Search

The author identifies the amount of Crimean Tatars who served as officials in Taurida Governorate in the first half of the 20th century. The article is based on archival data, address-calendars and mesyatseslovs of the Russian Empire. Russian politics in the region after the Crimean annexation was characterized by an active interaction with the local population. The imperial authorities gave the Crimean Tatars broad rights and involved them in civil and military service. Tatar murzas and beys who entered service closely interacted with Russian officials and thus got acquainted with the Russian language and culture as well as with the new legal system. While the largest number of Crimean Tatars were in service during the reign of Catherine II, their number began to decline under her successors. The author argues that the Russian authorities interaction with the Crimean Tatar nobility was based on mutually beneficial conditions. The state received the loyalty of local leaders, which provided stability and allowed for communication with the ordinary population. In turn, the murzas and beys received titles and ranks, which allowed them to increase their property and keep their social status. However, the number of Crimean Tatars in local government functions during the first half of the 19th century was low. They served in the governing bodies only by election from the nobility. This was a result of central policy but also of the low level of training among Tatar officials. Many of them were not familiar with legal procedures laws and could not read and write in Russian. Consequently, they preferred service in military formations, which was more prestigious and did not require special training.

In the article, the author considers the specifics of the process of state formation through the prism of geopolitical influence, as well as a meaningful change in secession processes, their transformation. Also analyzing contemporary geopolitical and geo-economic reality, an attempt is made to identify and comprehend the characteristics of the conflict potential of state-forming processes of the European Union.

The manifestations and consequences of the search for new impulses of the socio-economic development of the Russian Far East, confirming the invariability of the course towards the creation of new development institutions have been considered. The management decisions made in terms of their economic efficiency and implementation prospects have been evaluated. The actions of the transfer of the «capital» of the Far East from Khabarovsk to Vladivostok, the development of a national program for the development of the Far East until 2025 and for the future until 2035, as well as the expansion of the Far Eastern Federal District through the annexation of the Trans-Baikal Territory and the Republic of Buryatia, have been considered in detail.

World society has been an eyewitness to a couple of actions during the 21st century that has disturbed the peaceful coexistence of neighbouring countries. As a consequence of this disturbance some parts of one of the countries was expropriated. These cases were events that took place in Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014. It is also obvious that it was the same country that contributed to these dramatic developments of the situation in the regions. Based on these facts, one of these two cases were chosen in order to analyse the development of the events before the occurrences took place. This study will primarily be focused on finding reasons for differences in the views of Russia and the UN on the occurrences that took place in Ukraine 2014. This regards the fact that Crimea peninsula being a part of Ukraine during the second half of 20th century and the beginning of the 21th century once again has become a part of Russia as an assignee of former Soviet Union. This event has a historical explanation because it was during the Soviet time that Crimea peninsula became a part of Ukraine. To find an explanation for the difference in views the current study will use a qualitative study of different academic articles, treaties and resolutions. Världssamhälle har under 2000-talet vittnat vissa händelseutvecklingar som har kränkt en fredlig samexistens av grannländerna och som konsekvens av denna drabbning ett av länderna har förlorat en del av sitt territorium. Dessa fall har ägt rum i Georgien 2008 och Ukraina 2014. Det är dessutom självklart att ett och samma land har bidragit till sådana dramatiska händelseutvecklingar i regionerna. Undersökningen kommer att utgå från dessa uppgifter och analysera ett av dessa två fall för att följa utvecklingen av händelserna strax innan kravallerna bröt ut i regionen. Denna studie kommer framför allt fokuseras på att hitta anledningar till skillnaderna i Rysslands och General Församlingens medlemsmajoritet syn på de händelserna som har ägt rum i Ukraina 2014. Med detta menas naturligtvis att Krimhalvön efter att vara en del av Ukraina under den andra hälften av 1900-talet och början av 2000-talet återigen blivit en del av Ryssland som är en arvtagare till före detta Sovjetunionen. Faktum att Krimhalvön återigen har blivit en del av Ryssland har en historisk förklaring eftersom Krimhalvön har blivit en del av Ukraina under Sovjetunionens tid. Undersökningen kommer att använda en kvalitativ textanalys för att analysera olika akademiska artiklar, avtal samt resolutioner och hitta förklaringen till skillnaden i synen på att Krim återigen har blivit en del av Ryssland.

