Destructive Doctrines

The Russian Orthodox community is a relatively small and little known group in Australian society, however, the history of the Russian presence in Australia goes back to 1809. As the Russian community includes a number of groups, both Christian and non-Christian, it would not be feasible to undertake a complete review of all aspects of the community and consequently, this work limits itself in scope to the Russian Orthodox community. The thesis broadly chronicles the development of the Russian community as it struggles to become a viable partner in Australia's multicultural society. Many never before published documents have been researched and hitherto closed archives in Russia have been accessed. To facilitate this research the author travelled to Russia, the United States and a number of European centres to study the archives of pre-Soviet Russian communities. Furthermore, the archives and publications of the Australian and New Zealand Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church have been used extensively. The thesis notes the development of Australian-Russian relations as contacts with Imperial Russian naval and scientific ships visiting the colonies increase during the 1800's and traces this relationship into the twentieth century. With the appearance of a Russian community in the nineteenth century, attempts were made to establish the Russian Orthodox Church on Australian soil. However, this did not eventuate until the arrival of a number of groups of Russian refugees after the Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War (1918-1922). As a consequence of Australia's 'Populate or Perish' policy following the Second World War, the numbers of Russian and other Orthodox Slavic displaced persons arriving in this country grew to such an extent that the Russian Church was able to establish a diocese in Australia, and later in New Zealand.;The thesis then divides the history of the Russian Orthodox presence into chapters dealing with the administrative epochs of each of the ruling bishops. This has proven to be a suitable matrix for study as each period has its own distinct personalities and issues. The successes, tribulations and challengers of the Church in Australia are chronicled up to the end of the twentieth century. However, a further chapter deals with the issue of the Church's prospects in Australia and its relevance to future generations of Russian Orthodox people. As the history of the Russians in this country has received little attention in the past, this work gives a broad spectrum of the issues, people and events associated with the Russian community and society at large, whilst opening up new opportunities for further research.

Despite the ubiquity of conspiracy theories in the former Soviet Union, there is an almost total lack of systematic research on the issue. The relative absence of writing about conspiracy theories in Russia and the former Soviet Union is noteworthy as, since the Tsarist era, conspiracy theories have found fertile ground across the Russian empire and indeed the Soviet Union, and they continue to abound during in the post‐Soviet space. Perhaps it would not be an exaggeration to say that anyone recently doing social science or humanities research on the region will have come across conspiracy theories as a form of historical analysis or artistic expression, as has recently been explored with regard to the novels of Andrei Pelevin. The phenomenon seems to operate in fictional and nonfictional accounts both on the level of popular narratives and, in the case of Russia and some regional governments, in the official discourses of state power. Some of the reasons for the rise in popularity of conspiracy theories in the post‐Soviet era will be explored below. In fact, this introductory article serves a dual purpose: both to discuss the theoretical implications of analyzing conspiracy theories in the post‐Soviet space and to sketch out a research agenda for what is a largely unexplored field. The latter demands that we attend to questions of what might be specific and especially significant about conspiracy theories in the post‐Soviet space, and how the post‐Soviet type adds to the emergence of a field of conspiracy theory studies which seeks to understand this apparently increasingly prominent feature of the post‐modern world.

Theoretical typology of deceptive content (Conspiracy Theories)

