The present day Russian reality does not create a genuine series of events. What we are experiencing is waiting for what has already happened. And from this point of view the collapse of the USSR and of Communism should be considered to be the main event of 2002 as well as preceding ones. People in the West argue that Communism and Fascism are the first principal foes of the humankind now defeated by liberalism. This blatant lie was irrefutably and definitely rejected by such authorities as Churchill and Roosevelt who were absolutely sure that Fascism was defeated precisely by Communism already has bad repercussions for its authors. Having put the end to Communism (not by winning but by corrupting it) and made Communism equal to Fascism the Western civilization has lost its last chance, the ideological and mobilization resource necessary for struggle of the progressive humanism with the encroaching obscurantism. As regards Russia it has experienced the social hybridization, i. e., intertwining of the worst characteristics of the Soviet socialism with the worst characteristics of the criminal «presumable», «as if» capitalism. A terrible process has been launched. This process is capable to transform the Russian statehood into nothing. On the eve of the imminent conflicts of civilizations the greater part of the Russia media works for corruption of the army, the people, the society, the elite. It is to say that media works for the death and destruction of the country.

At the emerged turning point of epochs Russia experiences the crisis of meaning. Crisis of this type is one of the most dangerous for a social organism. This crisis finds its expressions in transitory nature of the suggested receipts of development, fragility of the social contract between the power and the governed, instability of the state’s position in the international community, and, finally, in lack of the elite «national corporation» which unites carriers of these meanings. The author considers preconditions for creation of the Russian system of strategic analysis and planning, describes modern systems and methods of forecasting, social and cultural foundations of the contemporary global situation. The author also expounds some considerations related to the current difficult external and internal situation of Russia as well as to Russia’s prospects for development. A great attention is devoted to phenomenon of the transnational elite’s new class («the fourth estate») which is genetically connected with intellectual production and, in particular, with formation of information and communication sphere. The strategic alliance of this social group with the mobile segment of the «third estate» predetermined the prevailing trends' character that, in their turn, are connected with formation of the geo-economic universe and making of the preventive global security system.

The article analyses both the objective and subjective factors accountable for «the long peace» in Europe from 1815 to 1853. Most important among them was not only the Vienna Settlement per se but also the ability of the Great Powers' rules to implement it. As author contends, the leading role in maintenance of European stability which was threatened by the social revolution and the Eastern question belonged, in the long run, to «Russian policemen» Alexander I and Nicholas I since it was Russia that obtained in the aftermath of the 1815 the best position, in terms of power politics, to curb extremely destructive developments on the international arena.

The article deals with two principal problems: the first problem is dynamics of population growth and changes of ethnic-national structure of Central Asian countries and the second problem is the population’s general standards and conditions of living. Proceeding from massive statistical data including those provided by general censuses the author discovers the picture of drastic decrease of numbers and specific weight of the Slavic (European) population and increase of the so-called title (i. e., indigenous) population. Study of birth rates and fertility allows making a conclusion that all Central Asian countries will experience a further decrease of population growth in the nearest future. The real wages of workers and employees shrank two-fourfold during the deep economic crisis (in Tajikistan the decrease was even more pronounced). Thus now real wages and salaries do not exceed several dozens of dollars. It should be noted that in the course of the whole period of restoration, i. e., in the second half of 1990s real wages still remained to be 20−40% less (in Tajikistan they were two thirds less) than the pre-crisis maximum levels. Results of households' consumption studies and studies of retail trade turnover’s movements are presented. In general these results are similar to changes of real wages. The author considers dwelling conditions and the main components of the social infrastructure, the public health and education. Conditions of these components in general reflected dynamics of other standards of living though manifested a greater margin of safety. However the quality of education and medical care obviously deteriorated.

The article deals with techniques and fundamental philosophical assumptions of the contemporary studies of literature and cultural-historical concepts. Claiming the solution of the humanitarian knowledge’s principal issues representatives of subjectivist directions make ideological arguments their main weapon and thereby overcome, in their own fashion, positivist assumptions. However the humanitarian knowledge oriented towards ideology inadvertently turns out to be an ally of the post-modernist epistemology. Scholar’s «egoism» and consumerists super-tasks set against the collective experience of science are conquering the unoccupied intellectual space. And now personal opinion or personal faith of a scientist, freedom of his/her conscience means by far more than the source-aware conscience’s reality. Two polar approaches to the history of culture, the conservative and liberal-atheistic approaches are compared to each other. In both cases representatives of the respective concepts refer to their own positions as to an important fact of science and a theoretical model. Strangely enough, polarities complement each other: studies of literature that make the absolute of the immutable and studies of culture that assume the making without the subject of the process generate equally destructive and disorganizing effect on the modern humanitarian science. These extremities need not so much reconciliation as a dialectical and creative overcoming, a renewing synthesis.

