Войны и военные конфликты в истории России: к 70-летию Великой Победы. Материалы XIX Всероссийской научно-теоретической конференции. Москва, РУДН, 21-22 мая 2015 г.
Articles of the collection contain discussion of problems of military history of Russia. 2015 - year of the 70 anniversary of the Victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. However sources of the Victory lie much more deeply. High heroism was shown by the Russian soldiers and officers in World War I, Patriotic war of 1812. Huge value for the Russian statehood was played by victories of P. A. Rumyantsev, A.V. Suvorov, F.F. Ushakov and other Russian commanders. Our country in the history participated in a set of wars and military conflicts. Not everyone received worthy lighting. In materials of the collection the following questions are taken up: a role of wars in the history of Russia; economy in the years of wars; various social groups during wars; the international relations in military years; emergence and formation of patriotic sentiments; everyday life in the back and at the front; formation of images of the enemy and ally; development of military art in our country and factors of this process; reflection of wars in social thought of Russia and in art; etc.
The author investigates how various themes, including mutual interaction, territory delimitation and key periods in Russian history are presented both in contemporary Chinese history textbooks for secondary schools and Russianist literature for wide readership that had been published in China during 1997-2008. The author emphasizes the peculiar perception of Russian history in China and considers it most important factor for creation the image of Russia in contemporary PRC.
“Empire Speaks Out” is a result of the collaborative international research project whose participants aim to reconstruct the origin, development, and changing modes of self-description and representation of the heterogeneous political, social, and cultural space of the Russian Empire. The collection offers an alternative to the study of empire as an essentialized historical phenomenon, i.e. to those studies that construe empire retrospectively by projecting the categories of modern nation-centered social sciences onto the imperial past. It stresses dynamic transformations, adaptation, and reproduction of imperial patterns of sociability and governance. Chapters of the collection show how languages of rationalization derived from modern public politics, scientific discourses of applied knowledge (law, sociology, political economy, geography, ethnography, physical anthropology) and social self-organization influenced processes of transformation of the imperial space.
The chapter is focused on 1) the formation of historical memory about public politics and parliamentarism in the context of the anniversary of political reforms and introduction of the State Duma in 2006 2) the history of formation of the concept of public politics in Russia of the early twentieth century.
The chapter is focused on exploration of the politics of comparison as it was practiced by the ideologues of the Russian Empire and imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century. Special attention is given to the transfer of operative ideological frameworks from the British empire to the Russian context.
The chapter aims at giving historical perspective for the current university reforms in Russia by tracing the policies of the Russian State towards universities on different stages of Russian modernisation. It approaches ‘Russian modernisation’ as a series of multidimensional transformations of the Russian society through the last three centuries. Despite of being dissimilar in their appearances, these transformations had two important characteristics in common: they were prompted by the idea of catching up with the more developed West and initiated by the State. How did Russian authorities conceptualize the role of universities on each of these stages? What policies did they pursue? What problems did occur when they were making universities a tool of modernisation?
Again Russia has politically defined itself as an autocracy oriented toward modernization and camouflaged this time by quasi-democratic rhetoric entourage. For the third time in a century a similar configuration of power is restored. Contours of all autocratic power modifications including the Soviet one are close or even coincide – and this refers also to their actual cultural patterns not ideological fakes whether Orthodox, Communist or ‘democratic’.
Императора Александра I, несомненно, можно назвать самой загадочной и противоречивой фигурой среди русских государей XIX столетия. Республиканец по убеждениям, он четверть века занимал российский престол. Победитель Наполеона и освободитель Европы, он вошел в историю как Александр Благословенный - однако современники, а позднее историки и писатели обвиняли его в слабости, лицемерии и других пороках, недостойных монарха. Таинственны, наконец, обстоятельства его ухода из жизни. О загадке императора Александра рассказывает в своей книге известный писатель и публицист Александр Архангельский.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.