The article is devoted to the topic recurrently discussed by the author, in this magazine in particular. The topic is lack of ideology and strategy in the Russian structures of power. This lack may become a source of collapse even in a more safe country than Russia. It was precisely collapse of ideology and lack of strategy capable to orientate the society as a whole to creative activity brought about disintegration of the USSR. And precisely ideological and strategic impotence of authorities may to bring to naught all rather provisory achievements of the past 8 years. A society deprived of ideals cannot be sound and consistent and it is impossible to implement its development without strategy.

The situation with the ABM is one of the most acute problems in the Russian -American relations to day. And we collide here with a historical paradox: Heading for a creation of an ABM system the USA to day are wiring for sound the former Soviet position, and Russia, which are against this US policy is taking in reality the former position of the USA. The author who was one of the participants who had made the ABM Treaty examines this situation and tells how compromise was found and the ABM Treaty was concluded in 1972 in spite of the fundamental differences in the positions of the sides. He undertakes also a systematic and holistic analysis of the present situation and comes to the conclusion that compromise is also possible now so far as the sides have the common interest in the counteraction to terrorism and Islamic extremism. And he writes what might be this compromise.

The American civilization is the product of Enlightenment epoch. It radically differs from other civilizations. Historical and geographical circumstances had a tremendous impact on business culture of a young nation. Unlike countries of the Old World country which was to become US was not suffering from remnants of feudalism. Protestantism as the stimulant to social and economic activities and spiritual influence of Britain facilitated formation of market mentality in almost every sphere of American society life. A businessman, an entrepreneur enjoying a relatively high level of success and public recognition became the social type specific to the USA.

The article is devoted to comparison of Finnish and Russian historical memories about Russian-Swedish war of 1808−1809. The author describes Finnish and Russian ‘memorial places' connected with the war, predominantly Finnish memorials in the places of battles and Russian monuments related to conquest of Finland, and draws the conclusion that the war occupied very different places in the Russian and Finnish historical memories. For Russia it was successful but unpopular campaign which afterwards was nearly buried in oblivion. For Finland the war became one of cornerstones for construction of the national historical memory. In the second half of the 19th century memory about the war became a decisive vehicle for formation of the young Finnish nation. Rate of memorial construction at battlefields corresponded to intensity of national feeling upsurge. In Russia the memory about that war was revived only at the early 20th century. It was done with the purpose to strengthen the imperial concept at the conquered periphery. Two monuments that expressed this idea and conquest of Finland jubilee celebration proved to be purely bureaucratic events and aroused emotional response neither in the Finnish nor in the Russian national consciousness. The imperial historical myth was losing the ground to the mythology of little nation which experienced the peak of its emergence.

The author investigates work ‘Short research of Hyperboreans' written by Russian poet and dramatist V. Kapnist (the work was published in 1815 and devoted to the Hyperborean origins of Russians) and its Swedish source, ‘Atlantica, or Manheim' by O. Rudbeck (the work was published in 1675). The author also investigates history of ‘Hyperborean myth' prevalence in Sweden of the 17th and 18th centuries and perception of O. Rudbeck's works in Sweden of the 17th and 18th centuries and in Russia of the 18th century. Kapnist’s work is considered as one more Russian response to the abovementioned work of Rudbeck and, at the same time, as the final stage of 300 year history of ‘Hyperborean myth' existence in Europe. This history was initiated by the Dutch scholar J.G.Becanus and continued by Swedish authors in the 17th century.

Conflict situations that occurred in Moscow University in the late 19th century and were caused by insistent urge of medical department students to assert their rights to the full-fledged higher education and to get instruction from worthy and respected teachers. These situations are investigated on the grounds of archive materials, first of all, on the basis of Moscow law protection department’s files. The article describes how the most famous Moscow therapeutist, distinguished ordinary Professor G.A.Zakhar'in had to resign in result of students' boycott.

The article is devoted to 60 year long history of relations between Moscow and Budapest, from conclusion of treaty between the USSR and Hungary up to present days. The author distinguishes and analyzes stages and important moments of the Soviet-Hungarian and Russian-Hungarian relations and emphasizes that prior to fall of 1956 Hungary had no independent foreign policy of its own and was subject to the interests of the USSR and of block the USSR constructed and presided over. The author identifies and characterizes qualitative elements that developed in relations between two countries after revolution and change of the Hungarian political elite. A considerable attention is paid to analysis of Soviet-Hungarian relations during rule of Y.Kadar. At that time relations between two countries were influenced by economic reform in Hungary, Kadar’s personal contacts of with the Soviet leaders, and interaction of political processes that developed in 1950s and 1960s in Hungary and the USSR. A particular attention is paid to drives to democratization of social life and attempts to build bridge between East to West. The author indicates importance of the first treaty which was signed between the RF and Hungary in December, 1961, in emergence of relations of the new type. Formation of foreign policy doctrines in both countries and transition of both countries to parliamentary democracy contributed to the process. The author does not circumvent difficulties and omissions in development of Russian-Hungarian relations at the turn of the 20th and 21 centuries. He considers problem of community of interests in protection of rights of fellow-countrymen who happened to be beyond frontiers of their countries. Specific issues of revival and considerable resuscitation of relations between Russia and Hungary are considered in the concluding part of the article.

The author analyses strong and weak aspects of the collection published in connection with the jubilee of Contemporary Russian History Museum (former Museum of Revolution) and elucidates problems arising from historical-political character of such museums. The collection is dedicated primarily to history of the museum, to its founders and officers. It enriches understanding of cultural development peculiarities in the Soviet period. Valuable reminiscences about the museum are published for the first time. The author notes that balance of scientific popularization and ideology, information and propaganda in the museum exposition requires a special treatment and expresses his doubts about selection of the museum foundation date and the official name of the museum.