As the Presidential election are approaching the more vigorously various political forces appeal to the conservative values and traditions. Doing that every political force invests the content advantageous to impart into the concept of conservatism. In every specific moment and in every specific country this concept acquires a new meaning. There are no «pure» or «impure» conservatives for the very criteria of conservatism are different and a former revolutionary and an subversive may, upon coming to power, turn into an guard and adherent of a strong state. The Russian conservatism is unlike its European and American parallels. It is paradoxical and unique. It is imbued with the national traditions but it tried and still tries, though timidly, to provide answers to challenges of the time. Though, at the first glance, the contemporary political situation seems to be stable in fact it is fraught with unpredictable developments. In this respect the present day situation is very similar to the «conservative stabilization» Russia experienced during Alexander III reign. That conservative stabilization carried in itself three revolutions that overthrew the dynasty. That is why the most pure conservatism (i.e., the unsophisticated preservation of the status quo) has no chance in Russia. The same is true in respect of conservatism calling for return into the «bright yesterday». The current fashion for conservatism, on one hand, has already provoked discussions among historians, sociologists and political scientists (and the fact is positive in itself) but, on the other hand, it made a mess of the very notion of conservatism. All these developments make us to ponder about correlation between the historical experience of use of the conservative ideology in Russia and problems of the contemporary conservatism.

Where the main meaning of the American-Iraqi war lies? Neither the level of military threats, nor oil consequences or anti-Americanism proves to be the fundamental result and effect of the war but the fact that now it is impossible to get into the «house» we sought to get into so passionately (i.e., into the so called Western community). Actually a war between the USA and Europe is ripening. At the present time there are three feasible centers of power in the world: China, Europe (provided it will succeed in unification) and Islam (provided it will succeed in unification). Russia is no longer the superpower and a center of power. Disintegration of the USSR brought about collapse of the world order and destruction of Communism, alternative Western project the carrier of which the USSR was. Destruction of Communism turned out to be the triumph of anti-Western forces that now are free to work, under the banner of globalism, at destruction of liberalism as well as the USA. Globalism eliminates national sovereignties and will become the grave-digger of the European culture. The master of globalization is the grand political post-modern which implies, at first, the power of concealed obscurantism and then a new type of civilization, i.e. anti-civilization. Perhaps, Islam will gain from globalization while Russia will crumble away in it. Russia has either form an alliance with Islam and challenge to the West or to fight against Islam and look for allies in the West. The war in Iraq is a way, though inadequate to plug in holes through which the East penetrates the West. The Western projects needs alternatives aimed at the future. Otherwise the world will either burn in a nuclear war or decay.

As a sequel to the previous part of the article this one covers a period from 1833 to the eve of the Crimean war. Unlike many historians, the author treats the international developments of the time as a non-lineal and disparate process. He holds that there was nothing fatal for the cause of European peace in the chain of events that happened in the 1830's and 1840's. Both Eastern crises and continental revolutions failed to provoke a general war, whereas a relatively minor dispute over «holy places» in early 1850's unexpectedly erupted in a European conflagration. In the author’s view, this outcome deserves to be called a historical enigma rather than a logical result of proceeding circumstances.

There is some common element in metamorphoses and destinies of the major states' national ideas in the 19th century. The German national idea as a concept of the national unification by the state emerged in 1813−1814, the years of liberation wars against Napoleon. Though this idea was developing in parallel with development of liberalism and the national unity was comprehended as the sine qua non of freedom, the epoch of occupation of the German lands by Napoleon imposed its impress on the idea: the «image of enemy» was implied in it from the very beginning. As the time passed the idea acquired the form of the imperial chauvinism. Distorted to the unrecognizable condition in the years of Hitler’s dictatorship the German national idea became an integral part of ideology that was aimed at the world domination and mass destruction. In the 19th Russia and Russians already did not confront the problem of struggle for independence and national unity. However the quest for the Russian national identity comprised an important part of ideological searches in the course of the whole 19th century. However if in the first half of the 19th century the Slavophiles and the Westerners focused their discussions predominantly on the distinctive nature and originality of the Russian culture the understanding of the national identity changed considerably by the end of the century. Nationalistic ideas acquired peculiar development, and Valdimir Solov’ev, the religious philosopher and poet, stepped forward with criticism of these ideas. Solov’ev argued that the genuine distinctive nature of Russia could not be attained by way of estrangement and isolation from the West. Solov’ev insisted on the necessity of permeation with principles of all-human Christian culture and a critical attitude to one’s own social reality. Only then it would be possible to take an active and independent part in the universal run of history.

American views of post-Soviet Russia have swung from one extreme to another over the last decade: from enthusiasm about an overnight transformation to pessimism about an unchangeable country; from libera democratic universalism to stigmatization of a unique, non-Western culture; from optimism about international cooperation to demonization of Russian opposition to U.S. policies and then back to near-euphoria about an alliance against terrorism. To move beyond such pendular swings and stabilize American-Russian relations, Americans need to abandon teleological assumptions about Russia’s future and Russia should avoid steps that reinforce negative American stereotypes.

The economic science which came instead of «political economy of the developed socialism» proved to be not much closer to the real life of Russians working in plant shops, institutions, in hospitals and polyclinics (where people have to pay for so-called «insurance health service» once again putting their money in pockets of doctors, nurses and hospital’s door-keepers). However economists prefer «official data» (that confirm that all candidates running for mandates at elections are destitute people), average indicators and abstractions like «market reforms» to the harsh reality. Consequently, the everyday economics develops along its own lines while the science develops along it own lines. This science is incapable to give answers to the simple questions the life raises before an individual. The crux of the matter is that in the real life economics is inseparable from politics, i.e., from voluntary decisions made by bodies of power in interests of certain persons, organizations and social groups. The authors demonstrate that poverty of the Russian education system is result not of some abstract «insufficient financing» or «budget deficit» but of the conscious, deliberate policy aimed at support of some social groups at the expense of other' less privileged ones (for example, teachers).

