Comparative-historical, hermeneutic and critical-analytical methods are used in the article. Periods of theoretical and methodological growth in Russian project of civilizational development are traced. “Zero years” were marked by persistence of “classics” in civilizational research and the rise of conflict between universalist and multicivilizational paradigms. The cross-cutting topic was about their meaningful comparison, respectively, with the classical and non-classical periods of West-European philosophy. Speaking politically, it was about globalism and anti-globalism. The second cross-cutting theme dealt with multicivilisationary paradigm as a challenge to universalism. Its strategies took shape along with Russia’s growing authenticity in politico-civilizational affairs. The next cross-cutting topic was about discrepancies in rethinking theory and methods. It is argued that the call for the rejection of ontological approach in favor of discursive one is baseless in its naive trust in the principle of constructivism as a source of clear and reliable knowledge about the “engineered” objects. Drawing from academician Lectorsky’s idea of “constructive realism”, it is proved that: 1) “designed” social objects are equal in complexity and unpredictability to objects of the natural world; 2) moreover, being “purged from ontology”, epistemological constructivism as such cannot bring new knowledge. This conclusion is indirectly confirmed by the project participants, whose publications combine a realistic approach with non-classical ways of studying civilizations. In conclusion, political philosopher B.G. Kapustin is cited. Kapustin identifies “big” and “small” politics as two faces of political activity: the one is about creative activity; the other – about political “routine” excluding encounter with novelty.