The objective of the present study is a complex reconstruction of the image of a sea storm as depicted in Russian sources, with a particular focus on those from the period up to the beginning of the 19th century. The subject of the study is the formation and evolution of representations of sea storms in Russian culture during the specified time period, the identification of the distinctive characteristics of these representations, their correlation and interrelation, and the determination of the factors that could have influenced them. Sources of various origins were used, ranging from translated exegetical works, such as Six Days of Creation by Basil the Great and John Exarch of Bulgaria, and original hagiographic works including the hagiographies of Zosima and Savvatii of Solovki, Tryphon of Pechenga, and others, to the poetry of M.V. Lomonosov and works of folklore: Pomor laments, “expectancies”, incantations, proverbs and sayings, northern bylinas and ship’s cantos. Such generalizing studies have not been carried out before. The analysis of endeavors to subjugate the sea storm, as evidenced by monuments of folk culture, is a particular focus of the study. The article employs specific illustrations to demonstrate the impact of Christian culture and literary works, both original and translated, on folkloric traditions, in the context of comprehending the sea’s image. The analysis demonstrates that the notion of subduing the sea, as depicted in the sources examined, is a multifaceted and enigmatic concept. On the one hand, the Christian conception posits that the sea’s indomitable waves are subject to the divine control of the Creator (or saints acting in accordance with His will). This notion is articulated most vividly and comprehensively in the sources under consideration. In contrast, there are various accounts of attempts to harness the power of the sea for human purposes, although these are not numerous. Notably, Peter the Great is depicted in certain monuments as the sole figure capable of weathering the storm, suggesting a cultural and historical significance in this portrayal. The depiction of Peter the Great as the sole figure capable of resisting the storm is indicative of the apologetics of autocracy in the popular environment. Romantic associations with the image of a sea storm are not a feature of Russian culture prior to the Modern period.

The article focuses on the history of the establishment of the diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Bessarabian region of Chișinău and Khotin in the aft ermath of the war with Turkey. Initially, the authorities of the Russian Empire intended to subordinate the local church institutions to the Holy Synod upon the annexation of the Danube Principalities, an action seemingly modeled on the precedent set by the Georgian Church. However, the deployment of French military forces in proximity to the Russian border necessitated the prompt establishment of peace between the Russian and Ottoman militaries by the Russian military leadership on the Danube. This geopolitical context precluded the acquisition of these territories by the Russian Empire, compelling the Russian side to focus its territorial ambitions on Bessarabia alone. Following the ratifi cation of the Peace of Bucharest (1812) in the Transnistrian region of the Moldavian Principality, the organizational framework for the establishment of local authorities, including those of a religious nature, was initiated. Metropolitan Gavriil (G. Bănulescu-Bodoni), who successfully completed all the planned activities within the shortest possible timeframe, was entrusted with the formation of the local diocese. By the close of 1812, the local diocese in Chișinău had already commenced its operations, entrusted with the oversight of over 750 parishes and more than 10 monasteries and sketes. In early 1813, the opening of the fi rst educational institution in Bessarabia was realized through the efforts of Metropolitan Gavriil, in the form of a theological seminary, which soon began to operate a noble boarding school for the children of the local nobility. Also in 1814, Gavriil’s efforts resulted in the opening of a printing house at the bishop’s residence in Chișinău, which printed books in the Slavonic and Moldavian languages. It is also noteworthy that the exarch had conceived the idea of founding a printing house during the construction of the diocesan house and built a separate building for it, even before receiving the approval of the tsarist authorities. By the mid-1814, Metropolitan Gavriil’s efforts had resulted in the full operationalization of the dioceses of Chișinău and Khotin in the Bessarabian region. Notably, this region was distinguished from numerous others by its acquisition of the right to print the necessary literature for church and educational activities.

