Русский Феникс. Между советским прошлым и евразийским будущим - [80]

Sarah E. Mendelson and John K. Glenn, eds., The Power and Limits of NGO’s. A Critical Look at Building Democracy in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Columbia University Press, 2002.

Serhii Plokhy. The Origins of the Slavic Nations. Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Serhii Plokhy. The Ghosts of Pereyaslav: Russo-Ukrainian Historical Debates in the Post-Soviet Era. Europe-Asia Studies,Nol. 53, No. 3 (May, 2001), pp. 489–505.

Shakandrij M. Russia and Ukraine: Literature and the Discourse of Empire from Napoleonic to Postcolonial Times. McGill-Oueen’s University Press, 2001.

Stephen R. Burant. Foreign Policy and National Identity: A Comparison of Ukraine and Belarus. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, N 7 (Nov., 1995), pp. 1125–1144.

Stephen F. Cohen. Was the Soviet System Reformable? Slavic Review, Vol. 63, 3 (Autumn, 2004), pp.459–488.

Steven M. Eke and Taras Kuzio. Sultanism in Eastern Europe: The Socio-Political Roots of Authoritarian Populism in Belarus Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 52, No. 3 (May, 2000), pp. 523–547.

Stiglitz, J. Russian people paid the price for shock therapy. - http://www.flyingfish.org.uk/articles/ oecd/02-06-22atim.htm (04.04.11).

Svetlana Boym. From the Russian Soul to Post-Communist Nostalgia. Representations, N 49, Special Issue: Identifying Histories: Eastern Europe Before and After 1989 (Winter, 1995), pp. 133–166.

The Convolution of Historical Politics. Edited by Alexei Liller and Maria Lipman. Central European University Press. Budapest-New York, 2012.

Timothy J. Colton and Нашу E. Hale. The Putin Vote: Presidential Electorates in a Hybrid Regime. Slavic Review, Vol. 68, N 3 (Fall, 2009), pp. 473–530.

Timothy Snyder. Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569–1999. Yale University Press, 2003.

Tom Bjorkman. Russia’s Road to Deeper Democracy. Brooking Institution Press, 2003.

Trenin, Dmitry V. Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2011.

Vadim Skuratovskij. Pour une typologie des relations culturelles russo-ukrainiennes. Cahiers du Monde russe, Vol. 36, No. 4, L’Ukraine ancienne et nouvelle, Reflexions sur le passe culturel et le present politique de l’Ukraine (Oct.-Dec., 1995), pp. 407–410.

Valery Tishkov. Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and after the Soviet Union: The Mind Aflame. SAGE Publications Ltd. (UK), 1996.

Vladimir Baranovsky. Russia — A Part of Europe or Apart from Europe? International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 76, 3, (Jul., 2000), pp. 443–458.

Vladimir Shlapentokh. Early Feudalism. The Best Parallel for Contemporary Russia. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 3 (May, 1996), pp. 393–411.

Yegor Gaidar. Collapse of an Empire. Lessons for modern Russia. Brooking Institution Press, 2007.

ZbigniewBrzezin: ski.Ukraiine: the search'foranational identity. Edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Volodymyr Zviglyanich, Rowman&Littlefield publishers, Ins. 2000.

Zbigniew Brzezinski. Ukraine’s Critical Role in the Post-Soviet.HarvardUkrainian\Studies,,Vol.20,UKRAINE IN THE WORLD: Studies in thelnternational Relations and Security Structure of a Newly Independent State (1996), pp. 3–8.

ZENON E. KOHUT. The Development of a Little Russian Identity and Ukrainian Nationbuilding. Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 10, No. 3/4, Concepts of Nationhood in Early Modem Eastern Europe (December 1986), pp. 559–576.

Zoe Knox. The Symphonic Ideal: The Moscow Patriarchate’s Post-Soviet Leadership. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 55, N 4 (lun., 2003), pp. 575–596.

Summary Russian phoenix: two faces of post-soviet eagle (imperial-national dualism)

What is post-Soviet Russia? An empire, or a national state, or a specific Eurasian dualism — imperial-Russian? Should ‘imperial’ and ‘national’ on Russian soil be opposed or could they be combined and complemented as ‘Rossiyan’ with ‘Russian’?

This issue has been disputable throughout the last quarter of the existence of new Russia and was one of the reasons, which made me study the post-Soviet Russian period in terms of power-national identity relations. In Russia, regardless of the historical period, it is namely the incumbents that are responsible for everything happening in the state and that hypertrophy is natural for the huge Russian areas.

The other Russian sign of power is the sacralization of the state and its identification — to a certain extent — with the King, the Emperor, the Secretary General or the President of Russia. The personal factor and the irrational attitude towards the state (between the two extremes — worship and demonization) form a part of the Russian identity and of its capability to mobilize its resources in time of severe historical trials.

Our modern history allows the historian to be simultaneously a participant, a source and an observer, like Tukididis, as far as possible. It is true that the distance of time gives advantage to the purely academic historians that are not related to their heroes, like the people having dared to write modern history. I think, however, that historical knowledge can throw a light on the analysis of modern times, because however diverse the set of instruments of the representatives of different humanitarian sciences — social analysts, political scientists, anthropologists, philosophers, etc. — for the study of the contemporary environment could be, only the historian is capable to ‘see’ tendencies, which he has detected in past centuries. This is so, because there is a relation to the past. The fact that we do not perceive it does not make it non-existent but makes us attractively infantile having a different dioptre for short-sightedness. Yet, it also makes us vulnerable.