When the Russian Social Democrats celebrated their first 25th anniversary 80 years ago they made the first step along the path of making myths of not only their own history but the whole Russian history of the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries. As they took definite shapes both radical wings of the party, Bolshevists and Mensheviks, that in the old days stood at the origins of the single Russian Social Democratic Party tried, first of all, to purge centrists and rightists from their ranks. Having accused each other in betrayal of the working class and the world revolution’s interests both wings tried to credit to themselves the exceptional role in the struggle for the socialist future of Russia. However none of them succeeded in this undertaking: neither the RCP (b) though at the moment it was the ruling party which controlled the state propaganda and punitive structures, nor the RSDWP which went underground and continued its struggle not only against extremities of Bolshevism but also against apostasy in its own ranks. Thereby the RSDWP finally denied and rejected the chance to unite all those currents in the Russian Social Democracy that stepped forward for realization of broadly understood democratic transformations in Russia that, as they thought, would be possible after overthrow of the Bolshevist dictatorship. In a word, the silver jubilee of the Russian Social Democracy failed. It demonstrated that only an objective approach to understanding of the party’s history as well as of history of the country had not claim the decisive role for one group at the expense of all other groups and would not re-write its own inconvenient pages to please notions that temporarily gained the dominance.

Where the main meaning of the American-Iraqi war lies? Neither the level of military threats, nor oil consequences or anti-Americanism proves to be the fundamental result and effect of the war but the fact that now it is impossible to get into the «house» we sought to get into so passionately (i.e., into the so called Western community). Actually a war between the USA and Europe is ripening. At the present time there are three feasible centers of power in the world: China, Europe (provided it will succeed in unification) and Islam (provided it will succeed in unification). Russia is no longer the superpower and a center of power. Disintegration of the USSR brought about collapse of the world order and destruction of Communism, alternative Western project the carrier of which the USSR was. Destruction of Communism turned out to be the triumph of anti-Western forces that now are free to work, under the banner of globalism, at destruction of liberalism as well as the USA. Globalism eliminates national sovereignties and will become the grave-digger of the European culture. The master of globalization is the grand political post-modern which implies, at first, the power of concealed obscurantism and then a new type of civilization, i.e. anti-civilization. Perhaps, Islam will gain from globalization while Russia will crumble away in it. Russia has either form an alliance with Islam and challenge to the West or to fight against Islam and look for allies in the West. The war in Iraq is a way, though inadequate to plug in holes through which the East penetrates the West. The Western projects needs alternatives aimed at the future. Otherwise the world will either burn in a nuclear war or decay.

In the post-Cold War era, Ukraine is struggling with more than political independence, but with her very identity. However, the ingredients in her identity derive from traditions that are incommensurable: westernism and Slavophilism. On the other hand, political independence for Ukraine is largely a formality, since she will become dependent upon either Russia or the European Union and NATO in significant economic and military respects. This paper argues, in part, that Ukraine should use its connections with the West to act as a bridge between western and eastern ways of life within a Slavic and Orthodox federation dedicated to a unity of peoples, but not a unity equated with absorption. The alternative is economic exploitation from western powers at the expense of her Orthodox and Slavic culture.

The author expresses his doubts about ability of Ukraine to enjoy the genuine, not a fictitious independence. Formation of the Ukrainian nation and «Ukraine» as a national organism has been carried out in opposition to everything Russian. Due to that the Ukrainian ideology from its very inception and onwards has the anti-Russian character. Combination of this peculiarity, predominance of bourgeois relationships, lack of economic prerequisites for independence as well as the fact that at the present time Russia is not a power pole on its own and is looking for ways to incorporate itself into the Western world which has its own system of values leaves no alternative way to Ukraine and pushes it into the West’s orbit.

Ukraine occupies a peculiar position on the very frontier between Europe and Russia. Geopolitical position of Ukraine has determined its historical development and is the most important factor defining the current course of the Ukrainian foreign policy. Ukraine which was not an independent state until the end of the 20th century used to be the arena of geopolitical struggle among Russia and European powers: Poland, Austria and Germany. As the independence was declared in 1991 Ukraine confronted with a necessity to choose its path: whether it would run for Europe or for Russia? This dilemma is still unresolved completely even now. The author tries to demonstrate that the choice in favor of integration with Russia fits the national interests of Ukraine while the choice in favor of the EU, on the contrary, would be pernicious for the state sovereignty and the national identity of Ukraine.

At the present moment Ukraine happened to stand on the very «fault line of civilizations» between the East and the West, Europe and Russia. Not just economic weakness of Russia but also lack of any universal cultural and civilization idea on the part of Russia may in the nearest future become one of the main factors prompting Ukraine and other European states of the post-Soviet space to aim at the European Union. Under these circumstances Ukraine would experience great difficulties in its attempts to vindicate its «peculiar identity» and national and cultural distinctiveness.

Ukraine’s choice ought not to be posed as one between a soulless West and spiritual East. An idealized Slavic Orthodox culture, in particular, exists today neither in Russia or Ukraine, and it is still harder to find in the tsarist past. Rather, Ukraine ought to reconstruct its own democratic, independent modern culture based on its traditions of Cossack autonomy, Magdeburg Law, opposition to autocratic centralism, even its autocephalous Orthodox Church history and Christian and populist social ethics. The success of Ukraine and its survival will also make success for Russia’s transformation from despotic empire to democratic nation-state.

