Suchergebnisse

Interviews on conscience and dissent in the USSR Interviews conducted by Dr Philip Boobbyer (University of Kent) These interviews, all of them in Russian, were conducted by Dr Boobbyer for a research project on the role of 'conscience' in undermining communism in the late Soviet era. Material from the interviews was used in the book Conscience, Dissent and Reform in Soviet Russia (London: Routledge, 2005), published in Russian as Sovest', dissidentstvo i reformy v Sovetskoi Rossii (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2010). The interviews, which were conducted in a semi-structured way, focussed on how dissidents became disenchanted with Soviet socialism, and the extent to which moral and spiritual motivations were present in their ideas and activities. Larisa Bogoraz (1926-2004). Larisa Bogoraz was born in Kharkiv, to a family loyal to the Communist Party. She was an active Komsomol member in her youth. She started to question the Soviet regime in the 1950s. She participated in the demonstration on Red Square against the invasion of Czechoslovakia on 25 August 1968, after which she was sentenced to four years in internal exile in Siberia. She remained active in human rights work throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Place and date of interview: Moscow, April 1996. Transcript provided in Russian. Aleksandr Ginzburg (1936-2002). Aleksandr Ginzburg grew up in Moscow in a non-communist family. In 1960, he co-edited the samizdat publication, Phoenix, after which he was arrested. He was a defendant in the 'trial of the four' in 1967. After Solzhenitsyn was exiled in 1974, he helped to set up the Solzhenitsyn Aid Fund to help political prisoners. He subsequently worked for a time as a secretary to Andrei Sakharov. He was sent into exile in 1979 as part of a prisoner release, and eventually settled in Paris. Place and date of interview: Paris, March 1997. Short summary of contents available (see below). Natalya Gorbanevskaya (1936-2013). Natalya Gorbanevskaya was a poet. She launched the samizdat journal Chronicle of Current Events in April ...

В статье дается краткий обзор развития процессов экономической интеграции государств постсоветского пространства. Рассматриваются основные результаты экономического взаимодействия стран в рамках таких объединений, как Содружество Независимых Государств, Союзное государство, Организация за демократию и экономическое развитие — ГУАМ, Евразийское экономическое сообщество, Таможенный союз. Итоги развития интеграционных процессов на постсоветском пространстве свидетельствуют о достижении участвующими в них государствами того или иного уровня экономической интегрированности. В этой связи к числу наиболее зрелых группировок следует отнести Союзное государство, а в перспективе таковой может стать и Таможенный союз, а также Единое экономическое пространство. = A brief review of regional economic integration process development in the former Soviet republics is provided in this article. The main results of economic cooperation of the countries within such associations as the Commonwealth of Independent States, Union State, Organization for Democracy and Economic Development — GUAM, Eurasian Economic Community, Customs Union, are also considered herein. The results of integration process development in the former Soviet Union are indicative of reaching of this or that level of economic integrity by the states participating in such processes. In this regard, the Union State should be identifi ed as one of the most mature groupings, and, in perspective, the Customs Union, as well as the subsequently formed Common Economic Space, can be identifi ed as such, as well.

The new phenomenon of the beginning of XXI century in the political transformations became the «color revolutions» that have a significant force in the fight against the enemy and geopolitical engendered under the pretext of spreading the ideas of democracy, political regime change in the former Soviet republics. The change of political power in a number of post-Soviet countries such as Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, showed that major actors in international relations, the US, EU, Russia, one of its main objectives is to achieve control over the territories of the former Soviet Union. ; Новым феноменом начала XXI века в политических трансформациях стали «цветные революции», которые обладают значительной силой в борьбе с геополитическим противником и породили под предлогом распространения идей демократии смену политических режимов в постсоветских республиках. Смена политической власти в ряде стран постсоветского пространства, например, Грузии, Киргизии, Украине, продемонстрировала, что такие крупные акторы международных отношений, как США, ЕС, Россия, одной из своих основных целей ставят достижение контроля над территориями бывшего Советского Союза.