The author applies to the data of sociological research in order to explore the dynamics of the judgments of the Russia’s citizens about the basic foundations of civil identity. The author concludes that the events of the post-Soviet history could not provide the Russian society with new reasons for unification into a political nation. However, as the sociological data demonstrates, the request for the basis either for the national solidarity or for collective pride is obvious. Such a request forces citizens to look for examples of solidarity in the relatively distant past. First of all, they look for the solidarity’s examples in the Soviet historical heritage. The events of the Soviet history are the key markers of national pride and the basic foundations of the Russia’s civil nation. The re-unification of Russia with Crimea in 2014 coincided with the request of the Russian society to search for the glorious reasons for collective pride. So the author notes that many Russia’s citizens perceive Crimean Peninsula as "a place of memory" (the category that was offered by Pierre Nora). The history of the region, primarily in its interpretation that one could find in the official Russian discourse, is inextricably associated with the history of the Russian state. On the other hand, Crimea by itself symbolizes the Soviet past, and many citizens of Russia conceive its accession as a vague prototype of the return of the USSR. So the mass jubilation over the annexation of Crimea, that one could see in Russia, comes not from the mass revanchist sentiments of citizens, but from their desire to "link" symbolically the Russia’s present with the glorious Soviet past.

The article highlights the political process of accession in 1801, KartliKakheti to the Russian Empire, which was the result of the development of RussianGeorgian relations in the second half of the XVIII century, the article shows that the military-political weakness of the Georgian Kingdom became the main reason for the failure of the prisoner in 1783 the Treaty of Georgievsk, according to which Russia took under its protectorate of Eastern Georgia. Awareness of this fact has forced both Georgian and Russian ruling upper classes to begin to seek new forms of allied relations. Ensuing after the death of king Irakli II between representatives of the Royal family fight for throne significantly weakened the Georgian Kingdom. In the face of external threats from Iran, the only way to keep Eastern Georgia from ruin was its accession to Russia.

The status of Cyprus in the late 1950-ies as well as the UK policy associated with the solution of the Cyprus problem are discussed. On the basis of British documents and sources on USA foreign policy of the mid-20 th century an overview of British foreign policy in relation to controlled island is made. Special attention is paid to project of the Prime Minister of Great Britain Harold Macmillan, according to which the status of Cyprus were to remain unchanged for seven years, and the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots could participate in the political life of the island through new organs of power, functioning separately for each community. The approach of foreign Minister and later Prime Minister of Great Britain H. Macmillan is analysed to normalization of the situation in Cyprus in the second half of 1950-ies, complicated as a result of national liberation struggle of the Greek Cypriots unfolding on the island, who supported the idea of enosis (a movement for annexation to Greece). Also the main problems and disagreements in the positions of Turkey, Greece and the UK on certain articles of Macmillan draft are highlighted. The number of the articles are considered on the emergence of new authorities and distribution of powers between the Governor of the island and government authorities.

In the review, a collective monograph compiled in cooperation between Russian (S.N. Abashin and T.V. Kotyukova) and Uzbek (B.M. Babadjanov and O.A. Makhmudov) historians is considered, which, in our view, reflects attempts to “unify” а look at the past of the Turkestan Governor General by joint efforts and create a controversial field around the history of the region. Returning to the “great story” within the framework of the imperial narrative, following the “Soviet” tradition to publish thematic collections of archival documents, convinces the reader that in Soviet fashion the one-sidedness of the previous and true historiography on the history of Russian Turkestan is overcome. The submitted documents refer mainly to military ranks and the local administration, as a result of which the top, not bottom approach, the opinion of strong, rather than weak in the imperial processes, is being restored. The selection of documents shows us the other face of the imperial administration or a supporter of Russia’s expansion in the East and regional politics.

The article is devoted to the methodological dualism of the 2014 Crimean events’ assessment research from the standpoint of international law. Two polar approaches to the legal determination of Crimean situation (“self-determination theory” and “annexation theory”) are matched and compared during the analysis, based on parallel denial of the first theory and proof of the last one.

