Taurida Research Articles

PEOPLE’S COMMISSARIAT OF NATIONALITIES OF THE RSFSR AND THE CREATION OF THE CRIMEAN ASSR

Just recently, Russia celebrated the 8th anniversary of the return of Crimea “to its native harbor.” This important event, both for the whole country and the region, makes us once again turn to the historical fate of the Crimean Peninsula. At almost all important stages of historical development, from the time of colonization of the Northern Black Sea region by the Greeks and to the present, this region attracted the attention of all neighbors, both close and the most remote ones, which is due to the special geopolitical position of the Crimea. We can say that whoever owns the peninsula controls the entire Northern Black Sea region, and is an intermediary between Europe and the Middle East. The geographical location enables the Crimean Peninsula to play an important role as a commercial and military-political port, which also indicates the strategic importance of the region.
 
 The years 1991 to 2008 are one of the most difficult periods in the history of Crimea. And most of the problems of the Crimean people at the turn of the XX–XXI centuries were associated with the consequences of the not fully thought-out policy of the Soviet leadership. In this regard, we consider it necessary to analyze more carefully most of the events of the Soviet Union era, since in one way or another they continue to influence modern processes. So far, a complete compromise has not yet been reached among individual active figures of the Crimean Tatar social movement and the leadership of the Republic of Crimea. History already has the experience of successfully resolving such a confrontation between representatives of the Soviet government in Crimea, on the one hand, and the Crimean Tatars in 1920-1921, on the other. As a result, the Crimean ASSR was created as part of the RSFSR. This problem has not yet received proper coverage in historiography. A certain obstacle for those wishing to be engaged in this research topic was the fact that documentary materials have long been part of the archival repositories of two states: the State Archive of the Republic of Crimea (until 2014 in Ukraine) and the State Archive of the Russian Federation. Current international events also do not contribute to an objective and impartial assessment of the problem of the formation of the Crimean Autonomy, which in October 2021 marked the 100th anniversary of the Crimean ASSR. Despite the anniversary date, this historical event, in our opinion, has received insufficient attention and coverage in society.
 
 In modern conditions, further study and generalization of the experience of the creation and existence of the Crimean ASSR is required. It can be useful at the current stage of the national-state development of the peninsula. The purpose of the study is to analyze the historical conditions in which the formation of national-territorial autonomy on the Crimean Peninsula took place with the active and leading role of the People’s Commissariat. The study does not pretend to be exhaustive, but makes a certain contribution to the coverage of the issue.

Анонимная рукопись «История Крыма» (B 747) из собрания Института восточных рукописей РАН: атрибуция источника

Research objectives: Attribution and description of the anonymous manuscript, conventionally named “History of Crimea”, from the collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Research materials: Anonymous manuscript “History of Crimea”, kept in the collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences under the signature B 747. Results and novelty of research: The manuscript is a miscellany of various information about the Crimean Khanate, as well international relations, mainly between Russia and Turkey. In 1881, its Ottoman-Turkish text in Arabic script was published by the famous Russian researcher Vasiliy D. Smirnov (1846–1922), on the basis of the St. Petersburg copy, with corrections made according to the copy kept in Paris. V.D. Smirnov made several assumptions on who was the author of the text. The analysis showed the correctness of one of his assumptions, namely that the author – compiler of the text was Kesbî, the Turkish official from the second half of the eighteenth century. The identification of the author became possible due to the appearance of studies on the written heritage of Kesbi in recent decades, primarily the works of A. Ogreten. The comparison of B 747 with the text of “İbretnüma-yı devlet” (“Instruction to the State”, 1213 AH (1798–99 CE)) published by Ahmet Öğreten in 2002, leaves no doubt that the “History of Crimea” is the St. Petersburg copy of the aforesaid manuscript. In recent years, new hypotheses also appeared concerning the author, disputing the opinion of A. Öğreten and aiming to show that the miscellany was compiled not by Mustafa Kesbî, but by another Ottoman official, who wrote under the pseudonym Kesbî, Mehmed Haşim. At the same time, the text of the St. Petersburg copy of “İbretnüma-yı devlet” published by V.D. Smirnov 140 years ago, as well as the copy of the manuscript kept in Paris, still remains out of sight of Turkish specialists engaged in the study of this written text.