The year of 2020 started a new chapter in the development of former-Soviet countries. The coronavirus epidemic, which began in the Chinese city of Wuhan, has spread to affect all countries throughout the world, including the countries of the former Soviet Union. Its influence has already affected the economic and social development of the countries in the post-Soviet space. Closing borders, stopping tourism, and imposing severe restrictions on transport services were the first measures that contributed to reducing the incidence rates. At the same time, these measures affected bilateral and multilateral trade and economic relations among the countries of the post-Soviet space.All countries of the post-Soviet space have taken steps to allocate additional funds to combat coronavirus. Ad hoc funds were formed, the review of budget expenditures and revenues began. However, in fact in the first few months the countries faced economic distress, the overcoming of which could take considerable time.The coronavirus epidemic is taking place against the backdrop of global economic crisis and a sharp drop in oil prices. Economic development models based on increasing consumption without economic growth, increasing the level of external and internal debt have shown their insolvency. In these conditions, the countries of the post-Soviet space, which are highly dependent on the external factor, have also experienced significant economic hardships.Finally, the «price warfare» in the oil market has a strong influence. The United States and Saudi Arabia's attempts to achieve dominance in the oil market, by displacing Russia from it, as well, have had a destabilizing impact on the world oil market. This factor has had a direct impact on those former-Soviet countries that produce and export hydrocarbon resources.In general, the coronavirus epidemic, taking place against the backdrop of global economic challenges and oil competition, will have a negative impact on the economic and political development of former-Soviet countries. The impact of the epidemic, its consequences, will affect the former-Soviet countries for many years to come. ; 2020 год открыл новую страницу в развитии стран постсоветского пространства. Эпидемия коронавируса, которая началась в китайском городе Ухань, распространилась на все страны мира, в том числе, на страны постсоветского пространства. Ее влияние уже сказалось на социально-экономическом развитии стран постсоветского пространства. Закрытие границ, остановка туризма, введение жестких ограничений на транспортное сообщение стали первыми мерами, которые позволили снизить уровень заболевших. В тоже время, эти меры сказались на двусторонних и многосторонних торгово-экономических отношениях между странами постсоветского пространства.Все страны постсоветского пространства предприняли шаги, направленные на выделение дополнительных средств для борьбы с коронавирусом. Были сформированы специальные фонды, начался пересмотр бюджетных расходов и доходов. Однако уже в первые месяцы страны столкнулись с экономическими проблемами, преодоление которых потребует значительного времени.Эпидемия коронавируса происходит на фоне кризисных явлений в мировой экономике и резком падении цен на нефть. Экономические модели развития, основанные на наращивании потребления без роста экономики, повышении уровня внешнего и внутреннего долга показали свою несостоятельность. В этих условиях, страны постсоветского пространства, которые находятся в сильной зависимости от внешнего фактора, также испытывают значительные экономические трудности.Наконец, сильное влияние оказывает ценовая «война» на нефтяном рынке. Попытки США и Саудовской Аравии добиться доминирования на нефтяном рынке, в том числе, за счет вытеснения с него России, оказали дестабилизирующее влияние на мировой рынок нефти. Этот фактор оказал прямое влияние на те страны постсоветского пространства, которые добывают и экспортирую углеводородные ресурсы.В целом, эпидемия коронавируса, которая происходит на фоне проблем в мировой экономике и нефтяного соперничества, окажет негативное влияние на экономическое и политическое развитие стран постсоветского пространства. Влияние эпидемии, ее последствия, будут ощущаться в странах постсоветского пространства еще долгие годы.

Twenty-five years have passed since the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which led to the disruption of the regional check-and-balance system aimed at resolving national issues and political and socioeconomic contradictions. It also resulted in a number of armed conflicts, including those in the Chechen Republic, Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Tajikistan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and later in the South-East of Ukraine. Immediately following the collapse of the USSR, key international actors paid special attention to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) region while trying to secure own interests. This led to the further stratification of the CIS region. A "geopolitical pluralism" started to form there, marked by the fragmentation of nation-state sovereignty over the territory. The concept and policy of "geopolitical pluralism" as developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski meets the interests of the United States by making the CIS region more manageable, while at the same time making it more difficult for Russia to implement its own strategic tasks there. The key goal of Russia is the creation of an integrated economic and political union able to take a rightful place in the world. Only the development of deep and comprehensive integration with the CIS states can ensure the competitiveness of Russia's position in the world as well as the positions of its partners in the former Soviet space. The purpose of this article is to assess the level of geopolitical pluralism in the CIS space taking account of the membership of the CIS countries in international organizations and their voting on UN General Assembly resolutions. The study is based on the interconnection of quantitative and qualitative methods of analysis of international relations and world politics. During the past quarter century following the collapse of the Soviet Union, a regional system of international relations has formed in its place. Despite the fact that the CIS is a kind of linking element which unites most of the former Soviet republics, a certain competition between the new states has become the characteristic feature of the political relations in the region. The policy of the west (primarily the United States) became a kind of a branched, diversified strategy aimed at the phased development, transformation and fragmentation of the region. The diversity of foreign policy priorities among the CIS states and the presence of many actors in the region makes mutual understanding and good-neighbourliness between these countries difficult to achieve. To the contrary, this diversity seriously complicates and slows down the development of deep and comprehensive integration, making it more unstable and ineffective. © HSE, 1993-2018.