In the early 20th century, the monarchist movement in Russia had several centers, one of which was Volhynia province. The purpose of this article is to identify the reasons for the success of the monarchists in the south-western fringes of the empire, particularly in Volhynia. The scientifi c novelty of this research is twofold: firstly, it utilizes a wide range of sources, some of which are first introduced into the scientific discourse; and secondly, it employs the latest achievements of both domestic and foreign historiography. The most signifi cant reason for the popularity of monarchist ideas in the South-Western territory was the presence in the region of a constantly smouldering ethno-confessional confl ict between Orthodox, Catholics and Jews. This was rooted in the region’s acute socio-economic contradictions, chiefly the ongoing struggle for land between Orthodox peasants and Polish Catholic landlords, with Jewish tenants, who leased land to the peasants on unfavourable terms, becoming embroiled. Additionally, Jews effectively monopolized retail trade in the countryside. The Union of Russian People (SRN) emerged in the region, defending autocracy (which for the peasants embodied order and the patronage care of the sovereign for his people), Orthodoxy (the faith of their ancestors, for which the Cossacks had fought against the “Lyakhs” and “Jews” for centuries) and “Russian nationality” (with which Volhynia’s peasants identifi ed themselves). This development gave rise to a renewed sense of optimism among the Orthodox populace, who perceived the SRN as a potential bulwark against the “Polonization” of Volhynia province. Moreover, they anticipated that the SRN would facilitate their acquisition of land owned by Catholic landlords and would also assist in the dissolution of the trade monopoly held by the Jewish population. This was due to the fact that the SRN had declared both of them to be enemies of the autocracy. The personal factor also played an important role in the popularization of monarchist ideas in Volhynia. The Right had strong and influential leaders in the region, mostly clergymen. So these leaders could use not only the spiritual authority of the Pochaiv Lavra but also its material base in their political activities.

The study of the historical space of the South Coast of Crimea, which underwent signifi cant economic, social and cultural transformations in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, has received a new impetus in recent years. This can be attributed to several factors. First is the importance of comprehensively reconstructing the history of Crimea as the primary “place of memory” of modern Russia. Second — ongoing debates about the nature of changes in the life of Russian society in that period. Third — significant developments in methodology and historiography, including the “memorial” and “sociocultural” turns. Finally, new opportunities for source research, that have arisen due to the large-scale digitization of Russian archives and museum collections. This article represents a continuation of the author’s series of works on the subject of the history of dacha resorts on the South Coast of Crimea. This series of works culminated in the monograph Dachas and Summerfolk of the Russian Riviera. Essays on the History of the South Coast of Crimea and Sevastopol in the Early Twentieth Century (2024). The present article is noteworthy as it introduces and analyses for the fi rst time paperwork documentation that has been preserved in the papers of the eminent scientist V.I. Vernadsky. This documentation is deposited in his fund in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences and relates to the existence of Batiliman, the dacha resort of “intellectual labourers” in the west of the South Coast of Crimea (the present-day territory of the city of Sevastopol) in 1911–1920. The history of this dacha resort, whose shareholders included prominent scientists, writers, artists, and leaders of the Cadet Party, has been reconstructed in the literature in fragments, primarily from ego-sources, i.e. memoirs and diaries. The complete list of shareholders has remained unknown, whereas it included K.S. Stanislavsky, I.Ya. Bilibin, V.G. Korolenko, P.N. Milyukov, M.I. Petrunkevich and other prominent fi gures. The documents from the V.I. Vernadsky’s fund, among others the map of the dacha resort’s boundaries, the list of plot owners and other materials, allowed, when used together with documents from the State Archive of the Republic of Crimea, as well as sources of personal origin and visual documents, to establish for the first time reliably the composition of the dacha residents of Batiliman, the history of the creation of the resort, and to systematize the data for further research.