Insurrectionary Movement of “White-greens” in Crimea in First Half of 1920s: National, Ideological, Structural Features

The features of the “white-green” rebel movement in the Crimea in the first half of the 1920s are considered. It is indicated that a comprehensive study of its national, ideological, structural features is of fundamental importance for a comprehensive scientific understanding of the characteristics of the final stage of the civil war in Russia, as well as for the projection of the historical situation on the recent history of the Crimea and the south of Russia as a whole. The materials of five collections of the State Archives of the Republic of the Crimea, the data of the periodical press of the period under review, published documentary and narrative sources are analyzed. The causes of the genesis, the main stages, national, ideological, structural features of the insurrectionary movement are revealed, the reasons for its final defeat are characterized. The conclusions obtained by the author in the course of the work make it possible to designate a new vector in the understanding of social movements that directly affect the nature of the ethno-national development of the post-revolutionary Crimea and southern Russia. It is noted that this study can be legitimately considered in the light of studying the history of the civil war in the south of Russia, which continued after the liquidation of its “external” fronts. The author offers a systematic approach to the study of the insurgent movement in the Crimea.

Formation and Development of Ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea (End of the 18th — Beginning of the 21st Century) in Domestic Historiography

The article describes the state of scientific research on the history of the formation of the Ukrainian community in Crimea in the late 18th – early 21st century, which appeared in the 1990s – early 2000s, when, after the revival of its autonomy, there was a breakthrough in research on various aspects of Crimean history, and written at a new, higher level on the principles of historicism, objectivity, alternativeness. It is the post-Soviet period that is characterized by extensive scholarly discussions on the history of Crimea and the prospects for its development. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of works, which comprehend the debatable issues of the common historical destiny of Ukraine and Crimea, debunk the myths of “originally Russian Crimea”, highlight the problems of solving the Crimean question in 1917–1920, chronology of P. Bolbachan’s campaign, proclamation of Crimean republics in 1918–1921, the Bolsheviks pursuing a policy of indigenization in Crimea, the famine of the 1920s–1930s and repression on the peninsula, as well as guerrilla warfare during World War II. The author claims that after 1991, hundreds of academic monographs and articles appeared, dozens of dissertations were defended, and a number of academic conferences on various areas of Crimean history were held. It is established that there is no comprehensive study of the formation of the community of Ukrainians in Crimea at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 21st century. Scarcely studied is the sociopolitical, demographic, economic situation of Ukrainians on the peninsula during the collapse of the Russian Empire and the existence of national and quasi-state formations on its territory, as well as the policy of Crimean regional governments towards Ukrainians and the policy of UPR and Ukrainian State governments regarding the protection of Ukrainians in Crimea, its state affiliation, etc. A comprehensive analysis is required for the policy of Ukraine towards the Ukrainian ethnic community of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol in 1991–2014, as well as the occupation policy of the Russian Federation after 2014, which led to discrimination against Crimean Ukrainians and the threat of assimilation of some of them. The annexation of Crimea, which took place in violation of the Constitutions of Ukraine and the ARC, laws of Ukraine and universally recognized international legal norms, rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea, was a pre-arranged special operation, information and propaganda policy being one of its key components. Currently, the problems of the emergence and overcoming of pro-Russian identity in Crimea at the present stage and the development of ways to optimize the system of public administration and national security of Ukraine are insufficiently studied.