Reviewed by: Indeitsy tlinkity v period Russkoi Ameriki, 1741–1867 gg., and: Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries, and: The First Russian Voyage around the World: The Journal of Hermann Ludwig von Löwenstern (1803–1806), and: Shamanism and Christianity: Native Encounters with Russian Orthodox Missions in Siberia and Alaska, 1820–1917, and: Through Orthodox Eyes: Russian Missionary Narratives of Travels to the Dena’ina and Ahtna, 1850s–1930s Ilya Vinkovetsky Andrei Val´terovich Grinev , Indeitsy tlinkity v period Russkoi Ameriki, 1741–1867 gg. [The Tlingit Indians in Russian America, 1741–1867]. 320 pp. Novosibirsk: Nauka, Sibirskoe otdelenie, 1991. ISBN 5020297410. Sergei Kan , Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through Two Centuries. xxxi + 665 pp. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1999. ISBN 0295978066. $60. Hermann Ludwig von Löwenstern , The First Russian Voyage around the World: The Journal of Hermann Ludwig von Löwenstern (1803–1806), trans. Victoria Joan Moessner . xxx + 482 pp. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 2003. ISBN 1889963453. $35.95. Andrei A. Znamenski , Shamanism and Christianity: Native Encounters with Russian Orthodox Missions in Siberia and Alaska, 1820–1917. xii + 306 pp. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1999. ISBN 0313309604. $72.95. Andrei A. Znamenski , ed. and trans., Through Orthodox Eyes: Russian Missionary Narratives of Travels to the Dena’ina and Ahtna, 1850s–1930s. xiii + 346 pp. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press, 2003. ISBN 188996350X. $27.95. It may seem self-evident that "Russian America"—that is, Russia's colony in North America between 1741 and 1867—was an integral part of the Russian empire. Yet the reality is that precious few explicitly comparative studies treat it as such.1 There have been good institutional reasons for [End Page 627] Russianists to overlook or underestimate the Alaskan connections; among them is the practical consideration that under the rubric of area studies, "Russian" America is anomalous simply because it falls outside of Eurasia. Among Russian historians, Russia's North American colony has conventionally been treated as an odd case, a curious but ultimately inconsequential exception. It is only in the last decade or so, now that appreciation for the mechanics and organization of Russia as empire has gained a new stature among specialists in 19th-century Russian history, that a substantive reappraisal of Alaska's place within the Russian empire has become really feasible. So far, few researchers have noticed and acted on this opportunity. Russian American history remains a marginalized field, with surprisingly little engagement with the general Russian studies community—or the American and Canadian ones, for that matter. Studies on Russian America have rarely pushed beyond traditional boundaries. Even the currents of New Western History and colonial studies, so influential in reshaping the image of the North American West within the last two decades and now increasingly applied to the study of colonial activities throughout much of the Russian empire, have made minimal impact on this insular field.2 Ubiquitous as they may seem to be, colonial studies and New Western History (now no longer so new) represent but two of the missed opportunities for practitioners in the Russian American field to engage broader scholarship and connect Russia's colony to the wider world. Against the backdrop of this insularity, the attempts by three of the scholars whose works I review here to create new conceptualizations and links appear all the more striking. One of the most consequential links between Russia's sole overseas colony and the metropolis was maritime travel on a global scale. Russia's circumnavigation voyages, connecting St. Petersburg to the ports of Alaska and the Russian Far East via the South Seas, created an alternative (maritime) route between the western and eastern ends of the empire.3 This alternative route, insofar as it exposed Russian travelers to a whole range of cultural experiences unavailable in Eurasia, had implications for their conceptions of ethnicity, race, and region, in the Russian empire as a whole but especially in the American colony.4 It was 200 years ago that Russian ships first sailed [End Page 628] around the world. The highly celebrated voyage by the Nadezhda and the Neva between 1803 and 1806 led to the production of a number...

Addressing Russian Orthodox missions in the Alaskan periphery of the Russian Empire, this article discusses the flexibility of Russian Orthodox missionaries in adapting concepts of Orthodoxy and Russianness to the circumstances of their mission in Alaska and to their individual experiences there. Consulting a range of missionary writings from 1794–1917, including reports, journals, letters, and articles in church periodicals, Murray assesses varying interpretations and methods of promoting the civilizing mission, christianization, and russification over the long nineteenth century. Efforts in education and promoting moral standards were vital to the missions but always incorporated respect for the native culture. Recognizing the importance of this periphery even after the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867, the missionaries continued to perceive the converted Alaskan communities as tied to Russian Orthodox culture and identity and their educational and moral efforts as essential to the construction of good citizens for the new political power.

Public perceptions and discussion of scientific facts became crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic, as various risk estimation claims were used to legitimate novel state of exception policies at a global level and related public health intervention programmes. Critical perspectives in the social sciences have argued that the mainstream media presented an exaggerated account of scientific consensus while excluding well-founded critical dissent. This article presents a qualitative-textual analysis of one example of this form of knowledge construction: the use of the ‘conspiracy theory’ category within articles published by The Guardian newspaper in the UK between February 2020 and February 2022. Our analysis shows that these articles tended to conflate engaged critical positions on pandemic policies with irrational conspiracy theories, thus excluding these former positions from rational discussion and debate. We term this mechanism of exclusion epistemic quarantine, arguing that this extension of the conspiracy-theory category to include scepticism or criticism mis-labelled and potentially alienated genuine scientific criticism, eroding trust among some communities, obscuring sincere plural public health perspectives and undermining the longer-term legitimacy of science.