V.I. Lenin for many years developed Marx’s concept of world socialist revolution, particularly with regard to his formulation of. This concept underwent continuous refi nement, with adjustments made to align with the evolving political and economic landscape of Russia and other nations. The Leninist notion served as the foundation for the Bolshevik Party’s strategic approach. Following the Bolsheviks’ seizure of power in Russia, Lenin continued to refine and evolve his concept until 1922. However, the majority of the party and state leaders of the Soviet Union did not accept Lenin’s views on the rapidly changing events of 1918–1922, perceiving his theory as a defi nitive dogma. His concept of the transition of the world revolution into an economic competition between communist and capitalist systems was not appreciated during Lenin’s lifetime or after his death. The Soviet state leaders, having divested the scientific essence from the concept of world revolution, transformed it into a propaganda poster, “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”. This appeal served to unify the Soviet populace, particularly the youth, but lacked a political perspective. This is exemplifi ed by the international education of students in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. The internationalist ethos of these institutions was complemented by their practical involvement in the training of qualifi ed personnel for the USSR, a feat that can be largely attributed to the success of Soviet educators. However, as the global revolutionary movement began to wane in the second half of the 1920s, and the USSR transitioned towards independent socialist construction, the international dimension of the international education of students at pedagogical high schools gradually lost its signifi cance. The objective of this article is to examine the evolution of international education at pedagogical high schools in the USSR during the 1920s and 1930s. This st udy introduces a novel approach by making use of data from numerous newspaper publications of that period, as well as archival documents that facilitate the analysis of the primary directions of international education for Soviet students.

In February 1934, the Polish Foreign Minister J. Beck made his first and only visit to Moscow. The visit took place in the context of the German-Polish declaration of non-aggression, with the intention of allaying Soviet concerns and fostering a friendly atmosphere. However, the visit did not result in any substantial advancements in Polish-Soviet relations. The negotiations conducted by Beck with the head of the People’s Commissariat of Foreign Affairs (NKID), M.M. Litvinov, yielded only modest outcomes. These were the elevation of diplomatic missions to the rank of embassies and an extension of the term of the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact of 1932 for a period of 10 years. Consequently, despite an outwardly favourable outcome, the Polish foreign minister did not present specifi c proposals, and the visit did not resolve key issues. Beck’s approach was not aligned with Soviet initiatives for a joint declaration aimed at safeguarding the Baltic states, a clear indicator of Warsaw’s true intentions. Poland’s foreign policy was oriented towards fostering relations with Germany, while the Soviet leadership, having reached this conclusion, deemed the prospect of rapprochement with Poland to be unfeasible. Therefore, the Soviet Union initiated a systematic reduction in its political dialogue with Warsaw, confining it to the domain of cultural interactions. When evaluated from the perspective of Warsaw’s declared “policy of equilibrium”, it is evident that this policy can only be discussed in relation to the brief, three-week period between the German-Polish declaration of 26 January 1934 and Beck’s departure from Moscow in the evening of 15 February of the same year. The visit of J. Beck was indicative of the fact that the improvement of relations with the USSR was merely a transient tactical manoeuvre. Consequently, in the latter half of the 1930s, relations between Poland and the USSR began to deteriorate, despite the offi cially declared “warming” in relations.

The military aspect of the U.S. space projects between 1957 and 1963 has hitherto been the subject of only cursory consideration in the Russian scientifi c community. In the context of the rivalry with the USSR in the exploration of near-Earth space, large-scale U.S. military-space projects were driven by numerous objectives, one of which was to establish a military presence in space and, ideally, to achieve undisputed American military superiority in near-Earth space. From the outset of the “space race”, initiatives were devised and executed to develop vehicles for reconnaissance activities, concurrently with programs for novel space-based armaments capable of targeting the USSR from near-Earth space. Moreover, proposals by the American military and scientists indicated the commencement of “military exploration” of the Moon. These proposals encompassed the establishment of an artifi cial habitat for human habitation, along with the construction of a military base on the Moon’s surface (or subterranean), equipped with launch pads for missiles armed with nuclear warheads. The prevailing assumption at the time was that these missiles would ensure the destruction of the primary adversary, even in the event of the U.S. mainland being targeted, following the initiation of a nuclear exchange. A further area of early-stage military-space research involved the development of means to combat enemy satellites, with the use of nuclear weapons being a distinct possibility. The overarching objective of military space programs was twofold: firstly, to ensure scientific and technical superiority in open space research, and secondly, to demonstrate this to the global community. A direct correlation was observed between advancements in near-Earth space exploration and the global perception of the two superpowers as rival world leaders during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It is important to note that neither of the two superpowers achieved an obvious “victory” in the space arms race during the period under consideration; however, the general vector of space exploration was set at that time.

