The author presents the analysis of «David and Goliath», the article by H.A.Noukhaev, former chief of intelligence under General Dudaev and, at the present time, the head of the Caucasian common market. Mr.Noukhaev blatantly rejects such values as the national state and asserts that the civilization and the city as the child of the civilization are the abomination which must be fought while barbarism and tribal relations are praised and glorified. The author presents convincing arguments against Noukhaev’s propositions and emphasizes that these propositions are particulary dangerous because they neatly find their place in G. Bush new administration’s global policy. Nazi ideas, principles of «Annanarbe» SS institute, though in a very strongly transformed form, which does not make them less venomous, exist within the present day American establishment. The «new world order» of this type propagates de-industrialization, archaization, substitute religiosity etc. for everyone except the elite core of the humankind. The most brutal epoch we are coming in, the post-modernity is an instrument of governing the world and its transformation into anti-humanity, even more abominable than the fascism. The only possible way to resist this trend is to achieve a greater understanding of statehood and to implement this greater understanding.

For more than forty years the Soviet – American nuclear arms race broken out of the confrontation of the two superpowers of the postwar world dominated the world politics. However the atomic aspects of the Soviet domestic and foreign policy was shrouded in secrecy. Now after the disclosure of secret files it is possible to answer many questions that have intrigued scholars and the public for years and which are fundamentally important for the understanding of moving factors of the Soviet foreign policy in the first years of the Cold War, its motives and peculiarities. The main question is: what was the decisive factor in Stalin’s behaviour and what steps he took to counter U.S. atomic diplomacy. Based on a vast array of russian and american sources this original and formidable work of history discloses how and why the Kremlin proved to be able to mobilize the human factor and built the atomic bomb in a very short time.

The author considers some tendencies of the Russian political conscience and the Russian public politics degradation. The author thinks that these trends have brought about emergence of peculiar though not unique form of democracy, the will eruption democracy (or democracy of ecstasy, the ecstatic democracy). This type of democracy is so much different from the traditional, Western democracy that one cannot describe it as a deviation from the Western standard. Making of the ecstatic democracy is going on with no resistance. Moreover, this democracy has already spilled beyond the Russian boundaries and begun its triumphal march all over the world. Since the West and the USA in particular still cling to the archaic traditional democracy (though they contribute to making of ecstatic democracy elsewhere, in such countries as Russia and Serbia) Russia is far ahead of the whole world again.

The author presents the political portrait of Otto von Bismark, one of the most influential and famous European statesmen of the 19th century. She makes an attempt to look at Bismark through the prism of his youth when the basic professional qualities as a politician and diplomat and his character were taking their peculiar shape. The author refutes, step by step, some stable stereotypes including myths produced by the Soviet historical science, unravels intricacy and contradictory nature of Bismark's personality and policies. As the author points out, as the unification of Germany was completed Bismark set forth, as the target of his foreign policy, preservation of the peace in Europe, not initiation of the war. However Bismark succeeded in prevention of the all-European war at the expense of growth of militarism and enhancement of animosity among the European states. That finally brought about the World War I. Bismark led the empire successfully but when he departed from the scene he left the nation deprived of the political education and the political will. Having achieved the unification of Germany Bismark made a genuine historical breakthrough but later he had to leave the political scene because of his futile attempts to construct obstacles on the way of the powerful tide of novelties.

The essay is devoted to comparison of the Christian spiritual doctrine and R.Steiner's doctrine. The author investigates the fundamental discrepancies of the two creeds. In the first place, it relates to the Gospel's religious essence as Steiner understood it. S.Bulgakov concludes that Steiner's doctrine has nothing in common with the «deepening of Christianity». In fact, Steiner's doctrine becomes the substitute for Christianity, the anthroposophic distortion of the traditional dogmatics. R.Steiner's cult based on ideas of non-Christian Oriental mysticism proves to be a «religious fake». Within Steiner's doctrine there is no place for any of the most sacred for Christianity «treasures of the faith». The peculiarity of the doctrine S.Bulgakov subjects to criticism consists of the fact that Steiner makes a system of the occultism. However, the appearance of scientific approach and understanding in this case conceals one of the most dangerous delusions, «the superstition of our days»

The author focuses the attention on the Russians' inability to define their attitude to the «Soviet heritage». The author points out that this inability is quite typical for the political self-conscience of contemporary Russia. Having begun its own development with the avalanche-like, ideologically motivated rout of the Soviet heritage (the greatest rage was brought down on results of the World War II) nowadays the contemporary political conscience faces grave problems of both the social and political (the destruction of the national-historical identity) and the state and legal nature. This array of problems includes, in particular the problem of definition of the territory Russia imposes its sovereignty. This problem, in its most acute form, arises in respect of the territories the Russian Federation owns only as the successor to the USSR, the power which won the victory in the World War II. Obviously, the Russian Federation's titles to such territories are justified only to the extent to which the Russian Federation embraces the idea of the succession as an element of the basis of its new statehood being.