The historical comprehension of the journey to Siberia that resulted in its conquest and annexation by Russia almost immediately started with the sacralization of Yermak as its protagonist. Thus, it was natural for ‘contact relics’ to appear, i.e. items that had belonged to the legendary conqueror. Among them was Yermak’s armour and banners: these were invested with a certain holy power that gave them a sacral character. This is certainly the case with regards to the banner in the Kremlin Armoury in Moscow that depicts Archangel Michael’s appearance before Joshua. It was sent, along with other banners, from Tobolsk in the early 19th century and was until recently attributed to Yermak without any doubt. This article provides proof that the banner was created a century later than originally supposed, in the late 17th century. This can be demonstrated by the artistic character of the banner, the decorative elements along the edges borrowed from book illustrations, and the details in the depictions of figures and the landscape. The banner is unlikely to have been taken to Tobolsk after its creation in Moscow, although data exists about the production of banners in several Siberian cities (Krasnoyarsk, Yeniseysk, Tobolsk) in the late 17th century. It is known that S. U. Remezov, a famous chronicler and cartographer, made seven banners destined for Tobolsk in 1697. Based on these facts, the author puts forward the hypothesis that the banner in question, as well as a number of others kept in the Kremlin Armoury, were made by Remezov himself. The author proposes that the banner was dated to the times of Yermak much later, when its real point of origin had been forgotten., Историческое осмысление похода, приведшего к присоединению Сибири к России, практически сразу оказалось связано с сакрализацией его главного действующего лица – Ермака. В этом смысле естественно было и появление своеобразных «контактных реликвий», то есть предметов, по легенде принадлежащих легендарному завоевателю. Среди них оказались воинские доспехи Ермака, а также знамена, которые были важны и в силу своей изначальной сакральности – они несли на себе священные изображения. Это относится к знамени из Оружейной палаты Московского Кремля с изображением явления архангела Михаила Иисусу Навину. Оно было прислано в начале XIX в. из Тобольска в составе целой группы знамен, и до последнего времени принадлежность его Ермаку не подвергалась сомнению. В статье приводятся доказательства того, что знамя было создано веком позже, в конце XVII столетия. На это указывает характер художественного решения знамени: декоративные элементы на полях, заимствованные из книжной иллюстрации, особенности изображения фигур и пейзажа. Возможность написания знамени в Москве и его привоза в Тобольск кажется маловероятной, сохранились письменные свидетельства об изготовлении знамен в сибирских городах (Красноярске, Енисейске, Тобольске) в конце XVII в. Известно, что в 1696 г. С. У. Ремезов, известный сибирский летописатель и картограф, выполнил семь знамён с фигуративными изображениями для Тобольска. На основании этого высказывается гипотеза, что рассматриваемое знамя, как и ряд других, хранящихся в Оружейной палате, но до сих пор не опубликованных, происходит из числа сделанных самим Ремезовым. Автор высказывает предположение о том, что отнесли стяг ко времени Ермака, очевидно, уже гораздо позднее, когда были забыты реальные обстоятельства его создания.

Досліджуються можливі економічні наслідки сучасного україно-російського конфлікту, які може нести країна, яка ініціювала його і анексувала частину території України, тобто Росія. В якості таких розглядаються соціально-економічні витрати з підготовки до можливого ведення бойових дій, ідеологічній обробці населення, а також транзакційні витрати насильницької зміни форми власності на півострові. Значна увага приділяється аналізу соціально-економічних наслідків мілітаризації економіки країни і відволікання ресурсів суспільства від вирішення найважливіших соціально-економічних проблем. Досліджується роль, яку відіграє в сучасних економічних відносинах інститут довіри, і економічні наслідки, що виникають у зв'язку з формуванням негативного іміджу економічних суб'єктів різних рівнів. Исследуются возможные экономические последствия современного украино-российского конфликта, которые может нести страна, инициировавшая его и аннексировавшая часть территории Украины, т.е. Россия. В качестве таковых рассматриваются социально-экономические издержки по подготовке к возможному ведению боевых действий, идеологической обработке населения, а также транзакционные издержки насильственной смены формы собственности на полуострове. Значительное внимание уделяется анализу социально-экономических последствий милитаризации экономики страны и отвлечения ресурсов общества от решения важнейших социально-экономических проблем. Исследуется роль, которую играет в современных экономических отношениях институт доверия, и экономические последствия, возникающие в связи с формированием отрицательного имиджа экономических субъектов разных уровней. Explores the possible economic consequences of modern Ukrainian-Russian conflict, which can carry the country initiated it and annexed the territory of Ukraine, i.e. Russia. As such, they are considered social and economic costs to prepare for possible combat operations, indoctrination of the population, as well as transaction costs of violent change of the ownership of the peninsula. Considerable attention is paid to the analysis of socio-economic consequences of the militarization of the economy and the diversion of resources from society to address critical social and economic problems. We investigate the role played in modern economic relationships by institution of confidence, economic consequences arising from the formation of a negative image of economic actors at various levels.