The article is an extensive review of the recently published monograph by Tomsk scholar O.G. Lekarenko, U.S. European Policy during the L. Johnson’s Presidency (1963–1969) (Tomsk: Tomsk State University Press, 2023). Th e author of the review generally follows the structure of the monograph, commenting consistently on the preparation, conduct and conclusion of the so-called Kennedy Round (1964–1967) within the framework of the negotiations on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In terms of its political and economic consequences, the Kennedy Round was one of the key events in the world’s progressive movement towards the liberalization of international trade. Other events that had a significant impact on the course of the negotiations are also con si dered, such as the crisis in NATO, the elaboration of the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community, the policy of French President de Gaulle regarding the widening and deepening of the integration processes in Europe and interaction with the USA. O.G. Lekarenko demonstrates the interdependence of economic and political issues, as well as the role and place of regional issues (for example, the development of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EEC countries) in global processes, such as the development of political dominance of the USA in the Western Hemisphere, the liberalization of international trade, and the regulation of nuclear forces. In the end, the author of the monograph ultimately arrives at a conclusion with which it is quite possible to agree: despite the initial attempts to implement J. Kennedy’s “Great Project” of creating an Atlantic partnership between the USA and Europe, during his presidency Johnson reformulated the goal of the U.S. European policy and adopted a course of solving smaller but more urgent problems by isolating de Gaulle from his European allies. Johnson’s approach of waiting and observing the situation proved to be eff ective, as evidenced by the outcome of the GATT negotiations, which generally favoured the United States. Additionally, the establishment of a nuclear planning group within NATO was a notable development. However, it is important to note that Johnson was unable to resolve another issue, namely that the UK did not accede to the EEC during his presidency.

In the context of Russian art culture, Ivan Morozov occupies a position of distinction as a prominent collector of contemporary French and Russian art. The influence of his collection on the subsequent development of Russian art, most notably on the generation of young avant-garde artists, is indisputable in the present day. However, it was not until relatively recently that the full significance of the collection and the role of I.A. Morozov in the history of Russian culture was fully recognized. The period of Morozov’s immersion in the European art market, spanning approximately ten years from 1903, is of particular interest. Initially, he acquired “quiet” Impressionist canvases, and by 1913, his collection had grown to include signifi cant works by P. Picasso. It is notable that Morozov’s collection of major works of French new art developed at a time when the vast majority of the public rejected this painting. Modern European art was perceived in Russia as a result of decadence and degeneration. Consequently, the promotion of the works of Impressionists, Post-Impressionists, Cubists, Fauvists, and German Expressionists at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries appeared highly pertinent. Art magazines played an instrumental role in this movement, shaping the development of collecting in Russia. The most prolifi c phase of Morozov’s collecting of French avant-garde artists, now categorized as Post-Impressionists, occurred between 1906 and 1912. These artists exerted a profound and direct influence on Russian radical art. During this period, Morozov acquired works that would prove to be pivotal in shaping the future trajectory of Russian art. These acquisitions included pieces by the delicately Symbolist representatives of the Blue Rose association, as well as the naïve primitivist works of Larionov and Goncharova. A notable aspect of Morozov’s collection was the preponderance of Russian artworks over French masterpieces, with a ratio of approximately two to one. Notwithstanding, he was able to demonstrate, as early as the 1910s, a dialogue between the art of the two countries. In the contemporary context, the implications of the Morozov Collection on Russian painting are of equal signifi cance. This influence is attributable to the its accessibility to artists, among other factors.