The “Slavic issue” and academic archaeology in the Crimea in the aftermath of World War II. To the 120th anniversary of Pavel Nikolaevich Shultz (1901–1983)

The actualization of the "Slavic issue" in the post-war Crimea took place at the background of the rise of patriotic sentiments in society. This contributed to the establishment of the Sector of History and Archaeology in the Crimean Research Base at the USSR Academy of Sciences under P.N. Shultz in 1947. The issue in question was developed based on the “Scythian” ethnogenetic myth and autochthonous theories of N.Ya. Marr. The applied task of the studies was to popularize the history of Crimea in close connection with the fate of the Slavs and the Russian people among the settlers who came to the peninsula after the eviction of the Crimean Tatars. These views are most succinctly expressed in the book by P.N. Nadinsky “Studies on the history of the Crimea” (part 1, 1951). During the anti-Marr campaign, the point of Scythian-Slavic kinship in Crimea was rejected. Following the transfer of the peninsula to the Ukrainian SSR, the issue gradually lost its relevance.

Formation and Development of Ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea (End of the 18th — Beginning of the 21st Century) in Domestic Historiography

The article describes the state of scientific research on the history of the formation of the Ukrainian community in Crimea in the late 18th – early 21st century, which appeared in the 1990s – early 2000s, when, after the revival of its autonomy, there was a breakthrough in research on various aspects of Crimean history, and written at a new, higher level on the principles of historicism, objectivity, alternativeness. It is the post-Soviet period that is characterized by extensive scholarly discussions on the history of Crimea and the prospects for its development. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of works, which comprehend the debatable issues of the common historical destiny of Ukraine and Crimea, debunk the myths of “originally Russian Crimea”, highlight the problems of solving the Crimean question in 1917–1920, chronology of P. Bolbachan’s campaign, proclamation of Crimean republics in 1918–1921, the Bolsheviks pursuing a policy of indigenization in the Crimea, the famine of the 1920s–1930s and repression on the peninsula, as well as guerrilla warfare during World War II. The author claims that after 1991, hundreds of academic monographs and articles appeared, dozens of dissertations were defended, and a number of academic conferences on various areas of Crimean history were held.It is established that there is no comprehensive study of the formation of the community of Ukrainians in Crimea at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 21st century. Scarcely studied is the sociopolitical, demographic, economic situation of Ukrainians on the peninsula during the collapse of the Russian Empire and the existence of national and quasi-state formations on its territory, as well as the policy of Crimean regional governments towards Ukrainians and the policy of UPR and Ukrainian State governments regarding the protection of Ukrainians in Crimea, its state affiliation, etc. A comprehensive analysis is required for the policy of Ukraine towards the Ukrainian ethnic community of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol in 1991–2014, as well as the occupation policy of the Russian Federation after 2014, which led to discrimination against Crimean Ukrainians and the threat of assimilation of some of them. The annexation of Crimea, which took place in violation of the Constitutions of Ukraine and the ARC, laws of Ukraine and universally recognized international legal norms, rights and freedoms of Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea, was a pre-arranged special operation, information and propaganda policy being one of its key components. Currently, the problems of the emergence and overcoming of pro-Russian identity in Crimea at the present stage and the development of ways to optimize the system of public administration and national security of Ukraine are insufficiently studied.

Влияние природно-географических особенностей Крыма на формирование некоторых характерных черт традиционной крымской культуры: матрица взаимодействия между «местными» и «пришлыми» этносами на полуострове

The usual Crimean studies have formulated a concept of lack of the genesis of traditional Crimean culture due to its approach to an ethnic history of Crimea as a replacement of a number of various and distinguished substituting ethnic groups with neither biogenetic nor cultural and linguistic continuity between them. That point was artificially implanted by the political reasons as a scientific pseudo-justification of the en-masse deportation of some Indigenous Peoples of Crimea and Northern Caucasus realized by the Soviet Power in 1940s. However, the attentive studying of the historical process in Crimea during the thousands of the years, inevitably leads to the conclusions that there were not series of total genocides among ethnic groups populating the territory of the Crimea in different times. Despite of military clashes, invasions, periodical conquests, the very natural and geographical conditions of the peninsula predetermined the inevitable involvement of different ethnic groups in economic, cultural, political, and biogenetic, and eventually even kinship relations. This was main way how a new stage of Crimean culture and inhabitants was being formed during centuries. This was the fundamental tendency of the genesis of the traditional Crimean culture and indigenous peoples of the Crimea, mainly formed by the end of the 18th century. The mechanism of the impact of these factors and the resulting matrix of interaction between the “local” and “newcomer” ethnic groups in the Crimea is analyzed in this article.