Since former Soviet republics became independent states in 1991, their governments maintained active language policy with derusification as a part of it. Probably most consistently this policy has been maintained in Turkmenistan. This essay describes the process of derusification in Turkmenistan in retrospect and notes its effects. The essay shows that the effects of the derusification policy can be seen in two planes - in both space and time, and that this policy had a negative effect on the Turkmen nation.

Ключевые слова: Внешняя политика ФРГ, правительство Г. Шрёдера, постсоветские государства, «цветные революции», Германия, Россия, Украина, Грузия, Кыргызстан. = Key words:The foreign policy of Germany, the Government of Gerhard Schroeder, former Soviet states, «colored revolutions», Germany, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan. ; Статья посвящена рассмотрению позиции правительства ФРГ во главе с Г. Шрёдером в отношении «цветных революций» в Украине, Грузии и Кыргызстане в 2003–2005 гг. Выявлены три основные предпосылки для осторожной и выжидательной политики Германии в отношении этих политических процессов в постсоветских республиках в начале 2000-х гг., а именно: отсутствие у правительства Г. Шрёдера прямой заинтересованности в изменении политической ситуации в этих государствах; нежелание германского правительства оказаться в той или иной форме втянутым в острое внутриполитическое противостояние; стремление Г. Шрёдера сохранить и укрепить стратегическое партнерство с Россией. Отмечается важность и актуальность продолжения исследования данной темы вследствие осторожного и неоднозначного характера этой политики. = This article is focused on a consideration of the position of the German Schroeder's government concerning so-called «color revolutions» in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan in 2003–2005. There were revealed three main preconditions of «wait and see» German policy regarding these political processes in the Post-soviet republics in the early 2000s, namely: lack of direct interest of Gerhard Schroeder government in changing the political situation in these countries; unwillingness of the German government to be involved in a sharp internal political confrontation in one or another form; special importance of maintaining and strengthening the strategic partnership with Russia for Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. Highlights the importance of continuing studies of this topic because of a cautious and ambiguous nature of this policy.

In this work authors consider the integration processes in the former Soviet Union which allowed to create the economic and political organizations between the former federal republics. And also on the example of the Euroasian Economic Union positive tendencies in increase in economic capacity of the countries of participants are defined. ; В данной работе авторы рассматривают интеграционные процессы на постсоветском пространстве, позволившие создать экономические и политические организации между бывшими союзными республиками. А также на примере Евразийского Экономического Союза определяются положительные тенденции в увеличении экономического потенциала стран участниц.

Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state. ; Twenty years have passed since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Up until the point of dissolution, the Soviet authorities and intellectual elite had attempted to build a community in order to unite all Soviet citizens in the spirit of socialist modernisation. Although it is difficult to demonstrate that 'a Soviet nation' was successfully created [1], the attempt to build such a nation can serve as a case study through which to examine nation-building processes for constructivists as well as modernists . In addition to socialist modernisation, the Soviet nation aimed to be identified as a state, which would make it similar to the political nations dominant in western countries. Contrary to western tradition, however, it was not a nation state that provided full rights for all its citizens, but rather a socialist state that was 'ruled by workers and peasantry'. Nevertheless, the authorities aimed to give the Soviet nation the characteristics of a specific nation state. "It was a nation that in historical terms strived, or more accurately part of which strived, to form or proclaim a particular state" [2]. While at the time of proclaiming the USSR there was no such thing as the Soviet nation, it can be assumed that it was intended to become a constructed titular nation. The majority of national communities, even created ones, have an ethnic core. However academics cannot agree on the kind of state the USSR was, to what extent it took into account the ethnicity of its multinational population, how much it reflected the values, culture, and interests of its largest population group (i.e., the Russians) or even whether it was a Russian national state despite the strong influence of Russian ideology and politics. Some Russian academics, especially those in nationalistic circles (e.g., Valerij Solovej) as well as western scholars such as Terry Martin and Geoffrey Hosking stressed that Russians dominated demographically and politically. However, the USSR did not aim to nurture traditional Russian values. It rather fostered the deethnicisation of Russians and the ethnicisation of non-Russian. Another group of scientists, including those from post-Soviet states (e.g., Žambyl Artykbaev, Otar Džanelidze, and Georgij Siamašvili) as well as western scholars (e.g., Rogers Brubaker) concede that positive processes such as the allotment of territory to republics and other territorial units, the constitution of authority and administrative apparatus, and the formation of the elites once characterised the ethnic history of the USSR. All these processes, however, were dominated by a lack of sovereignty, a loss of national identity, and damage to the living environment. Georgia rather than the USSR has always been regarded by the Georgian people as their mother country. The Soviet Union, which was considered to be a voluntary union of equal republics, was in fact an artificial creation that non-Russian nations were forced to join. The majority of Georgians did not therefore claim the USSR as their homeland: 'The USSR was for its nations a socio-political state not a homeland' [3]. Non-Russian citizens in the Soviet Union perceived the Russians to be a state-building 'nation' and the USSR a Russian state. The Soviet authorities, who predicated internationalism on the Russian language and new Russian culture, actively combated ethnic nationalism (including Russian nationalism, which was associated with chauvinism and a tsarist legacy). Although Russkost was considered to be a remnant of a disgraceful past, it was nonetheless used as a tool to sovietise society. Indeed, Russian language and culture were both conducive to the assimilation of non-Russians. 'The Great Russian nation' was to be 'the first among equals' and thus Russia provided. Soviet state with certain features of ethnicity. However, Russian characteristics were never treated as instrumental to the USSR, because the aim was to form a new socialist, national community, that was beyond ethnicity, rather than to convert the citizens of the former USSR into Russians. Soviet ideology and science thus set the direction for nationality policy in the USSR, especially in terms of forming a Soviet nation. Based on the foregoing, the present paper identifies how the ethnic character of both the Soviet nation and the state.

У артыкуле разглядаецца пытанне, звязанае з жаданнем Савецкага ўрада ўключыць у склад Камісіі Аб'яднаных Нацый па ваенных злачынствах сем заходніх савецкіх рэспублік, якія падвергліся нямецкай акупацыі (Украінскай, Беларускай, Малдаўскай, Літоўскай, Латвійскай, Эстонскай, Карэла-Фінскай ССР). Гэта была першая спроба Крамля вывесці саюзныя рэспублікі на міжнародную арэну, каб яны выконвалі мэты і задачы, пастаўленыя цэнтральным савецкім урадам. Упершыню гэта патрабаванне было агучана ў ноце Савецкага ўрада ўраду Вялікабрытаніі 26 ліпеня 1943 г., якая была адказам на паведамленне брытанскага ўрада ад 6 сакавіка 1943 г., у якім прапаноўвалася, каб у Камісіі былі прадстаўлены англійскія дамініёны. Рэалізацыі савецкага плана перашкодзілі Вялікабрытанія і ЗША. У прыватнасці Лондан заявіў, што міжнародны статус савецкіх саюзных рэспублік не адпавядае аналагічнаму статусу брытанскіх дамініёнаў. Няўдача з членствам савецкіх рэспублік у КАНВЗ падштурхнула савецкае кіраўніцтва да канстытуцыйнай рэформы — прадстаўленню ім знешнепалітычных паўнамоцтваў.=The article considers the issues connected with the USSR authorities' wish to include seven western Sovietrepublics which had been occupied by Germans into the United Nations Commission on war crimes. Those were the Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR, the Moldavian SSR, the Lithuanian SSR, the Latvian SSR, the Estonian SSR and the Finno-Karel SSR. That was the first attempt of the Kremlin to bring the Union republics into the international arena, so that they might implement the goals set by the Soviet Union government. The fi rst time they did it was in the Soviet government's note to the government of Great Britain on July 26, which was in response to the demand of the British Government from April 6, 1943 suggesting that the Commission should include some British dominions. The Soviet plan realization was blocked by Great Britain and the USA. In particular, the British government claimed that the international status of the Soviet Union republics does not correspond to that of the British dominions. The failure to include the Union republics into that Commission prompted constitutional reforms — granting some foreign policy powers to the Soviet Union republics.

