The author analyzes, on the basis of mass media communications about events in Ingushetia in night from June 21 to June 22, 2004, the very events as well as contradictory evaluations of them made by officials. It is noted that the character of activities and results of the raid do not permit to reduce interpretation of events to lack of responsibility and non-capability of the Federal forces and local law enforcement bodies. Initiators of the Ingushetian events are to be looked for among the people who are interested in escalation of the conflict in Northern Caucasus including some members of the Russian bureaucracy and the Russian military elite. The Ingushetian tragedy proved to be possible because the top authority is cut off the principal social processes and the broad layer of the Russian reality. Its attempts to reduce complexity of the Russian situation to the sphere of simple answers given in language of «technocratic pragmatism» revenge for themselves with the most heavy defeats. The authority has to engage itself in problems of information wars, to monitor transformation of forms in which the ideology revels and develops itself, to manage these forms. The authority is in the desperate need of strategy which gives answers to the issues of the topical issues. A feeling of strategic blind alley is maturing in the society and the authority may speak the pragmatic «language of administrative optimism' as much as it wishes but the society has ceased to perceive this language. Alienation of the «pragmatics» of the authority from ideology must be removed. Otherwise the negative processes in the country shall not be stopped and Russia will perish.

The article is devoted to one of the most topical themes of the contemporary world, i.e. analysis of civilization matrices of the West, The East and the South. It is assumed that the matrix of the Western civilization (Christianity) has been built upon the «developing subject time» and prigress potential is now absolutely dismounted and unable to beget anything but the «model knowledge». In their turn, matrices of the East and the South are undergoing modernization which brings about melting of identities and releases powers of passion for supremacy and domination. Chances of the West in this confrontation are slim. However analysis of «communication breakthroughs» that have occurred in the human history as well as analysis of religious and lay matrices demonstrates that a mechanism of their complementary conjugation is possible. As this takes place the West undertakes production of «models of being» while the East assumes responsibility for sorting these models out according the criterion of their verity. Thus it is suggested to re-integrate the global transcendence which is disconnected now.

The western «Values» is a phenomenon immanently, structurally western. These fundamentally uncertain, necessarily parabolic abstractions serve as the pivotal notions of ideology, or, better, of ethical-ideological discourse, which is the vital nexus of «theoretical civilization» (Northrop's concept for the West), or of a «form of life» whose distinctive trait is (by Wittgenstein) argumentation. Its dimension directly constitutive of the social order is interparty discussion. So, «democracy» is nothing else than the political form peculiar to «theoretical civilization» — that is, to the West in its modern, post-Christian phase. Religion, or, more precisely, myth and the aesthetic generally in its actual socio-constructive capacity are isolated here within the pale of Temple. The today’s world owes its principal drama to the inherently expansive nature of the theoretical. That is, the West’s treatment of its «Basic Values» as all-human (and even, their hopelessly uncertain and parabolic nature notwithstanding, natural!) is, literally, just a reflex blind to any historical reality. The worst thing is that the «post-historical» West is decidedly closed to recognizing power in its historical quality — power, that is, which is not «formalized», not deprived of (in Weber’s terms) «enchantment», or simply of its own value which is (and was in the historical West just as well as anywhere) an aesthetic value. It cannot recognize power in its civilized form, that is, cannot accept it as the constitutive factor of a high-level social organization; e.g., it blindly ascribes to «democracies» modern Japan which is in reality an acme of the hierarchical, or autocratic. And still less can it recognize power as a legitimate, if only because vital, social force in cases less civilized, where power cannot help being at times fairly rude. In a word, the only certain (and obvious) sense of the ideas like «freedom», «democracy» or other current as «Basic Values» is the negation of power in its own positive value. Meanwhile, it is indisputably the main, if not sole, factor of order in places short of the western level of civilization (or organization). Consequently, the sole import of the West’s century-long moral message (not to be confused with things technical!) to the rest of the world is a blind destruction.

The result of the participation of Russian Army leader in the February Revolution 1917 is the sum of the historiographical presentations, wich occasionally very far from the historical reality. The researchers examined through this presentations, wich embarrass the creation of the adequate reconsruction of the past, the attitude of Nicolas II and generals to the opposition and the opposition to emperer and the Stavka, the character of general N. Ivanov expedition, the circumstances of the voyage of Nicolas from Mogilev to Pskov, the reasons of the monarch abdication to the benefit of son and then brother. In given article the author, baseing on the analise of the new and new reading of the old sources, permits the new, original treatment of the well-known events.

Hundred years elapsed since excommunication of Leo Tolstoi but the interest to the event has not extinmguished as yet. The author undertakes the attempt to reconstruct Tolostoi own thoughts and feelings aroused by his excommunication. To attain the goal Tolstoi’s attitude to the Church and faith in general is considered. The author comes to conclusion that the basis of L. N. Tolstoi’s own ethical and religious teaching is the belief that a human being has to treat other persons in a way he would wish to be treated by other people. It is a rule which is easily explained by the reason, and Tolstoi elevates this principle to the universal law level, to the level of irreal belief. Following his convictions Tolstoi would have to regard the Synod’s decree with a contempt and indignation. And his «Reply to the Synod» proves that Tolstoi reacted to the decree precisely in this way. However the author points out that it is wrong to explore Tolstoi’s outlook only on basis of «The Reply». Such approach would be too one-sided, biased, distorted. The author finds signs of deep spiritual movements experienced by Tolstoi in his diaries and correspondence. The author is disposed to suggest that the cause of the inner shock experienced by Tolstoi were doubts in the system of moral values created by himself. Tolstoi’s diaries for the period contain information on these doubts.