National identification happens to become a problem in the period of encroaching globalization. How can one speak of construction of proper Ukrainian civilization when the very notion of civilization is questioned? What can this hypothetical national state be and what it has to do in such new world? Should it increase «multi-vector» policy or should it become a sort of a bridge between the West and East? But is Ukraine ready to withstand durability tests that are applied to any bridge? The author thinks that Ukraine is definitely not ready for such trials. Strength of Russian as well as of Ukraine is connected with the creative power of cultivated political and cultural synthesis. However this is also the weakness for either common ideal or the common enemy may ensure a tight unification of such society.

The article deals with the study of culture sources which is a new and logically necessary trend in the present day historical science. The author defines boundaries of the method which has been substantiated recently (A.V.Karavashkin, A.L.Yurganov. Essay in historical phenomenology: Difficult path to the evident truth. Moscow, 2003). Principles of study of culture’s sources are compared with methodological propositions and assumptions of the French «Annales» school of historical studies and of the Russian positivism. The author argues that none of these schools could surmount the deficiencies of the modern hermeneutics. The modern hermeneutics has been focused on the problem of the unconsciousness, it has investigated the collective psychology but it has been indifferent to understanding of sources. An author’s presence in the text, the reality of an author’s consciousness and experience of direct statements become the matter of study of culture’s sources. For the first time investigation of the evident consciousness, immediate reflection of the subjects of historical process are acquiring their peculiar method.

The author deals with problems of the state ideology development in the 17th century, the last century of the Muscovite Tsardom’s existence. A succession of violent events started with the Troubled times, presented a series of complicated issues to the state and the people. Decisions of these issues had to determine the further course of Russia’s historical development. Like many other powers the Russian kingdom had to reconsider and reappraise the system of relationships between the Tsar and the people and to make a definite decision on the desirable character of the authority, whether it should have been an elective or hereditary one, limited or absolute. Relationships of the State and the Church acquired a peculiar acuteness. Later on these problems transformed into «Moscow is the Third Rome» and «Moscow is the New Jerusalem» theories. The problem of attitude toward possibility of reformation and innovations was one of the crucial issues the Russian society confronted with. Uneasy, fraught and connected with the social upheavals and conflicts solution of all these issues made the 17th century «the century of choice» in the Russian history.

1943 proved to be the turning point of the WW II. The states of the Nazi block lost their chance to win the war. On the Soviet-German front the roll of war started to move westwards. The battle of Kursk (April, 5, 1943 to August 23, 1943) became the key event. Mountains of books have been written about the battle on Orel-Kursk bulge. However these books, as a rule, elucidate only military aspect of the war. The aim of this article is to demonstrate interdependence of our strategy and policy during the year which became the turning point of the war, to demonstrate how the strategic successes of the Red Army on the battlefields were converted into the political victories (Tehran) and how all of that changed image of our army and image of the USSR in the world.

The author defines methodological approaches to investigation of the problem, shows the USSR’s attitude to the Slovakian national uprising during its preparation and the specific assistance given to insurgents during two months of their struggle against Wehrmacht forces that occupied Slovakia. The author argues that a historian can understand motives that guided Moscow in making specific decisions only if he/she considers these motives in the context of relations within anti-Hitlerite coalition at that time, in the context of the Soviet-Czechoslovakian relations, of the USSR’s military strategy and the USSR’s political plans for Central and Eastern Europe as a region. Having understood as early as during preparation for the uprising that it did not contradict the national and state interests of the USSR, that Communists took an active part in organization of the uprising and that Czechoslovakian émigré government was interested in the uprising, the Soviet leadership and personally I. V. Stalin made the principal decision to support the uprising. Allies of the USSR were not going to render an effective assistance to the insurgents for they thought that such assistance was the business of the USSR because Slovakia fell within the Soviet zone of hostilities. The Soviet military command, with Stalin’s approval, modified the Red Army’s military plans to establish interaction with the revolted detachments of the Slovakian army and partisans. The USSR provided the insurgents with the feasible assistance with arms and munitions though due to various reasons could not satisfy the insurgents' requests to the full.

Reviews written by «Aveskhan of Macedonia, the popular expert» appeared in the Russian education related media in the second half of 1990s. It was precisely the moment when the so called «alternatives» proclaimed by the RF Ministry of education started to bring specific fruits and schools began to get such textbooks that simply could not be reviewed seriously. One could either cry or laugh. Aveskhan of Macedonia preferred the second option (though it was laughter through tears). And the very appearance of this person was connected to «History of Russia up to Peter the Great reign» textbook by A.P.Bogdanov (Moscow, Drofa Publishers, 1996). This textbook suggested the correspondence of «Russian princes» Asan and Aveskhan (both of whom had never existed in the reality) with Alexander of Macedonia which schoolchildren had to study. A lot of such textbooks was published since 1996. All of them were duly decorated with «Recommended by the Ministry of education» stamp. Every time when the Minister of education at press conferences is asked to comment on a next «discovery» from a successive textbook (examples of such «discoveries» are statements like «any bee may become a drone bee» or «Moslems are pagans» or «Ancient Greece was a single centralized state with the capital in Athens» etc.) the Minister puts the blame on unqualified experts, careless authors and publishers, in short, on whomever he likes but not on himself or his officials. It should be emphasized that it is precisely the Ministry which «recommends» or «permits» such obvious, a fortiori nonsense. The problem is why the Ministry recommends this nonsense. There are two feasible alternatives: 1) due to ignorance and professional incompetence; 2) it is done deliberately. A new publication by Aveskhan of Macedonia contains information valuable for a correct answer to the question.