Central Asia's pivotal geographical position allowed it to play an essential role in relations among nations of Eurasia in the Middle Ages as the bridge between China and Europe. Yet, during the Russian and then the Soviet rule in Central Asia, the region's republics had no independent position in international relations as foreign affairs was formed and managed by the central government in Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 made salient the geopolitical, economic, and cultural importance of the fi ve former Soviet Central Asian republics. They reemerged as independent actors in the global interstate system and could have played a signifi cant role in international affairs during the last three decades. The article aims to discuss the Central Asian region's position in the Soviet and post-Soviet eras. It explores how Central Asia as a "closed" region during the Soviet period changed its geopolitical position and became an infl uential actor in global affairs.In addition, the article addresses factors that have played important role in globalizing Central Asia. ; Особое географическое положение Центральной Азии позволяло ей играть особую роль в отношениях между народами Евразии в средние века в качестве моста между Китаем и Европой. Во время российского, а затем и советского контроля Средней Азии республики региона не обладали независимостью в осуществлении иностранных дел. Распад Советского Союза в 1991 году позволил странам региона играть новую, важную геополитическую, экономическую и культурную роль в мире. Они возродились как независимые игроки в глобальной межгосударственной системе и смогли играть значительную роль в международных делах в течение последних трех десятилетий. Статья направлена на анализ положения регионов Центральной Азии в советское и постсоветское время. В ней исследуется, каким образом Центральная Азия как «закрытый» регион в советский период изменила свое геополитическое положение и стала влиятельным игроком в международных делах. Кроме того, в статье рассматриваются факторы, которые имели ключевое значение в глобализации Центральной Азии.

The article introduces the prospects of cooperative co-existence for Russia and the European Union in former Soviet republics within the current confrontation paradigm. It describes their foreign policies, strategies, and interests in the post-Soviet space. The author applied discourse and case-study analyses to the case of Armenia. The authentic idea of cooperative co-existence was projected on the relations between Russia and the European Union in post-Soviet countries. In Armenia, cooperative co-existence could be a win-win strategy, beneficial for all actors involved. The case of Armenia proved the possibility of a collaborative co-existence between Russia and the European Union in the post-Soviet space, the risk factors being the policies of small Caucasian states, the USA, China, and Turkey. ; Анализируется влияние растущей парадигмы войны и противостояния в отношениях между Россией и ЕС на постсоветское пространство. Основной исследовательский вопрос – возможно ли сотрудническое сосуществование между Россией и ЕС на постсоветском пространстве. Для ответа рассматриваются стратегические основы внешней политики России и ЕС на постсоветском пространстве. В частности, изучены пример Армении (в качестве case-study) и основы реализации и ключевые векторы внешней политики этого государства. На следующем этапе представляется понятие сотрудническое сосуществование и проектируется на отношения между Россией и ЕС на постсоветском пространстве. На примере Армении в статье выявляется возможность развития сотруднического сосуществования как win-win стратегии (при которой выигрывают все вовлеченные стороны) между ними на постсоветском пространстве. Статья основана на изучении первоисточников, дискурс-анализе и ситуативном анализе (case-study). Ценность статьи и ее вклад в научную дискуссию заключаются в попытке на примере Армении проанализировать и представить возможности развития сотруднического сосуществования между Россией и ЕС на постсоветском пространстве. Автор приходит к выводу, что потенциально развитие ...

The Soviet semi-official sphere is defined as a special type of semantic device presupposed the modulatively realized transition into another modality and state with proection to the approached social benefit-optimum achivement. There are revealed signs and special features of the characterized semantic field. The modulative transition principles and criteria are distinguished, which supposes tone, sense, emotion and modality exponents. There are defined semantic parameters introduced paradigmatics of analized units in their integrity and relation to the propaganda actions. The attention is drawn to the Soviet pathos specific features in their unity of wholeness and components. The modulative description principles of the units realised this sphere are outlined. The field of linguistic using and manifestation represented gives an opportunity to see not always experienced consequenses of political language in their directively organized systematizm ; Патетическая сфера советского официоза определяется как особый тип семантического устройства, предполагающего модулятивно осуществляемый переход в иную модальность и состояние, с проекцией к достижению приближаемого социального блага-оптимума. Выявляются признаки и особенности характеризуемой семантической области. Выделяются принципы и критерии модулятивного перехода, предполагающего тоновые, смысловые, эмоциональные и модальностные показатели. Выводятся семантические параметры, дающие представление о парадигматике разбираемых единиц в их единстве и отношении к пропагандистскому действию. Внимание обращается на специфику советского пафоса в единстве целого и составляющих. Намечаются принципы модулятивного описания воплощающих его единиц. Представленная область языкового использования и проявления дает возможность увидеть не всегда ощущаемые следствия языка политики в их направленно организованном систематизме.

