This article examines practice of public diplomacy by the first US representatives in Europe during the American War for Independence and post-war years. The research focuses on Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson’s efforts to inform European society about developments in the New World, counteract English propaganda and disinformation, and debunk myths and negative perception regarding the United States. The study aims to differentiate the concepts of “public diplomacy” and “propaganda” in the context of early history of the USA. The author concludes that Benjamin Franklin employed a variety of methods to influence European society. He initiated the publication of key official documents of the United States, including the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, various state constitutions. Franklin immersed himself in French high society visiting salons, dinners, where he could make important acquaintances and informally advocate for the interests of the young republic. As a member of renowned intellectual community “Republic of Letters”, Franklin leveraged his popularity and reputation in scientific circles to promote interests of the United States. In a series of letters to his colleagues he explained the reasons that compelled Americans to revolt, described the situation on the battlefield. At the same time in his efforts to expose English policy toward the North American colonies, “the founding-father” resorted to propaganda and disinformation. The analysis further reveals the contributions of Thomas Jefferson, who succeeded Franklin as the United States envoy to France following the conclusion of the War of Independence. Deeply concerned about myths and negative perceptions of the USA circulating in Europe due to G. L. Leclerc, Comte de Buffon theory of degeneration, he organized an information campaign, promoted cultural exchange, and fostered cooperation with scientific circles on both sides of the Atlantic. The article is addressed to those interested in early American history, public diplomacy concept, and its application during the formative years of the United States.

The article examines the role of traditional symbols in the process of building the Indian nation during the colonial period. The author focuses on a number of elements of traditional Indian culture that were significantly transformed and gradually acquired fundamentally new meanings as national identity concepts emerged. Analyzing the evolution of this symbolism reveals the complexity and contradictions embedded in the nation-building process in colonial India.

The study showed that the transformed religious symbolism and the concepts arising with its involvement could have various options for interpretation and perception within the colonial society. Firstly, the poem “Vande Mataram”, written by Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay in the second half of the 19th century, emerged as a central symbol in the movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905–1907. Secondly, the transfer of traditional ideas about the varnacaste structure of society to the modern context allowed for the conception of nation as a “horizontal partnership”, even in the face of the persistent caste inequality within Indian society. Thirdly, the demand for swaraj, articulated in the early 20th century, in this formulation, enabled some colonial figures to deliberately differentiate it from the Western concept of sovereignty or to significantly broaden its interpretation. Initially framed as a call for dominion status within British India, the concept of swaraj began to evolve for several Indian thinkers, particularly A. Ghose, who came to view it as a quest for liberation from Western influence and a return to the ancient foundations of Indian society.

The article examines the process of forming assessments of the Arab revolt in US periodicals. Materials from these publications make it possible to establish how ideas about the causes of the uprising changed in the US information discourse; how the process of evolution of the image of Great Britain as an ally and Great Britain as a competitor proceeded. American newspapers provide critical insights into the evaluations of actions taken to address the crisis in 1936. An analysis of US newspapers highlights the construction of images surrounding the Jewish and Arab populations of Palestine, as well as the determination of which groups were categorized as “Us”. The years 1936–1937 emerged as pivotal for US public opinion in shaping priorities concerning the Middle East conflict. During this period, a noteworthy feature of Palestine’s portrayal involved the demonization of both the rebellious Arabs and the British authorities. Reports in US newspapers and magazines frequently attributed the uprising to the religious fanaticism of the Arabs, framing the conflict between Arabs and Jews primarily in terms of religious differences. This narrative conforms to a classic Orientalist framework, emphasizing a dichotomy between “civilization” and “barbarism,” with the United States adopting the role of an observing society. The article effectively illustrates the stages of evolving assessments of the Arab revolt of 1936. 

This analysis, grounded in authentic representative sources, elucidates the actual power status of Gantimur, who led one of the Transbaikal ethno-territorial groups (nelyud). Gantimur played a significant role in the diplomatic relations between Russia and Qing China during the period from the 1660s to the 1680s. The study substantiates that prevailing interpretations in historiography, which have characterized Gantimur as an influential and powerful member of the military-political elite in Dauria, specifically Eastern Transbaikalia and the Amur region, during the latter part of the 17th century, do not correspond to historical facts. In the 1st half of the 1650s, when Russian explorers appeared in the south of Eastern Transbaikalia, Gantimur did not have any high-power status. The nature and context of Gantimur’s mention in sources clearly indicate that he was only one of the representatives of the potestar elite of ethno-territorial associations (clans) and did not lead any large group of Tungus or Mongols and Daurians. The clans and their leaders who lived in Dauria (in the south of Eastern Transbaikalia and in the upper reaches of the Amur River) appear in the sources clearly as independent from Gantimur. The evidence indicates that, at that time, Gantimur did not distinguish himself from other leaders of the indigenous population regarding political significance. He lacked a high-power status and did not emerge as a noteworthy political figure within the region.