Легенда о Гикии, Станислав Сестренцевич-Богуш и Екатерина II

This article analyses the reasons which made Stanislas Sestrencewicz-Bohusz (Siestrzeńcewicz-Bohusz, also Sestrentsevich or Sestrenzewitsch, 1731—1826) to study the history of the Crimea and to write one of the first monographs on the subject, which still determines some trends in the Crimean studies. It has been shown that Sestrencewicz, the head of Catholic church in Russia, who tried to establish normal relations between the Polish elite and the Russian government after the first partition of Rzeczpospolita, composed a verse drama of the story of the relations between Chersonesus and Bosporus as described in the 53rd chapter of De administrando imperio by Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Sestrencewicz supplied the main character of his drama, Gycia by name, with well-recognizable traits of Catherine II and put up the idea of the necessity of peaceful cooperation between the Chersonesites (Russians) and Sarmatians (Poles). It has been supposed that the ideas embodied in the drama made Catherine II and her favorite Grigorii Potemkin to order Sestrencewicz to write the history of the Crimea. After the unification of the Crimea with Russia in 1783, the writing of its history became a matter of public importance. Sestrencewicz knew ancient languages and therefore could read sources in original. His sincere pro-Russian position appeared in his interpretation of the liquidation of the khanate as the end of the Crimean history. The events in Sestrencewicz’s creative biography are uncovered against the background of the Russian state ideology and the ideas of Enlightenment about the history of the Crimea.

Крымское путешествие Виктора де Карамана

This paper analyses a poorly-known source on the history of the Crimea, the travelogue by French Victor de Caraman, who visited the peninsula in spring 1784. The 22-year-old traveller made a tour of Europe as a part of the educational programme foreseeing practical acquaintance with the life of foreign countries and strange peoples. His travel diary was intended for memory and not for publication. Later on, de Caraman made an outstanding career on the French diplomatic service. The Crimean fragment of his travelogue was published after his death. Although de Caraman was under protection of almighty Grigorii Potemkin and Russian generals in the Crimea, his evaluations of the events on the peninsula were often unpleasant to Russia. He paid attention to a series of crises events appearing on the eve and after the unification of the Crimea with Russia. Simultaneously, the traveller marked the government’s actions towards the integration of the region into the imperial structure and opportunities of the economic development of the country. De Caraman described the strongholds of the Russian army and Black Sea navy in the Crimea in details. He also studied the natural environment and population of the peninsula. Interesting are his reflections on the Crimean antiquities and particularly an episode with “excavations” at the ancient town atop Mangup plateau. The Russian translation of de Caraman’s travelogue with necessary comments is published.

ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ УКРАЇНСЬКОГО ВИЗВОЛЬНОГО РУХУ В КРИМУ У 1941–1943 РОКАХ: ВІД ІДЕОЛОГІЧНОГО ОБҐРУНТУВАННЯ ДО ПРАКТИЧНИХ КРОКІВ

