Suchergebnisse

The article studies the influence of Russia and Turkey on the political development of the South Caucasus in 1918. The choice of 1918 year is conditioned by its transitivity in the relations of two countries with regard to the Caucasus region: peace treaty was concluded, but cooperation was not achieved yet. After the fall of the monarchy Russia entered the stage of reconstruction, while Turkey was on the verge of the final fall of the Young Turks. For both countries the territory of the South Caucasus became the stage of political struggle for realizing imperial ambitions and an attempt to prevent the final territorial disintegration of states. The author shows a difference between Russian and Turkish political approaches. Turkey acted directly, holding negotiations and introducing troops, while Russia had no contacts with Caucasus officials and tried to weaken the Turkish activity in the region through Germany. The conflict nature of the region, which had earlier been suppressed by the power of Russian monarchy, was revealed now. The author presents the political development of the South Caucasus in the form of evolution from the idea of autonomy within the Russian statehood to the proclamation of independence of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia. Considering the South Caucasus political development in the international context is conditioned by dependence on external challenges, which determined the decisions and actions of Caucasian political elites. On the one hand, the newly formed Caucasian governments declared their independence at the international level. On the other hand, these governments were dependent on the leaders of world politics in achieving their goals. The participation of Russia and Turkey in the political processes in the South Caucasus was associated with the contradictory aims. Both parties didn't want to be eliminated from the Caucasian region. At the same time, they tried to avoid military conflict. The Turkish government's motivation to use the military power consisted in the need to protect the Muslim population, but not in opposition to Russia. In general, year 1918 marked two opposite perspectives for both countries: for Russia - the loss of the Caucasus as a territory and a sphere of influence; for Turkey - strengthening positions through the local Muslim population.

In the article, the authors turn to the practical side of the cultural policy of the Soviet government, which at the early stages declared the goal of forming a "new man'. The ideological discourse constructed ideal images, while the "reforging" of the population in the provinces was carried out in difficult material conditions. Based on archival materials, the study shows the experience of building and developing a library network in the Stavropol region. After analyzing the experience of organizing library work, the authors come to the conclusion that Soviet social engineering faced a number of difficulties, such as hunger, lack of specialists and scarce funding.

The article deals with the Caucasian policy of the Volunteer army in the South and its role in international relations of the Armed forces of the South of Russia. The authors conclude that A. I. Denikin interacted with the British on Caucasian issues outside of the Russian political conference, since it had no influence on the international arena. Relations with independent Transcaucasian republics were complicated by the unwillingness of the leadership of the Volunteer army to recognize their statehood.

Introduction. The author presents a brief description of the situation in the South Caucasus after the establishment of the Soviet power in Azerbaijan. A brief characteristic of the international context influencing decisionmaking in relation to Georgia and Armenia is given. The author makes a short review of historiography. Methods and materials. A list of historical sources is presented. The materials of the Archive of foreign policy of the Russian Federation and the Russian state archive of social and political history, private documents and the description of Menshevik Georgia in 1920 by Soviet scientist and publicist N.L. Meshcheryakov are the base of the research. Analysis. Based on these sources, the author explores the Soviet-Georgian relations, which are considered as interstate, since Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic legally accepted the independence of the Georgian state. A comparison of the positions of the representatives of the Caucasus Bureau and the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs revealed the difference in approaches to politics in Georgia. Moscow was against forced Sovietization and considered the Georgian Republic as a temporary buffer between Russia, on the one hand, and the forces of the Entente and Kemalist Turkey, on the other. The main directions of the Soviet-Georgian interaction were analyzed. The author, giving examples from documents, proves that Georgia was used as a center for strengthening control over Azerbaijan, consolidating success in the North Caucasus and pursuing a policy of reintegrating the South Caucasus into the Russian statehood. One of the clauses of the SovietGeorgian treaty signed in May 1920 was the creation of an associated commission. The article considers the features of its work and shows its inefficiency using the documents. Results. The author draws the conclusion that achieving independence in a wide international context was impossible for Georgia at that date. The RSFSR policy during 1920–1921 can be called the course of postponed Sovietization. It became an independent stage in the reintegration of the South Caucasus.

Introduction. The interest in the "Armenian issue" is linked to the current international agenda and the impact of significant historical events on it, such as the genocide of 1915. Methods and materials. The interdisciplinary principle determines the use of traditional historical approaches (historical-genetic and historical-comparative) and international relations theories (defensive realism) simultaneously. The sources contain the published documents and publicism, as well as the archival documents of the Archives of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire and the State Archives of the Russian Federation. Analysis. Starting with the signing of the Berlin Treaty and the introduction of an article into it obliging Ottoman Porte to reform the management of the Armenian population, the inclusion of the "Armenian issue" in the foreign policy agenda of European states began. At the same time, the responsibility for the reforms carried out by the Ottomans was collective, and the leadership of Russia in this matter was considered impossible. Collectivity was the reason for the erosion of responsibility; the Sultan was not actually made to reform. With the beginning of the "Hamid pogroms" in 1894, the "Armenian issue" threatened the balanced position of the powers in relation to the Ottoman Empire and actualized the issue of the Ottoman Porte's responsibility for reforms in the Armenian vilayets. Obviously, Russia could be the most effective. France, Germany, and Italy initially did not plunge into this problem; in Asian Turkey, the main actors were still Great Britain and Russia. Results. Neither England nor Russia dared to act decisively, but they did not want to give in to each other either. For the British, control of the straits and the dominance of Russia in the Middle East were unacceptable. On the other hand, Russia was afraid to create a "second Bulgaria" near the Caucasian border. Therefore, the "Armenian issue", complicated by rivalry, went through a cycle on the international agenda, as a result of which Russia returned to dominance in its solution after 1908. The contribution of the authors to the writing of the article is related to the research by L.N. Velichko on European and Ottoman Porte's policy in resolving the "Armenian issue", K.R. Ambartsumyan has dealt with the evolution of Russia's position and explored the factors that influenced its change.

The authors of the article address the problem of practical implementation of "soft power" in modern Russian foreign policy. The aim of the research was to understand the role of academic mobility in the development of a positive image of Russia in the world. In this regard, the authors emphasize the inexpediency of understanding science and education as a means of propaganda and ideological response to foreign opponents. Academic mobility is one of the effective channels that allows not only to share the results of research and educational activities, but also, through interpersonal communication in professional communities, to destroy the existing negative stereotypes about Russia. The article provides experience of DAAD as one of the best practices in organizing academic exchanges, and emphasizes the possibility of adapting this experience for Russia. Opposing the statement of J. Nay, German experience has shown the effectiveness of active participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in supporting international cooperation in education and research. Taking into account the diversity of regions in the Russian Federation, the authors came to the conclusion that it is necessary to enhance cross-border cooperation with neighboring regions following the policy of "soft power". As an example, the authors present the experience of North Caucasus Federal University in cooperation with scientific and educational institutions of the South Caucasus. The border position of the North Caucasus region, common historical past of the peoples and common Caucasian identity make NCFU an effective tool for strengthening Russia's influence in the region, which traditionally becomes an arena of international rivalry. The article also presents the experience of implementing joint projects with European partners, analyzes current trends in the development of European Higher Education Area, and shows the role of academic mobility in the formation of a sustainable, cohesive and peaceful Europe. In this regard, the authors conclude that universities make a significant contribution to the formation of a positive image of Russia as a country with ethnic, cultural, historical, religious and geographical diversity.