The article contains a specific vision of Russian foreign policy history based on the analysis of the major underlying factor which determined its course — i.e. the problem of nation’s security. The author contends that for Kievan Rus, Moscovy, and, to a lesser extent, imperial Russia geopolitical expansion proved to be an inevitable reaction to the many threats the outside world posed to the nation’s mere existence. This «offensive» mode of survival was complemented by versatile diplomatic strategies aimed at pursuing Russia’s vital interests through a full-fledged participation in international relations both in Europe and Asia. It was nothing else than imperial state structure that provided the Tsars with most effective material and moral instruments to handle the country’s defense issues.

The author enunciates specific proposals Russia could advance in response to the Europeanc Union’s expansion eastwards. The author assumes that the Russian foreign policy in Europe is to be more vigorous: Moscow will initiate signing of several documents that would regulate relations of Russia and the EU after the latter’s expansion. The key document among these treaties should be a new, more equitable and more profound treaty on partnershiop and cooperation with statements of clear perspectives and goals of Russian-European interaction. In doing that Russia is to proceed from the assumption that despite of all its willingness and its cultural and civilizational closeness to Europe it nevertheless will not be fated to become a part of the EU. Therefore, for Russia the most advantageous model of relations with the EU is the EU-USA model within which Russia will be able to become the third participant with rights equal to those of other two players (always provided that Russia will overcome its current social and economic crisis). Russia’s relations with the EU are to be like relations between two merchants belonging to the same nation: values are common but interests are competitive. For the EU it is more advantegeous to have strong and prosperous Russia on its eastern border that to have a «gray zione» of instability there. For if the Russian state disappears suddenly it is absolutely incomperehensible how and with whom will Europeans will interact in the territory of the collapsed state.

The final part of the article deals with axiomatic grounds of the new no-assumption hermeneutics of historical sources. Peculiarities of the suggested method become to be understandable as its axomatics is compared with theoretical assumption of F. Shleyermacher, V. Dilthey, A. S. Lappo-Danilevski, G.-G. Gadamer etc. Initial assumption of the sources' original meaning reconstruction can be only of general methodological nature. However the reconstruction itself must not contain answers and must not aticipate results of a specific study. Encounter with other people conscience is always unanticipated. Besides that, the study of culture’s sources is based on the principle of subsidiarity and does not exclude a creative interaction with other methods and does not cast doubts on the very possibility of interdisciplinary synthesis.

The commentator investigates the problem of correlation between understanding of a person belonging to another culture and understanding of this culture as a whole. The commentator thinks that A. L. Yurganov is right in his exposure of flaws inherent in his predecessors' positions and his criticism of some approaches to the recognition of other people’s animation is quite justified. The commentator places the problems of culture sources studies within broad historical writing context. In our attempts to acquire the knowledge of history we are striving for paths from «material, objective discoveries», i.e., historical sources, to mechanisms of culture. Then M. F. Roumyantseva makes shift to A. S. Lappo-Danilevski's theoretical heritage, considers his contribution to the Russian theory of historical knowledge and cultural historical studies.

The author of the big review of the article by A. L. Yurganov considers prospects for the modern humanitarian studies development and, in particular, perspectives for the science of history. The reviewer is sure that contraposition of two trends in the contemporary historical studies in the sphere of cultural practices studies, i.e., contraposition of historical anthropology and historical phenomenology is a rather fruitless enterprise. The only way out of the emerged methodological collision is reconciliation of two points of view. History of mentalities and the new practice of direct statements study are to co-exist in the future. The reviewer considers the basic cognitive assumptions of such remarkable phenomenon of the new European science as the «Annales» school.

Acting on his own behalf A. B. Karavashkin sums up the preliminary results of the discussion. He believes that the participants have demonstrated an obvious difference of opinions though these discords do not preclude a visible community of opinions. First of all, that relates to recognition of historical phenomelogical approach which has just emerged as a quite independent scientific method. One may discuss the prospects for historical phenomenology only if one takes a wide historical writing context of the Modern time into due account. A. V. Karavashkin draws attention to such topical problem as correlation between structural-semiotic method and the «no-assumption hermeneutics» (the proponents of historical phenomenology consider the latter as the most important component of culture sources studies). A. V. Karavashkin advances his retorts to some opponents of A. L. Yurganov.

Who are you, Mr. Kennan? Many contemporary scholars of the XX-th century diplomacy address this question to the well-known American diplomat, historian, policy analyst and expert on Soviet affairs, whose life way while manifesting the deep-rooted integrity always demonstrates alternative visions of the nation, international relations and prospects of the society in the world. George Frost Kennan made its own and prominent contribution to the explanation of the new worldwide role of the United States after World War II. Appeared to be influential among the «realists» who applied theory to diplomacy Kennan introduced his «containment of communism» concept as an antidote to legalistic approach to world affairs. Kennan urged in his famous cabled dispatches from Moscow and «Foreign Affairs» essay on the sources of Soviet behavior (1947) that relations with Soviet Union be placed entirely on a realistic and matter-of-fact basis, guided not by morality or altruism, but by the strengths and weakness of nations. Opposed as it was to moralism and Roosevelt’s policy of internationalism Kennan’s realism reflected not merely a concern for fact or reality but also a regard for elemental power as predominant force and influence. In proposing the principle of containment of the Soviet Union Kennan was taking for granted suppositions about America’s superior place not only in space but also in time. He won the political acknowledgment as an intellectual catalyst to the policy of confrontation while the Soviet Union, saying that the Kremlin was uncooperative and explaining why the United States had to check Soviet hostility and combativeness. But the author of the present essay, based upon some new primary source material, concentrates his attention mainly on the changing diplomat’s mentality as an indirect reflection of the dynamic historical process with his unsolved conflicts and unexpected new realities. Kennan who had once conceived of America exerting pressure to mellow or eliminate Soviet power as a totalitarian force and threat to democracy all over the world up to the beginning of the fiftieth felt a deep pessimism even causing him to doubt not only the constructive role of the American diplomacy in world affairs but the very capability for his country to solve domestic imperfections and propose to the rest of the world the new way of thinking which will provide a spiritual purpose for humanity in trouble.