Famous American authors Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Joseph Shea are considered to be one of the best conspiracy thriller fiction writers. Both were impressed by conspiracy theories. Both have explored conspiracy theories about secret societies like the Assassins, Knights Templars, Freemasons, the Illuminati, and conspiracy theories about depopulation agendas, cults, anti-Semitism, discordianism, New World Order, famous assassinations and world domination plans in The Illuminatus! Trilogy (1975). Terms like conspiracy theories, secret societies, Freemasons, and the Illuminati, Baphomet, Assassins, and their symbols like pyramids, the number 666, the All- Seeing Eye or one eye symbolism, Satanic or Devil worship are used in movies, cartoons, reality shows, literature, music and popular culture. Secret societies have become one of the most attention seeking topics for fiction writers, and mostly the conspiracy thriller fiction writers like Dan Brown, Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea have explored them in their works. Conspiracy theories have become a new burning topic of debate and research for psychologists, social science and literary researchers. The 2009 movie Angels and Demons based on the same titled novel by Dan Brown and famous conspiracy theorist David Icke’s books and videos have also done a spurious publicity of this secret society. So it is necessary to know what this Illuminati is. This paper is focused on the conspiracy theories and questions about the existence of the Illuminati.

Using little-known correspondence of the Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod Konstantin Pobedonostsev with the bishop Nickolay (Ziorov) — head of Russian Orthodox Church in the United States in 1892–1898 — the article explores the everyday life of Russian clergy in America. This correspondence is deposited at the Russian State Historical Archive in St. Petersburg and has not been published or studied before. The author analyzes Pobedonostsev’s role in the diocese affairs. This examination is new both in the Church’s history and recently published literature on Pobedonostsev. Yet the Ober-Procurator’s supervision was of utmost importance for the Russian mission in the United States, faced with the crucial challenge of adapting itself to the alien cultural environment. Pobedonostsev was well informed about the situation with the Russian mission, helped to solve many personnel, financial and organizational problems, was a chief promoter of its interests before the Russian imperial government — Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Finance, the State Council, and the Tzar’s court. Pobedonostsev also stayed in touch with the US diplomatic mission in Russia and Russian diplomats in the United States. He was very close with bishop Nickolay who regarded the Ober-Procurator as his main benefactor and constantly turned to him for advice and assistance. Pobedonostsev strongly supported the bishop’s reforms of missionary activities in education, parish life, and propagation of Orthodoxy, as well as his efforts to defend the Russian Orthodox mission’s interests before American authorities. No wonder their extensive correspondence richly reflected the diocese’s life with all its problems and needs. The article highlights their close cooperation in recruiting qualified clergymen for American service, which was the key task for the mission that suffered from a shortage of reliable professional personnel. Pobedonostsev-Nickolay cooperation greatly contributed to the diocese progress, which later reached its peak under Nickolay’s successor bishop Tikhon (Bellavin). Their correspondence sheds new light on the personalities of both men united by their fervent devotion to the Orthodox Church and highly conservative views. It also presents a revealing case study of the interaction between Russian ecclesiastic and state authorities as well as their perception of American culture. The author’s main methodological approach consisted in text analysis of the archival documents juxtaposed against the context of Russian-American relations and the realities of American life.

