The author expresses his deepest concern with disappearance of the Developing humankind’s unity principle. The Yalta system is decaying and the Unity of the world principle, as it was stated by Stalin and F.D.Roosevelt, is following the suit. The manifesto of sustainable development was the direct challenge to the Unity of the world principle. New globalists are interested in a situation within which it would be possible to increase the cash flow irreversibly and only in the single point of the financial space. The financial grip is getting more and more tough and ready for the real global duel. Imitations, diversions are elements of hostilities. A system is the totality of elements integrated by an aim. Aid to the developing countries is not even discussed within framework of the new model of the world organization. The aim is not even declared within this framework. Escape from the aim is tantamount to escape from the Humankind’s unity principle. History is the generator of new aims. However an aim tends to turn into a dead dogma and that leads a system to become a power which impedes and even paralyzes appearance of the new. If a form is getting stiff and starts to kill, not to develop its content, such form should be driven in its proper place.

Adducing rich empirical data the author demonstrates that the central tenet of neo-liberal policy, the proposition that a market economy is able to perform in self- regulating manner is just an illusion. The state regulation is the permanent requirement and only when (and if) the economy is well adjusted it is possible to control pace of growth and rates of inflation. Only under these circumstances an “openness” of economy, i.e. ability of an economy to function in the absence of the state’s protection is possible. A weak economy, if it is “open”, is inevitably becoming a donor for the developed countries.

The article deals with the factors underlying the origin of the so-called Crimean system – the great powers casting which came into being in the wake of Russia`s defeat in mid 1850`s. In contrast to conventional views, the author holds that despite the policy of «receuillment» caused by the Crimean debacle Russia continued to exert a considerable, even if not overwhelming, influence on the international affairs. Since Russia was a major guarantor of the Vienna settlement her self-removal from the European scene after 1856 brought about a series of drastic changes in the continental balance of power. To regain a semblance of order and to save their own interests first France and then Germany were left with no other alternative than to resort to Russian help. In the end it occurred that those who, in 1856, posed as winners failed to create a mechanism to protect theirs gains in Europe and elsewhere. Instead they triggered a radical diplomatic revolution just to regret its unintentional consequences.

“Faith and Reason of Soloviov’s philosophy”, the article by G. Florovski which is published here contains the criticism of V. Soloiov’s religious philosophy. The author who assessed spiritual phenomena with the exceptionally high criteria asserted that Soloviov was a liberal permeated with the utilitarianism of 1860s. As the author insists, liberalism is intolerable in a theologian. The author admitted unquestionable merits of Soloviov including Soloviov’s success in making religious themes worthy of discussion, in arousing religious sentiments and in rehabilitating Christianity from accusations of political and social reaction. The author emphasized that the further development of the Russian philosophy was possible not along Soloviov’s lines but along the lines that would mean overcoming Soloviov’s positions.

The author records the principal events of A.N.Kosyghin’s life. Particular attention is given to reforms of the economic mechanism started in 1965 under Kosyghin’s leadership. These reforms included improvement of the defense industries’ management, management of industries and construction management, planning of the national economy and methods of economic activities. The author describes difficulties A. Kosyghin had to overcome in order to introduce the minimum market shifts and self-management into the Socialist environment.