Notions of one’s «own» nation and «alien» nations reflected in the popular ethiological legends clearly demonstrate the most universal motives inherent in the folklore image of «alien» ethnic entities. Notions of the «alien» groups include beliefs in the «primacy» of one’s own ethnic group, the original «goodness» or «correctness» of this group, as well as beliefs in «inhuman» nature of the aliens, the «beast» nature or the aliens' connections to the other world. As such notions take place the idea of ethnocentrism is the fundamental one and reigns supreme. Within this idea the positive attitude towards people belonging to one’s own ethnic group and negative treatment of the «aliens» are often presented in mythological thought’s terms. The distinct peculiarity of the folklore narratives in the ethnic identification theme is not just their amazing stability (the article is based on materials from various times, from the 19th century to the present day) but the organic ties of these narratives with the «world history» in its folklore interpretation which unites the genesis, events related in the Old and New Testaments and historical facts kept in collective memory in mythological form.

The article by A. L. Yurganov is a very interesting phenomenon of the contemporary Russian historical writings study. At the same time the article is a testimony of peculiar difficulties historians encounter as they try to define the very subject of the Russian cultural history. In addition to that, A. L. Yurganov touched the whole range of the general theoretical propositions of great importance. However some theses and judgments of A. L. Yurganov seem to be for from being indisputable. In the first place that may be said of evaluation of the situation with historical writings in the West. The very understanding of the «conscious-unconscious» relationship lacks the strict definition the Russian historians are accustomed to. Yet A. L. Yurganov’s striving for renewal of the academic work’s standards and rules should be welcomed.

I. N. Ionov pays attention to the exceptional topicality of the article which is discussed. He emphasizes the article’s indisputable heuristic value. At the same time the commentator thinks that the phenomenological approach is just postulated in this article and its author does not express his own attitude towards a wide range of the contemporary versions of phenomenology. The phenomenological approach to history should not be reduced to the «no-assumption hermeneutics» of a text. A historian is to take into account the hermeneutics of his own ways of perception that are related to a society’s values-focused historical memory.

Contrary to the opinion which is widely discussed in media and states that the current exacerbation of instability in Russia is attributed just to the active role played by «the Kremlin administrators» and representatives of some state-owned companies who are designing multi-move combinations to achieve their goals the author suppose that this exacerbation is a projection of the global contradictions on Russia. Participants of the Russian conflict are mere figures in the Big chess game. The peculiarity of the world situation consists in formation of a string coalition which includes opponents of President Bush from Europe, Islamic world and the Far Asia. This coalition has joined opponents of Bush in America. General anti-American attitudes and moods are being replaced with the trend to choose among the American political project the one which might be convenient for opponents of Bush. This project is globalization, the power of transnational elites, erosion of national states. (Islam is also in favor of globalization and offers the presumable «specific» project of globalization of its own). The goal and outcome of the coalition’s activities is destruction of the «Modern» project which implies development and making of every state. Anti-Bush forces are enormous and they enjoy a solid support in Russia. Chains of control of the current situation in Russia can be traced to the elites involved in this global process. The goal of the Russia project is to launch, initiate instability. Making of a Parliamentary republic in Russia may well be of interest for the anti-Bush alliance. This alliance does not need Putin who did not march against Bush.

Fundamental, civilizational causes lie at the basis of the current global situation. The progress of history is the change of key situations, the change which has the inner meaning and teleology: the expansion of space for human freedom. The central revolution of the world history was the transition from traditional (pagan) systems to monotheism. The Christian outlook has become the supreme expression of monotheism. This outlook has generated the richness of the contemporary civilization. The Christian outlook has placed itself in the historical text in several cultural versions. Of these, the Protestant one has gained the dominance over the planet. In fact, this version has become the basis for the making of the modern world and its North Atlantic core. The 20th century was signified with social cultural revolution which set forth another version of the civilizational myth’s reading. Secularization which came forth as super-confessional form of the Christian outlook has created the cultural shell of global proportions and this paradigm has embraced not just Oikumene but the planet-wide Barbaristan too. The new age is characterized by completeness of spatial (communicative) space (this completeness has found its expression in globalization as well as by liberation a socially active personality from shackles of authoritarian structures (this second process has found its expression in the individuation, extreme condition of freedom a human being can attain on the earth. In result a social structure of global proportions is developed on the planet in parallel with its administrative and political embodiment, and this new social structure unites trans-boundary organized entities thus establishing the proactive and dynamic environment of the New world.