The article delves into a significant manuscript housed within the M. N. Tikhomirov collection at the State Public Scientific and Technical Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This manuscript features “The Book of the Right Faith,” composed in 1714. The analysis primarily focuses on the Preface, which is directed towards “a pious brother and sincere friend.” The author expresses profound respect for this fellow believer, who is depicted as an older friend with considerable influence over his spiritual journey. In the Preface, the author recounts personal biographical details and extends gratitude to the addressee for encouraging him to gather evidence from respected manuscripts and early printed texts. This undertaking aims to substantiate the perspective regarding the reforms instituted by Patriarch Nikon in the Russian Church’s rites and liturgical practices. Notably, the author reveals that he dedicated two decades to exploring the nation’s major book repositories, receiving both moral and financial backing from his friend. The author articulates that the motivation behind writing the Book stems from the addressee’s request to provide “solid and known” evidence from Divine Scripture pertaining to the doctrine of true faith. He identifies this evidence as compilations drawn from Holy Scripture and patristic sources, meticulously selected over the course of twenty years. The Preface outlines the principal themes addressed in the Book’s 62 chapters and suggests authorship by Timofey Matveyev Lysenin. A comprehensive review of the topics within the Book positions it as a unique religious textbook, de-tailing the doctrinal tenets, liturgical and ritual practice of the Old Believers group of the “deacon’s agreement” (d’yakonovo soglasie) – all framed as legitimate expressions of Orthodox belief. Analyzing the Preface enriches the comprehension of the remarkable contributions of this Old Believer author and underscores the significance of “The Book of the Right Faith” as a critical source in examining the ideology of the religious and social movements of its time.

This paper represents an attempt to analyze the life cycle of Russian infantry officers in the 1st half of the 1820s, based on data from the orders of the 2nd Army. Generally, officers were promoted every two or three years in the regiment, in which they served. However, upon promotion from captain to major, majority of the officers transferred between different regiments. To advance from major to lieutenant colonel or higher, they were required to achieve notable accomplishments or face dismissal. Many officers, particularly those below the rank of staff captain, were dismissed due to personal circumstances. Typically, only lieutenant colonels and higher ranks received pensions and retained the right to wear uniforms after retirement, reflecting their long service. Captains, on the other hand, usually maintained only the right to wear their uniforms without the accompanying pension. Those dismissed from ranks below captain frequently lacked even the right to wear a uniform. This resulted in a significant contrast between the lives of officers who left service early without a pension and those who served extensively and received one. For the former, military service often served merely as a means to attain social status, while for the latter, it became essential to their sense of purpose. Additionally, some non-commissioned officers of non-noble origin were able to achieve nobility and secure pensions through their service.

The article discusses the impact of family ties on the investigative process regarding the Decembrists’ case. It specifically examines individuals who avoided trial and were instead subjected to administrative punishment, pardoned by the Emperor, released from punishment, or recognized as not involved in the case, despite evidence of their participation in the Decembrist societies. Notable figures such as M. F. Orlov, P. P. Lopukhin, L. P. Vittgenstein, and A. A. Suvorov are highlighted. The author aims to determine the extent to which familial relationships impacted the investigative processes and outcomes for defendants who had relatives in positions of power, including prominent government and military officials. By comparing the determined “degree of guilt” with the final verdicts, the article seeks to answer whether external influences played a crucial role in determining the fate of the accused. This analysis reveals a more complete and detailed examination of the subject than previous historiography. The findings suggest that familial connections significantly affected the investigation, resulting in many individuals being excluded from punishment, either through forgiveness or being deemed not involved in the case. The study notes specific instances where relatives of influential officials received reduced sentences, and it highlights how petitions to higher authorities and unspoken pressures, sanctioned by Nicholas I, influenced the course of the investigation. This effect became evident in the expedited handling of cases, a reduction in investigative measures, selective data collection, the dismissal of incriminating testimonies, and an overreliance on exculpatory evidence, all without the usual confrontations present in such investigations. The author concludes that the impact of familial ties is not always evident in the surviving records. There is an implication that, in addition to direct petitions by members of influential families to the Emperor, the highest authorities also considered the interests of prominent government and military figures, likely in an effort to bolster their allegiance.

The article reveals the models and content of the dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the society of Western Siberia in the discourse of church’s missions to the region in the late 19th – early 20th centuries. Throughout this study we established and characterized the “platforms” of the discourse of the Russian Orthodox Church, which mainly included church periodicals and personal writings by clergy engaged in the missions. The church played a vital role in fostering dialogue with the indigenous population of Western Siberia, as well as with schismatics and sectarians, compensating for the state’s lack of involvement in colonization and cultural policies in the eastern fringes of the empire. The clergy, particularly those from the missionary community, maintained close contact with the local population in remote areas that were minimally integrated into the imperial administrative system. They recognized that the imperial strategy of “cultural leveling”, which relied on active Russification of indigenous peoples and harsh persecution of religious dissidents, had limited effectiveness. In the publications of the Orthodox Missionary Society, diocesan journals, and the notes and diaries of missionaries, a vision emerged for a project to foster dialogue between the church and the regional society. This project aimed to facilitate a relatively smooth integration of indigenous peoples into Russian society and promote peaceful coexistence with dissenting Christians. From the missionaries’ perspective, as expressed in their writings and press contributions, a critical condition for achieving this goal was the creation of a positive image of the missionary as a proactive figure and a clear articulation of the moral rights of church officials as facilitators of interaction with various societal groups in Western Siberia.

