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.