The article covers the issues of a key stage in the construction of the Russian-Ukrainian inter-republican border in the 1920s. The author grounded on the documents and modern publications of leading historian scholars stored in domestic and foreign archival institutions. The author emphasizes that inter-republican delimitation in the 1920s had opposite vectors - from the application of an ethnographic criterion to the involvement of economic and political arguments. The result of the confrontation was the adoption of the option of delimitation agreed upon by the parties, drawn up by the corresponding Decree of the CEC of the USSR.

The 220th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences was celebrated on a large scale in June 1945. The Soviet Academy received 117 gratters from foreign scientists. The article discusses the representations of foreign scientists about the USSR Academy of Sciences recorded in these congratulatory addresses and telegrams. The perception by foreign scientists of the Soviet academic center was different, but equally positive. It reflected the hopes of the scientific community for the resumption of “broken” scientific ties and the restoration of the communicative field of “normal science”.

The article, based mainly on archival data, shows the ideological and political aspirations of various representatives of the Muslim population of the disintegrated Russian Empire and neighboring countries in the first years of Soviet power, their attitude to the Comintern, to the theory of the world revolution and its practical implementation. The events associated with the I and II congresses of the Comintern, and their impact on the Muslim world are examined.

The article is devoted to the main characters in the process of accession of Central Asia to the Russian Empire, generals M.Skobelev, M.Cherniaev, K.Kaufman, G.Kolpakovsky. The most famous in Russia were Generals Skobelev, Cherniaev, which was due to their charisma. The main reason for their popularity is the support from nationalist circles, who made from Skobelev and Cherniaev original icons of the heroes of the fighters for the freedom of the Slavs. To determine the degree of popularity of the generals - builders of the empire, a list of books devoted to these military leaders was studied. The first place was taken by Skobelev, since he is one of the central figures of the Russian historical myth.

The article explores two models of explaining “Leninism” in the mid-20s. According to Lev Trotsky, Leninism is first of all an experience of revolutionary action, which is determined by the momentary political context and therefore is not limited to any postulates of theory, any ethical concepts, any moral prohibitions or stereotypes of public consciousness. The Leninism of the Stalinist majority in the Party is the theoretical integrity of the entire period of the Party's existence, the inviolability of Lenin's covenants, his glorification as a revolutionary strategist - above all - who has never made a mistake in tactics and has walked with the Party in step. Trotsky brings vividness and contradictions to Lenin's image in order to prove the vitality of Lenin's revolutionary teachings. Stalin's majority in the Party affirmed the canonical image of the leader, explaining his infallibility, creating a situation of worship of the cult of the leader of the world proletariat and the Bolshevik Party created by him. Trotsky lost the historic battle, because his “Leninism” was no longer needed by anyone - neither the Party bureaucracy nor the young generation of Communists.

The author analyzes the activities of those liberal deputies of the first Duma, who occupied a middle position between the Сadets and the Octobrists. The author concludes that they managed to consolidate their position in “big politics” at that time. They managed in some cases to influ-ence the course of events in the Duma. During its work, they tested their views on reforms in Russia, as well as the tactical principles of their own political parties.

This article presents an analysis of the complex and largely contradictory process of developing reforms of the local government (peasant, zemstvo and city) performed in the 1880s - 1890s, which has started with the senatorial revisions of 1880 and ended with their implementation under the governance of Alexander III. There are two distinct stages of this development pro-cess, performed by the Kakhanov commission and the Ministry of the Interior, holding opposite points of view.The question of the nature of the transformations worried both the government and split into two factions society. The first one hold believe that a way out of the crisis based on the further expansion of the pro bono basis, while the second one saw it in the strengthening of a local government. Presented work aims to consider the process of transformations, known as "counter-reforms" of the 1880-1890s, from the standpoint of their historical conditionality. Also, it reveals the degree of influence of these reforms on the organization of local governance.