Abstract: The article undertakes a political and legal analysis of the complications in the scientific and technical cooperation of Russia with Germany and Great Britain. Particular attention is paid to the identification of the subjects of the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions regimes, as well as the substantive characteristics of the varieties of unilateral restrictive measures in the field of scientific cooperation. The authors dwell in detail on the disclosure of the correlation of legal and asiological aspects of the introduction of sanctions restrictions. It was important to compare the sanctions regimes of Germany and Great Britain in terms of the dynamics, subject composition and content of unilateral restrictive measures. The study proves that the invasion of foreign policy interests by Germany and Great Britain into bilateral international scientific cooperation means the decline of the former era of scientific diplomacy. The main conclusion of the work is the provision that the suspension of cooperation with Russia in the scientific field does not result from violations by our country of its legal obligations in the field of bilateral international scientific cooperation. The gap in cooperation at the institutional level is supplemented by the assumption of informal scientific communication. But overly politicized demands for the continuation of this cooperation violate the right to freedom of scientific research. The novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time in the framework of the subject area of research of scientific sanctions in a comparative way and in the context of modern theoretical developments, the content of the anti-Russian sanctions regimes of Germany and Great Britain, which are among Russia's main partners in the field of international scientific and technical cooperation, was revealed.

Keywords: scientific diplomacy, academic community, megascience, freedom of research, international law, sanctions regime, science, international obligations, anti-Russian sanctions, institutional gaps