The article is devoted to the analysis of some, including new, approaches to the study and settlement of conflicts. There are considered the following approaches: the pragmatic turn; the concept of agonistic pluralism; system analysis. The representatives of the pragmatic turn put forward the concept of «cities» as a means of settling conflicts and a mechanism for reaching compliance. The author believes, that it is not possible to resolve this kind of conflicts in the paradigm of a pragmatic turn, at least in the short term. The concept of agonistic pluralism offers its own way of resolving and settling conflicts. For this, antagonism with its insoluble contradictions is necessary to turn agonism. This transformation will mean treating the enemy not as an enemy, but as an opponent. Thus, it is possible to achieve a conflictual consensus. However, in reality, such a transformation is difficult to achieve because social contradictions are exacerbated. The systemic approach allows us to study conflicts from the perspective of improving or worsening the existing social order. The settlement of conflicts is possible in the Russian society. But it is necessary to achieve the consent of different political forces. The fundamental principles of the existence of the Russian state and society are the basis of this consent. The author calls the information war as external obstacles to achieving consensus, to which Russia is drawn; as internal — a strong social stratification, the social policy of the state, the lack of dialogue between different political forces.