The article analyses global and regional factors which determined post-Soviet Russia’s and Turkey’s policy toward Transcaucasia, on the one hand, and volatile reaction of the local high authorities thereto. As the author argues, the Kremlin’s strategy evolved from almost total detachment caused by weakness of the state lost in liberal reverie to the grasping of its own geopolitical interests in the Caucasus to be adequately translated into a much more assertive international behavior. As for Ankara’s policy in the region its evolution took place just in the opposite direction, i. e. from the euphoric desire to fill the Transcaucasian «power vacuum» to a sober reassessments of the viability of the course aimed at political and economic confrontation with Russia given her enormous military potential. This resulted in a formation of a blueprint for a long-term compromise capable to secure the framework for constructive partnership between Moscow and Ankara in Caucasian affairs.

The author summarizes results of discussion on totalitarianism in Germany, Italy, and the USSR that developed in historical science of the past decades. The particular emphasis is made on attempt to revise the history. The author pays considerable attention to works of the Western historians, first of all, German and Italian ones who had elaborated new approaches to study Fascism and Nazism. The author analyzes concepts of revisionists (Ernst Nolte, Renzo de Felice and others) and response these historians evoked among representatives of other historical schools. The author offers a concise characterization of study of totalitarianism in the Russian historical science. Debates over possibilities of comparing three totalitarian regimes that existed in three countries are reflected. Finally the author draws the conclusion that further full-fledged discussion on overcoming blind alleys of the past and delivering the society from mutilations inflicted by the anti-humane 20th century.

The article is based on the authentic archive documents and is supplied with a commentary which demonstrates the exceptionally cautious and friendly attitude towards the letters' authors: Tseterteli, Bourghina and Nikolaevski. Anna Mikhailovna Bourghina left the Bolshevist Russia in 1922 and then served as the assistant of Boris Ivanovich Nikolaevski, a prominent member of the Russian Social Democratic movement, the researcher of the Russian and European political history. Nikolaevski was the founder of the Russian Social Democratic Party’s archive, an expert in and gatherer and publisher of archive documents. In the end of 1923 Nikolaevski sent Bourghina to Paris because he was afraid that the members of the Central Committee Bureau members' illegal letters delivered to her address in Berlin might somehow affect her relatives' fate. At Nikolaevski’s request Irali Georghievich Tsereteli, a prominent Russian politician and public figure, hired Bourghina as his secretary. Since the end of 1930s Bourghina was permanent assistant of Nikolaevski. It happened so that their archive heritage is dispersed all over many Russian and foreign archives in Moscow, Saint-Petersburg, Tbilisi, Paris, Amsterdam, Wien, New York, Stanford, Jerusalem. And only now, when the opportunity to gather them in a single place has appeared, we may discover previously unknown pages of their lives.

The author attempts to reconstruct the basic elements if the death mythology which existed in the Muskovite state of the 15th-17th centuries and provides answers to a series of questions that normally are left out of this historians' view. What was the death in the medieval Russian culture? How did people explained the reasons of death and terms of its arrival? How did an ancient Russian imagine his/her transition to the other world and posthumous existence of the soul? How did he/she prepare for leaving the vale of tears? In the medieval time the world of the dead and the world of the alive were not tightly separated from each other. The dead' souls could appear to the alive to pray the alive for protection while the alive did not lose the hope to help their dead and believed in their ability to affect their lot beyond the grave. The Church taught the whole life of a human being, from the cradle to the gray hairs had to be subordinated to the thought about forthcoming death and devoted to the spiritual preparation for the end. However to deserve the salvation it was not enough to pass the life through righteously. On the very verge of death a person who could never known whether he had confessed in all sins and washed them away with repentance or not had to perform a series of «the transition rites»: to make a her confession, to take the last communion, to ask for pardon from his relatives and to bless them or monk fraternity which gathered at his/her death-bed. It was precisely why a sudden death (or an accidental death far from the people) was considered to be the true sign of the God’s wrath against the deceased and of the eternal torment that waited for the deceased beyond the grave. The author analyzes notions of death and the other world within the framework of an ancient Russian’s ideas of the Universe, the human nature and the Providence as the driving force of history.

The article represents the correspondence between Vladimir Ivanovich Gerier, the professor of Moscow university and his student Vassily Vassil’evich Rozanov accumulated for 30 years (1886−1916). V.I.Gerier who was not an ordinary personality is unjustly cosigned to oblivion nowadays though his contribution to the science is indubitable. Gerier was the author of brilliant monographs on the Roman history, medieval history and modern history. His books have not become obsolete and are read with the most vivid interest. Gerier was a prominent figure of the public and pedagogic fields (he was the founder of the Higher female courses). V.V.Rozanov is more famous in the history of literature and philosophy of the late 19th — early 20th century. He was a leader of the «new religious conscience»? the founder of a new genre in literature («The fallen leaves») which had a great impact on the Russian writers. Nowadays Rozanov books are widely republished and his heritage has been investigated by scholars. Actuality of the correspondence is obvious: the possibility of spiritual communion between persons of different ages and social standings is demonstrated on the example of relationship between the faithful disciple and the responsive mentor.

Alliance of the oligarchs and the Communist cannot beget any new meaningful strategy because both allies are ideologically sterile. The danger of this alliance consists, first of all, in the fact that it places destructive anti-state slogans on its banner. As early as in 1996 the CPRF tried to denounce the Belovezhski agreements and thus placed legitimacy of Russia as the successor to the USSR in doubt from the legal point of view. Collapse of the USSR happened due to the constitutional confederalism (right of nations to self-determination) when the unitary dictatorship ceased to contain the devil of confederation. Nowadays the oligarchs and the Communists actually demand a confederation for Russia. The mechanism for that is transformation of the country into a parliamentary Republic. Confederalism and separatism will be immediately introduced into the parliamentary model. The present day pseudo-oligarchs has no relation to the real oligarchy which has at least the selfish understanding of the power’s price and understands that the state for them means the capitalization of status. If there is no state infrastructure then fortunes evaluated in many billions are left unprotected. The power cannot be bought. It has to be won. Now the country is worn out by anticipation, despair and hope. The appearance of stagnation means that the processes that went down to the depths will inevitably erupt with a new power.