The article examines the Crimean aspect of the Ukrainian liberation movement. The program and ideological documents of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists regarding their vision of the role and place of Crimea in the geopolitical strategies of the future independent Ukrainian state are analyzed. The second part of the article is devoted to the deployment of Ukrainian nationalist structures on the Crimean peninsula, the peculiarities of their work under German occupation and relations with certain national groups, including the Crimean Tatars. Even in the interwar period, the ideologues of Ukrainian nationalists developed geostrategic concepts in which Crimea occupied a key place, as a certain outpost of the Black Sea region, which under no circumstances can be inferior. Accordingly, these documents proved the ideas of historical and physical-geographical unity of mainland Ukraine with the Crimea from the times of Kievan Rus, the Cossacks and modern history. In the future vision, Ukrainian nationalists viewed Crimea as the main base of the Ukrainian navy and Ukrainian merchant navy. The issue of the Navy and Crimean ports occupies a special place in these documents. Ukrainian nationalists were able to begin to implement their plans and implement their own ideas during the German-Soviet war. As early as the beginning of July 1941, the first OUN marching groups moved to the central Ukrainian lands, from where they planned to seize all ethnic Ukrainian lands, creating their own bodies of power and administration, and Crimea was one of their key destinations. Respectively, the OUN (B) and the OUN (M) created special «Crimean» marching groups, which were to move directly to the peninsula. In November 1941, the first OUN groups managed to enter the territory of the Crimea. At that time there was a split in relations between the German occupation regime and Ukrainian nationalists, German repressions against members and supporters of the OUN began in the summer of 1941, so marching groups to the Crimea were under threat of exposure and physical destruction. Simferopol became the center of OUN activity in Crimea. Separate OUN structures were also established in Dzhankoi, Yalta, and other cities on the peninsula. Under persecution by the Gestapo and the SD, Ukrainian nationalists were still able to gain a foothold in the Crimea and begin systematic organizational work, which consisted of established networks of sympathizers and agents, volunteer and cultural structures. This article will be of interest to those who are interested in the activities of the Ukrainian liberation movement, OUN groups and the history of Crimea during the German occupation.

КРЫМСКАЯ ВОЙНА КАК КОНФЛИКТ ЦИВИЛИЗАЦИЙ: ФОКУС КРЫМА В ЦИВИЛИЗАЦИОННО-ЦЕННОСТНОМ ИЗМЕРЕНИИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ИСТОРИИ

This article aims to consider the history of Crimea from the perspective of the civilizational dimension of the world and Russian historical process. The special role of the Crimean peninsula as a special intercivilizational buffer is indicated. It determines a special paradigm of relations. Using Crimea as an example, the article reveals a special phenomenon of the «war of civilizations» with their illustration in the history of Russia. The Crimean War is considered as a direct example of the clash of civilization. The cognitive potentials of rethinking the Crimean War as a civilizational conflict are given. It is stressed that the Russian civilization opposed the civilizations of Europe and the Ottoman Empire. Finally it is em-phasised that the applied methodology allows to revise a number of historiographic and discursive stereotypes and myths of public consciousness that have developed in relation to the Crimean War. The special civilization-forming axial significance of Crimea for the civilizational history of Russia is shown.

Reception of Crimea in Byzantine Sources (the Case of Toponymics)

The article traces the history of the names of the Crimean peninsula and its main regions in the Greek-language literature of the Byzantine period, from late Antiquity to the end of the Middle Ages (4th — 15th centuries). During this thousand-year period, the political and ethnic history of Crimea was characterized by large-scale transformations, accompanied by significant changes in the ethno-population structure of both mountainous and lowland populations. Nevertheless, Byzantine sources demonstrate a persistent desire to archaize and artificially “stabilize” the Crimean realities by describing them within the framework of the classical antique ethnogeographic nomenclature (Taurica, Scythia, etc.). The reflection of the actual linguistic usus in Byzantine time is typical, with rare exceptions, only for written monuments of the so called middle style, and even then mainly during the period of cultural decline of the “dark ages” (8th — 9th centuries).

Crimea in the Space of Soviet Everyday Culture

An analysis of the main stages in the evolution of ideas about Crimea as the main Russian and Soviet resort — from the end of the 19th century to the late Soviet period — is the focus of this paper. Tavrida, the Crimean Republic, and then the Crimean region created a canon of perception of this place — fragments of ancient civilization, “Red Nice” or a real all-Union health resort for all residents of the Soviet Union. It was necessary to fill the Soviet space outside Crimea with signs that represent the history of Crimea and the new Crimean recreational reality for this canon to become an element of everyday culture. These were reflections of history and culture in works of fine and decorative art, industrial design, souvenirs, as well as objects that record memories of a trip to Crimea.

