«Инородческий казус» 1910 года как проявление конфликта идентичностей в политической жизни Российской империи
The articles examines the nationalistic and imperial imagination of three Russian writers (Apollon Maikov, Ivan Goncharov and Alexei Pisemsky), who proposed their own versions of the so-called "Russian Idea" during the Crimean War (1853-56). Exploring the misture of various discourses in their lyrics, journalism and sketches, the article offers the new understanding of the nationalization of patriotism in the literary realm.
In this paper we consider the nature of local Nash equilibrium (LNE) for a model
of the 2007 Duma election in Russia, using estimates of valence obtained from sociodemographic
We then extend this sociodemographic valence model by including institutional valences,
the approval by voters of the various institutions, including the President, the PrimeMinister,
the State Duma and the Federation Council.We show by simulation that the vote maximizing
LNE of this general stochastic model were not at the electoral origin. The dominant feature
of the election was the influence of approval or disapproval of President Putin on each voter’s
The introductory chapter to the volume devoted to diversity of the forms and practices of religious life in the post-Soviet space, aims to explain the success and rapidity of the process of religious revival in the former Soviet Union. It argues that religious revival of the 1990s was geared-up by return of material representations of religion, in the form of cultural heritage, into the Soviet public sphere. This new turn, "retrospective turn", started after the WWII with efforts of Soviet intellectuals, artists and writers who were critical about results of Soviet modernization.
The article is devoted to the issue of regional representation in Russian parliament. The level of regional representation did not decrease, but even slightly increased in the State Duma of the fifth convocation. The author tries to answer the question how the change in the electoral system can influence the configuration of elites in the party lists and how parties' opportunities were changed by loopholes in the law, also why the «United Russia» won the 2007 electoral campaign.
This book emanates from the research project ‘Nation-building, nationalism and the new “other” in today’s Russia’ (NEORUSS) funded by the Research Council of Norway under the Russia and the High North/Arctic (NORRUSS) programme, project number 220599. It is a sequel to The New Russian Nationalism: Imperialism, Ethnicity and Authoritarianism, 2000–15 (2016), edited by Pål Kolstø and Helge Blakkisrud, likewise published by Edinburgh University Press. Since our research project commenced, major events have taken place that affect Russian nationalism, in particular the annexation of Crimea and the war in Eastern Ukraine. The first volume was well underway when these momentous developments unfolded and we were able to refl ect on them only to a limited degree. In this second volume, with more distance to these events, we are better able to incorporate the effects of the Ukrainian crisis on Russian nationalism.
There are many puzzles facing the analyst trying to understand the trajectory of Russian politics. Why did democracy fail in the 1990s? How was a small, corrupt elite able to seize control of the commanding heights of the economy, becoming fabulously wealthy in the process? Among the puzzles is also the failure of Russian nationalists to capitalise on the public’s deep dissatisfac- tion with the performance of the Russian economy in the 1990s. Then, after the accession to power of Vladimir Putin in 2000, the new, patriotic leader confounded the nationalists by sticking with many of the policies of the liberal market reformers: eschewing protectionism and trying to maintain and deepen Russia’s integra- tion into the global economy.
Putin concluded that Russia’s viability as a great power required him to accelerate economic modernisation and deepen global integration. Other leaders of developing countries, such as the populist President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and the nationalist Prime Minister Narendra Modi in India, came to a similar conclusion, and tried to adopt select elements of the neoliberal policy package without alienating their domestic con- stituencies. These international comparisons are an important reminder that Russia’s dilemma of embracing the global economy while preserving national identity is not unique.