The arrest of Khodorkovski is something directly opposite to what is declared to be. Compliance with the law is impossible out of the context of the profound, non-repressive openness. Repression can annihilate and bury any public belief in the legal punishment. The events that develop now are a parody of 1937 and bring with them the net destruction. It is a genie of chaos released from its bottle. The unleashed process is the process of re-division of property. Regress is not stopped and overcome in Russia, de-modernization goes on unabated. The country needs an ideology which allows for construction of relationships in its elite and society.

The author’s key them is the American nation’s westward advance since the Revolution of 1775−1783 and the complex of ideas about America’s place in the world implying that Americans had to seize whatever sphere of the earth they could. The adherents of these ideas saw American overseas expansion as a revolution in world politics. They determined that frontier factor not only impelled the United States to move beyond its continental borders, but shaped the character of the people as well as their destiny. According to the doctrine they had to behave aggressively to build an empire. They needed to extend their business and trade into the world’s markets. They were required to enter a missionary struggle for the hearts of people and their freedom. Expansion of different kinds appeared as a necessity for Americans determined by scientific law.

The author demonstrates that in statistical reports and textbooks two very different types of human activity are presented under the same label of «advertisement». Of these two different activities only one may be considered as a socially useful activity. But it is far from being prevailing. Something different prevails: an activity which is closely related to the bigoted practices of «brain-washing» in J. Goebbels' agency and in Wahhabi training camps. Meanwhile not just the future of prosperous branch which absorbs expenses comparable to those for education but also fundamental theoretical principles of the science which came to Russia in 1990s from the West to replace «Marxian Leninst political economy» depend on the definition of advertisement. If advertisement is something different from what it pretends to be then the «objective» economic science is dubious not in some its partial and secondary considerations but in the very principles by which it defines itself. In other words, this science is based on sands, on an ideological cliches like «freedom of choice» or «the consumer’s sovereignty». The words are nice but are they relevant to the reality? If consumers' choice is free what are advertisement companies so generously paid for? If this choice is not free and a human person (a consumer, a voter, a respondent) is just a miserable puppet whose behavior is controlled from without in order to secure alien and too often blatantly hostile interests then what is the difference between the «open society» and the «totalitarian society»?

In Part 2 of his article the author develops his investigation of the medieval Russian eschatology further and makes an attempt to provide answers to several interrelated questions. How did a medieval Russian imagine the arrangement and geography of the world beyond the grave? How did these ideas transform in the 12th-17th centuries? Since the earliest centuries of Christianity the Church writers put a tough question and tried to find answer to it. The question was where souls of the deceased abode from the moment of their separation from the bodies and until the Day of Judgment which would have to follow at the end of times. To answer the question a doctrine of the «private» judgment beyond the grave was elaborated. According to the doctrine, souls of the deceased were divided at this judgment and left in waiting for the final retribution between the Heaven and the hell. In result of this doctrine not one but two judgments appeared in minds of believers and too often it was difficult to separate functions and meaning of these two judgments. Over the greater part of the Russian Middle Ages the fear of death and of the afterlife judgment was suppressed in consciousness of believers by the intense anticipation of the end of times, of advent of Antichrist and the Doomsday. In the second half of the 17th century a gradual change of eschatological paradigm occurred. The image of death was getting to be increasingly appalling. By the beginning of the 18th century the Russian Church gradually accepted the belief that the Day of Judgment which was promised in the Gospel and the Apocalypse would happen not soon and a human was able neither to calculate nor know the time of its advent. In order to acquire the salvation a pious Christian had to be always prepared for his/her death, to think of it and to feel the constant fear of it. The death became a substitute for the Day of Judgment. As the Middle Ages passed to the New time an individualization of the religious experience occurred and this process may testify the profound transformations in the depths of the whole Russian culture and public consciousness.

The author notes that Father Georghi Florovski accepts the authentic loyalty not to the letter but to the spirit of the patristic Tradition as the criterion of philosophical and theological thought’s soundness. Artistic taste, sense of style help a mind to find right direction in the spiritual domain but only the Divinely presence can serve as the criterion of the Truth in this domain. Florovski understands the religious dogma not as some formal logical definition but as a description of the real historical event, i.e., of descent of the Holy Spirit upon participants of the Church.

The article is devoted to the life and activities of V. M. Molotov who was one of the major political figures of the Soviet history. Molotov belongs to the old cohort of the Bolshevist revolutionaries. V.I. Lenin discovered Molotov and promoted him to the rank of a secretary of the Party’s Central Committee. Later on Molotov became Stalin’s right hand in his struggle for power. After defeat of the internal party opposition Molotov presided over the Soviet government and was the People Commissioner (the minister) of foreign affairs. In this capacity Molotov was the chief negotiator with Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt. Upon the death of the leader and the father of all nations Molotov claimed the prime role in the party but suffered a succession of defeats and Khruschev dismissed him from the higher Soviet leadership and then from the party.