The main directions in the historiography of Christianity in Chersonesos and Tauris

This paper is devoted to the historiography of Chersonesus and Taurida. The paper notes that Crimea has a very important spiritual and geopolitical significance. There is a huge layer of scientific research that relates to the history of the Crimea both in the state-political and religious direction. The fair inclusion of Crimea into Russia in 2014 raised fears in NATO countries that Russia would be able to regain its geopolitical weight lost in 1991, when the USSR was criminally liquidated. Many countries dependent on the United States, such as Turkey, still do not recognize Crimea as part of Russia. Now it is necessary to determine in the space of historiography of Christianity in the Crimea geopolitical trends in history and modernity. This article highlights the directions of historiography of this topic, and also draws attention to the need to study how this issue is studied in other countries, including Turkey, where revanchist positions are strong and the tendency to restore the positions held by the Ottoman Empire. The classification of the historiographical trends of Christianity in Crimea at the same time emphasizes the possibilities of potential studies of the history of Crimea and Christianity in it.

Век служения науке: фундаментальное издание по истории Крымского федерального университета им. В. И. Вернадского (рецензия на монографию «История Крымского федерального университета им. В.И.Вернадского в документах и фотографиях»

A review of the monograph “History of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University in documents and photographs” (Simferopol, 2018), sponsored by the staff of the Museum of History of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. This is a structural subdivision headed by A. A. Nepomnyashchiy, the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Historical Regional Studies and Local History of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University. The relevance of the study is due to the fact that, despite of the significant number of publications on the history of this educational institution, the true history of the university in the scientific sense of the word, has not yet been published. The publication is prepared by the museum staff and based on the materials obtained in the course of painstaking research, which are stored in the archives of Simferopol, Moscow, Makhachkala and St. Petersburg. The monograph attempted to summarize the data found by the authors in the archives, as well as the information available in the literature today regarding the history of one of the oldest universities in southern Russia. The monograph “The history of V. I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University in documents and photographs” has become a worthy continuation of publications about the history not only of the university itself, but also of the entire scientific school of the Crimea. I would like to express the hope that these books will be in demand among the scientists, professors and university students, and all those who are interested in the history of the Crimea.

Books in museum library collections as a source for the study and representation of significant events in Russian history of the first quarter of the 20th century (on the example of publications from the Civil War period 1917–1922)

The article describes the documents from collections of the scientific library of the East Crimean Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve published in Crimea during the Civil War of 1917–1922. These documents are book monuments as copies published in the important period of Russian history in the first quarter of the XX century in accordance with the sociovalue criterion. Publications are considered both as objects for the scientific study of the documentary sources themselves, and from the point of view of potential exhibits of the museum exposition. The publications allow for the most complete and widespread coverage of one of the most complex and controversial moments in the history of Russia. The historical conditions of the functioning of the national economy and certain aspects of social life, reflected in the sources studied, are examined. Among them are the publishing industry, public education, museums, the activities of the system of internal affairs bodies and local self-government. Considerable attention is paid to the study of local history publications, reflecting the development of history and archeology of the indicated period and containing valuable information on the history of Crimea. A number of brochures are presented, which methodological recommendations for teaching individual academic disciplines in a unified labor school. Educational and practical publications occupy a significant place among the analyzed documents. They contain excerpts from the works of ancient Roman authors published in Latin and serve as readers for the study of the classical Latin language in the gymnasium. The content and physical safety of publications, their attributive features, are described: book signs, labels, handwritten notes, autographs are described as a result of historical and bibliographical analysis.