Conspiracy theories, often dismissed as fringe or irrational beliefs, hold significant sociological importance as reflections of broader societal anxieties, power dynamics, and cultural transformations. This paper explores conspiracy theories not merely as misinformation but as social phenomena deeply embedded in the structures of modern societies. It examines how conspiracy theories emerge in response to perceived inequalities, institutional mistrust, and the search for meaning in complex or uncertain circumstances. The sociology of conspiracy theories considers the role of social conditions—such as economic distress, political polarization, and media fragmentation—in facilitating the widespread acceptance of alternative narratives that challenge official accounts. Conspiracy theories are shown to thrive in environments marked by rapid change, declining trust in authorities, and the erosion of shared epistemologies. The paper also addresses the psychological underpinnings of conspiratorial thinking, such as cognitive biases and the desire for control, but situates these within collective experiences and social contexts. It analyzes how media, particularly digital and social platforms, serve as accelerators for the formation of conspiratorial communities and the circulation of unverified information. Conspiracy theories can serve both as forms of resistance and as tools of manipulation, used by political actors to mobilize support or discredit opponents. Their implications for democracy, social cohesion, and institutional legitimacy are profound, particularly in societies where pluralism and trust are already under strain. Rather than viewing conspiracy theories solely as a threat to rational discourse, this paper argues that they must be understood as meaningful social texts—expressions of grievances, fears, and contested knowledge. Through a sociological lens, conspiracy theories reveal the ways in which modern individuals and groups navigate uncertainty, power, and belonging in increasingly complex societies. By analyzing their origins, dissemination, and social functions, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of contemporary belief systems and collective behavior.

Conspiracy, Complicity, Critique Peter Knight (bio) The coronavirus pandemic and the storming of the Capitol have created a perfect storm of conspiracism, especially visible on social media. Many commentators have returned to Richard Hofstadter's analysis of the "paranoid style in American politics" to make sense of the surge of conspiracy-minded populism and the spread of disinformation. Conspiracism is usually framed as beyond the pale of rational discourse, a symptom and a cause of the delegitimization not only of the media, scientific expertise, and democratic institutions, but also of the very idea of objective truth (see Rosenblum and Muirhead 2019 on the nihilistic tendencies of the "new conspiracism" of post-truth politics). But does Hofstadter's diagnosis of the paranoid style still make sense today, when, for example, President Trump himself was one of the most significant "superspreaders" of misinformation about the coronavirus and the 2020 election (Evanega et al. 2020)? Although Hofstadter acknowledges that the paranoid style is a persistent trait in American politics, he nevertheless insists that it is "the preferred style only of minority movements" (1996, 7). Hofstadter, like other consensus historians and sociologists in the 1950s and 1960s, wanted to explain but also to stigmatize what they regarded as mass political delusions (see Butter 2014; Thalmann 2019). In effect, they wanted to diagnose but also quarantine conspiracism as a dangerous tendency, to put clear water between conspiracy thinking and more respectable ways of making sense of historical causality. Either you believe that nothing happens by accident, that nothing is as it seems, and that everything is connected (Barkun 2013), or you think that way of understanding historical causation and collective agency is a delusional fantasy. In contrast, this essay will explore the territory between conspiracy and not-conspiracy, focusing on notions such as collusion, complicity, and critique, which are neither the same as conspiracy, nor simply its opposites. The question is whether it is possible, under conditions of neoliberalism that make it harder than ever to trace lines of corporate and governmental accountability, to talk about problems of collective action and occluded power without lapsing into a conspiracy theory. Only by recognizing the affinities and disavowals between the rational mainstream and its marginalized, irrational counterparts can we begin to understand the seductive appeal and expressive functions of conspiracy theory as an act of communal political [End Page 197] identification, rather than merely a "crippled epistemology" (Sunstein and Vermeule 2009, 211) whose mistaken propositions can be combatted through fact-checking corrections. To do so, I'll first sketch out cock-up, complexity, and contingency theories, before going on to consider how conspiracy theories constitute both a distorted critique of neoliberalism, while at the same time also distracting and diverting their believers from more concerted forms of political opposition. The Conspiracy Theory of Society What is the opposite of a conspiracy theory? One common answer is what might be termed contingency theory, the assumption that there is no underlying plan or meaning to history. Another—closely aligned—possibility is the cock-up theory (as it is termed in the British colloquialism; see McKenzie-McHarg and Fredheim 2017), the notion that things rarely go to plan, often as a result of incompetence rather than intention. A third, related option is complexity theory, the idea that order emerges spontaneously out of a complex system without there being anyone behind the scenes secretly in command. All three answers assume that there is a clear divide between conspiracy theory and its opposites, with conspiracy theory viewed as an unsophisticated, inaccurate, and harmful mode of thought. Although the expression "conspiracy theory" had been used from time to time in the late nineteenth century, Karl Popper provided the first explicit definition of the phenomenon and its opposites (Thalmann 2019; McKenzie-McHarg 2020). He began to formulate what he called "the conspiracy theory of society" (2002, 94; his italics) in two lectures delivered in the late 1940s, before working this argument into the American edition of the second volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies in 1950. It is "the view that an explanation of a social phenomenon consists in the discovery of the men or groups who are interested in the occurrence...