The subject of the article is the application of the concept of the form of state in the Soviet historical and legal science.The purpose of the research is to confirm or disprove the hypothesis that the understanding of the form of the state in the Soviet history of law was not discrete, it changed under the influence of political transformations and had a significant impact on the modern theory of the state.The methodology. The method of periodization was used to highlight the Soviet period of historical and legal science, the chronological method was used to determine the upper and lower boundaries of the Soviet period. The narrative method made it possible to describe the historiographic process. The historical-comparative method was required to compare individual concepts.Results, scope of application. The concept of the form of the state that was used in the historical and legal science of the Soviet period has been determined. The form of the state in Soviet science included two elements initially: the form of government and the form of statehood. The third element has been added since the 1960s – the political regime. The institutionalization of the history of state and law as a science took place by the end of the 1940s. While historians of the old school were working, the main topics included the early stages of the development of the state. Then after the change of generations the priority place was taken by the problems of the Soviet state. By the end of the Soviet period a more harmonious allocation of topics had developed. In Soviet historical and legal science the form of the state of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods was considered separately. The form of government of the Russian state in the pre-revolutionary period was defined as a monarchy. Several types of monarchy were distinguished: early feudal, estate-representative, absolute. The republican form of government was recognized for the Soviet state. Its class and social essence changed with the development of socialism. Organizational forms changed accordingly. When studying the polity, the main attention was paid to the federation. Its complex origin was noted, because the Russian Federation (RSFSR) was part of the federation of the USSR. The Soviet federations were built according to the nationalterritorial principle. The issue of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation remained debatable. Most researchers considered the RSFSR a state with autonomous entities. The development of the territory of the state as a whole has hardly been studied. Major administrative-territorial reforms carried out in the 1920s-1930s were considered in isolation from national-territorial construction. Generalized works on the territorial development of the state appeared only at the end of the Soviet period. Issues of the political regime of the feudal and bourgeois state were addressed in the study of direct democracy in the ancient Russian state, estate representative bodies, state power during the period of absolutism. Political liberalization was noted during the bourgeois reforms of the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. The democratic nature of the Soviet political regime was not questioned, therefore, the problems indicating trouble, crisis phenomena in the Soviet state were not identified.Conclusions. The understanding of elements of form of the state in the Soviet history of law was expanding. It changed in accordance with the changes in the Soviet governance. The main approaches to understanding the form of the state are accepted by contemporary Russian science. ; Показано, как форма государства изучалась в истории права советского периода. Установлено, что первоначально в советской науке в форму государства включали два элемента: форму правления и форму государственного устройства; с 1960-х гг. добавился третий элемент – политический режим. Констатируется различие в подходах к рассмотрению в советской историко-правовой науке формы государства в дореволюционный и советский периоды. Фиксируется, что при изучении государственного устройства основное внимание уделялось федерации, отмечалась ее сложная природа; велись споры о субъектах, входивших в состав РСФСР; проблема политического режима отдельно не выделялась, но затрагивалась при изучении государственной власти и управления.

The author focuses on the problems of formation of the system of values of the younger generation in post-Soviet Russia. Political and economic competition between countries in the former Soviet Union at the level of mass consciousness of Soviet and national values qualitatively affected the social, political, cultural attitudes of young people who have the extremely unstable, contradictory character. The created vacuum of valuable orientations and world outlook installations of youth is filled with asocial ideals and an abstractness from real socio-political processes. ; В статье автор акцентирует внимание на проблемах формирования системы ценностей молодого поколения в постсоветской России. Политическая и экономическая конкуренция между странами на постсоветском пространстве на уровне массового сознания советских и национальных ценностей качественно повлияла на социальные, политические культурные установки молодежи, которые носят крайне неустойчивый, противоречивый характер. Сформировавшийся вакуум ценностных ориентаций и мировоззренческих установок молодежи заполняется асоциальными идеалами и отвлеченностью от реальных социально-политических процессов.