The article, based on documents from Russian archives, examines the process of modernization of the Nikolskaya branch of the Ussuri railway following its incorporation into the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1906. The process of merging the two roads had both supporters and opponents. Nevertheless, Russia’s defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905 strengthened the position of those who advocated the need to use the port of Vladivostok to transport various goods to the interior of the country. The Chinese Eastern Railway Society and its representatives sought to capitalize on this economic opportunity. The Nikolskaya railway branch connected the two roads and became an important strategic asset. However, its technical condition was far from ideal. Upgrades were needed, including the replacement of rolling stock and a comprehensive reconstruction of the railway tracks, roadbed, artificial structures, and station buildings. Furthermore, constructing permanent bridges to replace temporary ones was imperative. The modernization of the Ussuri railway and its Nikolskaya branch faced considerable challenges due to the mountainous landscape of the region. Increasing the highway’s capacity was essential to satisfy military needs, necessitating the addition of tracks and station buildings to improve grain transportation and facilitate the movement of military cargo from Vladivostok through Harbin to the central regions of Russia.

The author contends that existing approaches to studying the pre-revolutionary situation in Russia have become insufficient. This is especially true concerning the underlying conditions that led to the revolution. For an extended period, researchers have neglected the psychosocial state of Russian society. As a result, there is a pressing need for a qualitative shift and an expansion of the source material, particularly through ego-documents from the creative elites. Historians have yet to fully grasp that the pre-war and pre-revolutionary periods were characterized by vague expectations, predictions, and forecasts circulating within society. It is also crucial to analyze the extensive correspondence that genuinely captured the sentiments of the time. An examination of these ego-documents reveals that the Russian cultural elite anticipated significant upheavals, both globally and domestically. Their fears and anticipations began to resonate with the broader masses, contributing to a decline in mutual trust within society. This breakdown fostered a tense social climate that profoundly affected the mindset of the ruling class. The nature of the autocratic system inherently stifled initiative, which led to a sense of irresponsibility among its leaders. This engendered a tendency toward imitative behavior, resulting in what can be described as a “demonstration” type of social conduct. The so-called “crisis at the top” produced a perception of administrative paralysis. The situation was further complicated by the actions of Nicholas II and his wife. Thus, the roots of the revolution were closely linked to the destructive psychology influencing both the upper and lower classes. Consequently, the unfolding events became increasingly unpredictable. Some contemporaries recognized that the so-called revolution was, in reality, a result of the self-dissolution of the autocratic system.

A report on Scientific Readings “Worlds of National Intelligentsia in the 20th Century: Profession, Society, Authority” held on the 26th of February 2025 in Novosibirsk State University is presented. The event was dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the researcher of culture and intelligentsia of the Soviet era, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Varlen Lvovich Soskin.

The study focuses on the introductory articles to the documentary series “Polar Star”, published from 1979 to 1993, which documented the biographies of the Decembrists. It aims to evaluate their significance as historiographic sources. The analyses conducted by S. V. Zhitomirskaya and S. V. Mironenko elucidate the previously overlooked role of Fonvizin within secret societies. The introductory article authored by V. P. Pavlova examines the Siberian period of Trubetskoy’s works, thereby revealing the unique constraints experienced by Soviet historians. Notably, she was compelled to revise her original conceptual framework due to the pressures exerted by the editorial board under the leadership of Academician M. V. Nechkina. Moreover, several introductory articles reflect on the emotional and psychological conditions of the Decembrists and explore aspects of their private lives – an approach that was relatively uncommon in the historiography of that era. The majority of the introductory articles to the “Polar Star” also discuss the evolution of the Decembrists’ views towards revolutionary democracy in the mid-19th century, reflecting the prevailing interpretations of Russian history at that time. These publications provide comprehensive descriptions of the published sources, with many offering significant insights into these materials. The findings have made valuable contributions to modern historical scholarship, particularly by illuminating the participation of various Decembrists in the movement and uncovering their scientific, journalistic, and epistolary contributions, which have now been incorporated into academic discourse. Additionally, these articles have provided clarification on the correct spellings of names such as A. F. Brigen and V. I. Steinheil. They serve as important historiographic sources for studying Decembrist history, highlighting the impact of censorship and the broader ideological and historiographic context. Overall, the articles capture the personalities of their authors, showcasing their professionalism, erudition, scientific perspectives, deep understanding, broad outlook, perseverance in information gathering, and commitment to defending their positions.