Russia remains the most important successor state of the Soviet Union, while the Soviet Union had as its predecessors: the Russian Empire, the Moscow Rus and the Kyev Rus. Indians constitute a small proportion in the population of present day Russia, but they can claim a history of at least four centuries. In this context the opposition to the construction of a Hare Krishna temple in Moscow rose not due to the Indian origin of the religion, but because of its western interpretation, the missionary activity of the Hare Krishna movement, and those of Russian Orthodox Christian culture. The position of the Russian Orthodox Church towards Hinduism was to allow the Hindus to live their way, but not to allow any religious propaganda in Russia. While cases of conversion of Hindus to Christianity can be explained by economic or matrimonial reasons, the conversion of Russians to Hinduism or a Hinduism-named new religion leads to a conflict between the Indians and the Russian Orthodox Christian Church. Recently the Vedic Center lobbyists obtained approval for its construction near the village of Vereskino, north of Moscow, thus reaching the decision acceptable to the Moscow Patriarchate and for the most vigilant Russian Orthodox activists. For those Indians who came from India and from families with Christian heritage, their numbers in Russia are miniscule. They belong either to the Roman Catholic or Anglican or Methodist Churches. These few Christian Indians remain the most invisible even among the rather invisible Indian community of Russia.

This chapter discusses illiberalism in the Balkans as a result of pragmatic rather than ideological strategies of governing elites. After a comparative and historical survey of illiberal regimes in the Balkans and a discussion of explanations of illiberalism’s rise in the region, the chapter focuses on three case studies of Serbia, Montenegro, and North Macedonia. The main argument of the chapter is that, while Balkan governments have often employed a populist/nationalist political discourse and an interpretation of politics based on conspiracy theories, they have mostly stayed in power by relying not just on populist strategies, but also on clientelist and corruption-infested strategies. The discourse of governments in the region has emphasized how the countries’ leaders have served national interests in a corner of Europe torn by ethnic conflict and how leaders have successfully steered their national economies toward EU membership. Yet, government legitimation has not relied solely on discourse. Illiberal governing elites have used elections, the justice system, and the media in distinctly undemocratic ways, benefitting from the legacies of state-society relations – namely, a long-standing tolerance to, and use of, clientelism, populism, and corruption which date back to the period of communist rule and transition to democracy.

Understanding public discourse about a COVID-19 vaccine in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may provide key insights concerning vaccine hesitancy. However, few studies have investigated the communicative patterns in which Twitter users participate discursively in vaccine discussions. This study aims to investigate 1) the major topics that emerged from public conversation on Twitter concerning vaccines for COVID-19, 2) the topics that were emphasized in tweets with either positive or negative sentiment toward a COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the type of online accounts in which tweets with either positive or negative sentiment were more likely to circulate. We randomly extracted a total of 349,979 COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets from the initial period of the pandemic. Out of 64,216 unique tweets, a total of 23,133 (36.03%) tweets were classified as positive and 14,051 (21.88%) as negative toward a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted Structural Topic Modeling and Network Analysis to reveal the distinct topical structure and connection patterns that characterize positive and negative discourse toward a COVID-19 vaccine. Our STM analysis revealed the most prominent topic emerged on Twitter of a COVID-19 vaccine was "other infectious diseases", followed by "vaccine safety concerns", and "conspiracy theory." While the positive discourse demonstrated a broad range of topics such as "vaccine development", "vaccine effectiveness", and "safety test", negative discourse was more narrowly focused on topics such as "conspiracy theory" and "safety concerns." Beyond topical differences, positive discourse was more likely to interact with verified sources such as scientists/medical sources and the media/journalists, whereas negative discourse tended to interact with politicians and online influencers. Positive and negative discourse was not only structured around distinct topics but also circulated within different networks. Public health communicators need to address specific topics of public concern in varying information hubs based on audience segmentation, potentially increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

