. It is a matter of fact that the level

of protectionism in the Russian Federation is higher than in the developed countries but lower than in the

leading developing economies (China, Indian, Brazil). The author states that strengthening of protectionist

elements in the trade policy will be a difficult task for the Russian government. The main reason is that

the principal functions of the regulation of the foreign trade have been recently subdued rom the national

government to the Eurasian Economic Commission. It is concluded that the possible destruction of the

established international order in trade relations will not bring benefit for the domestic economy which is, to

a great extent, dependent from foreign markets both as producer and as consumer. This is why Russia has

to continue full support to the WTO. Still, during negotiations on this platform Russian government has to

act pragmatically and to put in the forefront the nation’s economic interests.