Amphorae of the 5th–2th c. BC from the Collection of the State Museum-Preserve « Tauric Chersonese »: Catalogue, written by S. Yu. Monakhov, E.V. Kuznetsova, N.B. Churekova

Amphorae of the 5th–2th c. BC from the Collection of the State Museum-Preserve « Tauric Chersonese »: Catalogue, written by S. Yu. Monakhov, E.V. Kuznetsova, N.B. Churekova

Russian Empire in the first academic «History of Crimea»

Russian Empire in the first academic «History of Crimea»

CRIMEA – KERCH – KRASNODAR REGION: COMMUNITY OF DESTINIES, COMMON INTERESTS, TRANSFORMATIONS, GOALS

The events in the Crimea in March 2014 in the relations between Russia and its former constituent part – the Crimea, undoubtedly turned our literal sense of self-consciousness and national consciousness. Immediately noticeably intensified and interest in the history of the Crimea at different stages of development of the state itself. The practice of creative activity of the population has once again confirmed that in resolving such complex issues connected with territorial transformations reason should prevail, and not light conclusions, even if they are the leaders of the state. And if the practice is based only on the principle of voluntarism. The history of such an approach will never be forgiven. Unequivocally, you can not give people and territories drink. For this, the determining factor is the will of the people inhabiting this territory, the same applies to the transmitted water area of the coastal seas and oceans. For this, the will and trust of the peoples must be the determining factor at all times. All that is done in politics against the people themselves will collapse. The communities received a vivid example of such a solution to the problem by Ukraine. History places the world order in places. So it was, and so it will be. This is regularity. Otherwise, this is a violation of such a social factor as the trust of the peoples of Crimea itself of Russia and they expressed their attitude to the All-Crimean referendum in 2014. No effort by the junta, the tricks of the NATO states in this case will solve the problem. Specifically, everything is based on one of the principles – consensus. He is not reached, it is difficult to obtain a legal solution. The will, even if it comes from three leaders, will be upset by the power of history. The author turns to one of the point problems – contacts between neighboring subjects in the modern sense – the Krasnodar Territory and the Crimea. In the center of these parallels is the city of Kerch, the city of metallurgists, seafarers, transport workers, builders, the city of science, proud of blacksmiths, as it was called in the distant past, the city of high culture, where cultures of whole civilizations intersect. In a concrete form, a scheme for the development of ties, joint life and struggle for preserving the integrity of the state, development of the areas of the Azov basin, cooperation and interaction, preservation of the environment, ecology, coastal trade, the origin and development of these relations in the 1920s. – 1930s. was reproduced. The author draws attention to all these directions, based on rich sources, identified and partially published in the multivolume that belonged to the OGPU and other services called to stand in the service of ensuring the security of the state and the peoples of its inhabitants. Today, Kerch is the City of Hero, and representatives of many peoples live there and work in it – Russian, Ukrainian, Crimean-Tatar, German, Greek, Bulgarian, Karaites, Armenian, etc. They make a worthy contribution to the Crimean treasury, multiplying its economic and spiritual potential.

Харакскому форуму – 20 лет!

The review analyzes the main content of reports presented at the 33rd Charax forum Political Space and Social Time: the Dialogue of Epochs and Values of Generations , which took place from 8 to 12 November 2017 in Yalta (Republic of Crimea). The forum was organized by the V.I. Vernadsky Crimean Federal University, Black Sea Information and Analytical Centre, Faculty of Law of Trnava University (Trnava, Slovakia). The forum was attended by over 90 researchers from Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, India, who discussed the latest political and social development in Russia and foreign countries, culture and history of the Crimea, its place in modern political and socio-cultural space. The review analyzes the ideas expressed at the round tables Slavic Vector in Geopolitics of the 21st Century (in memory of A.S. Panarin), Islam and Geopolitics in the Middle East, Crimea in the Сontext of the Russian Political, Economic and Socio-Cultural Space and at the 14th International seminar Religion and Сivil Society , which took place in the framework of the forum. The results of researches were carried out in the context of social philosophy, political science, sociology, cultural studies, comparative psycholinguistics and other scientific fields, which were presented in papers at the forum.