BackgroundUnderstanding public discourse about a COVID-19 vaccine in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic may provide key insights concerning vaccine hesitancy. However, few studies have investigated the communicative patterns in which Twitter users participate discursively in vaccine discussions.ObjectivesThis study aims to investigate 1) the major topics that emerged from public conversation on Twitter concerning vaccines for COVID-19, 2) the topics that were emphasized in tweets with either positive or negative sentiment toward a COVID-19 vaccine, and 3) the type of online accounts in which tweets with either positive or negative sentiment were more likely to circulate.MethodsWe randomly extracted a total of 349,979 COVID-19 vaccine-related tweets from the initial period of the pandemic. Out of 64,216 unique tweets, a total of 23,133 (36.03%) tweets were classified as positive and 14,051 (21.88%) as negative toward a COVID-19 vaccine. We conducted Structural Topic Modeling and Network Analysis to reveal the distinct topical structure and connection patterns that characterize positive and negative discourse toward a COVID-19 vaccine.ResultsOur STM analysis revealed the most prominent topic emerged on Twitter of a COVID-19 vaccine was “other infectious diseases”, followed by “vaccine safety concerns”, and “conspiracy theory.” While the positive discourse demonstrated a broad range of topics such as “vaccine development”, “vaccine effectiveness”, and “safety test”, negative discourse was more narrowly focused on topics such as “conspiracy theory” and “safety concerns.” Beyond topical differences, positive discourse was more likely to interact with verified sources such as scientists/medical sources and the media/journalists, whereas negative discourse tended to interact with politicians and online influencers.ConclusionsPositive and negative discourse was not only structured around distinct topics but also circulated within different networks. Public health communicators need to address specific topics of public concern in varying information hubs based on audience segmentation, potentially increasing COVID-19 vaccine uptake.

Books reviewed in this issueLiterature and Fine ArtsVinitsky, Ilya. Vasily Zhukovsky's Romanticism and the Emotional History of Russia.Khagi, Sofya. Silence and the Rest: Verbal Skepticism in Russian Poetry.Bagby, Lewis. First Words: On Dostoevsky's Introductions.Harrison, Lonny. Archetypes from Underground: Notes on the Dostoevskian Self.Wyman, Alina. The Gift of Active Empathy: Scheler, Bakhtin, and Dostoevsky.Berman, Anna A. Siblings in Tolstoy and Dostoevsky: The Path to Universal Brotherhood.Tolstaya, Katya. Kaleidoscope: F. M. Dostoevsky and the Early Dialectical Theology.Howell, Yvonne, ed. Red Star Tales: A Century of Russian and Soviet Science Fiction.Huseynova, Aida. Music of Azerbaijan: From Mugham to Opera.Chuchvaha, Hanna. Art Periodical Culture in Late Imperial Russia (1898–1917).Fitzsimmons, Lorna, and Michael A. Denner, eds. Tolstoy on Screen.Landa, Marianna S. Maximilian Voloshin's Poetic Legacy and the Post‐Soviet Russian Identity.Carr, Maureen. After the Rite: Stravinsky's Path to Neoclassicism (1914–25).Cross, Jonathan. Igor Stravinsky.Khan‐Magomedov, Selim Omarovich. Georgii Krutikov: The Flying City and Beyond.Levitina, Marina. “Russian Americans” in Soviet Film: Cinematic Dialogues between the US and the USSR.Sherry, Samantha. Discourses of Regulation and Resistance: Censoring Translation in the Stalin and Khrushchev Era Soviet Union.Kind‐Kovács, Friederike. Written Here, Published There: How Underground Literature Crossed the Iron Curtain.Burry, Alexander, and Frederick H. White, eds. Border Crossing: Russian Literature into Film.Sedakova, Olga. In Praise of Poetry.Vashchenko, Alexander, and Claude Clayton Smith, eds. Meditations after the Bear Feast: The Poetic Dialogues of N. Scott Momaday and Yuri Vaella.HistoryMagocsi, Paul Robert. With Their Backs to the Mountains: A History of Carpathian Rus' and Carpatho‐Rusyns.Caridi, Cathy. Making Martyrs East and West: Canonization in the Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches.Hamburg, Gary M. Russia's Path Toward Enlightenment: Faith, Politics, and Reason, 1500–1801.Steinwedel, Charles. Threads of Empire: Loyalty and Tsarist Authority in Bashkiria, 1552–1917.Offord, Derek, Lara Ryazanova‐Clarke, Vladislav Rjéoutski, and Gesine Argent, eds. French and Russian in Imperial Russia, vol. 1: Language Use among the Russian Elite.Offord, Derek, Lara Ryazanova‐Clarke, Vladislav Rjéoutski, and Gesine Argent, eds. French and Russian in Imperial Russia, vol. 2: Language Attitudes and Identity.Davies, Brian L. The Russo‐Turkish War, 1768–1774: Catherine II and the Ottoman Empire.Staliūnas, Darius. Enemies for a Day: Antisemitism and Anti‐Jewish Violence in Lithuania under the Tsars.Kane, Eileen. Russian Hajj: Empire and the Pilgrimage to Mecca.Dahlmann, Dittmar, Klaus Heller, and Iurii A. Petrov, eds. Protestanten und Altgläubige – Juden und Muslime. Die ethno‐konfessional Struktur der russländischen Unternehmerschaft vor 1914.Dale, Robert. Demobilized Veterans in Late Stalinist Leningrad: Soldiers to Civilians.Danilevskii, Nikolai Iakovlevich. Woe to the Victors! The Russo‐Turkish War, the Congress of Berlin, and the Future of Slavdom.Matsui, Yasuhiro, ed. Obshchestvennost' and Civic Agency in Late Imperial Russia: Interface between State and Society.Allen, Barbara C. Alexander Shlyapnikov, 1885–1937: Life of an Old Bolshevik.Milne, Lesley. Laughter and War: Humorous‐Satirical Magazines in Britain, France, Germany and Russia: 1914–1918.Makuch, Andrij, and Frank E. Sysyn, eds. Contextualizing the Holodomor: The Impact of Thirty Years of Ukrainian Famine Studies.Mick, Christoph. Lemberg, Lwów, L'viv, 1914–1947: Violence and Ethnicity in a Contested City.Amar, Tarik Cyril. The Paradox of Ukrainian Lviv: A Borderland City between Stalinists, Nazis, and Nationalists.Rotfeld, Adam Daniel, and Anatoly V. Torkunov, eds. White Spots – Black Spots: Difficult Matters in Polish‐Russian Relations 1918–2008.Casteel, James E. Russia in the German Global Imaginary: Imperial Visions & Utopian Desires 1905–1941.David‐Fox, Michael. Crossing Borders: Modernity, Ideology and Culture in Russia and the Soviet Union.Kilcher, Andreas, and Gabriella Safran, eds. Writing Jewish Culture: Paradoxes in Ethnography.Harris, James. The Great Fear: Stalin's Terror of the 1930s.Harrison, Mark. One Day We Will Live without Fear: Everyday Lives under the Soviet Police State.Walke, Anika. Pioneers and Partisans: An Oral History of Nazi Genocide in Belorussia.Tsipursky, Gleb. Socialist Fun: Youth, Consumption, & State Sponsored Popular Culture in the Soviet Union, 1945–1970.Blauvelt, Timothy K., and Jeremy Smith, eds. Georgia after Stalin: Nationalism and Soviet Power.Baldwin, Kate A. The Racial Imaginary of the Cold War Kitchen: From Sokol'niki Park to Chicago's South Side.Social Sciences, Contemporary Russia, and OtherGilbert, George. The Radical Right in Late Imperial Russia: Dreams of a True Fatherland?Laruelle, Marlene, and Johan Engvall, eds. Kyrgyzstan beyond “Democracy Island” and “Failing State.”Satter, David. The Less You Know, the Better You Sleep: Russia's Road to Terror and Dictatorship under Yeltsin and Putin.Zygar, Mikhail. Vsia kremlevskaia rat’: Kratkaia istoriia sovremennoi Rossii.Gill, Graeme. Building an Authoritarian Polity: Russia in Post‐Soviet Times.Suslov, Mikhail, and Mark Bassin, eds. Eurasia 2.0: Russian Geopolitics in the Age of New Media.Verkhovskii, Aleksandr. Ugolovnoe pravo stran OBSE protiv prestuplenii nenavisti, vozbuzhdeniia nenavisti i iazyka vrazhdy.Østbø, Jardar. The New Third Rome: Readings of a Russian Nationalist Myth.