Introduction. Edward W. Said’s Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient introduced the category ‘Orientalism’ into scientific and political discourse. So, the article focuses on the Armenian question that became a remarkable part of the Eastern question at the turn of the 20th century — to illustrate features of ‘Russian Orientalism’. The decline of the Ottoman Porte, difficulties faced by ethnic Armenians in Turkey, and the political unrest among Armenians of the Caucasus resulted in that the Russian military and diplomats were paying close attention to those events, which was reflected in related reports. Materials and methods. The published sources examined are those authored by N. Ivanov, A. Nelidov, D. Putyata, P. Tomilov, I. Vorontsov-Dashkov, R. Termen. The archival documents involved (State Archive of Russian Federation) are A. Nelidov’s reports of 1882 and 1896, both addressed to V. Lamsdorf. The theoretical basis is shaped by concepts of Orientalism, Occidentalism, and critical geopolitics, the latter viewing geopolitical ideas of elites as an independent phenomenon referred to as ‘high geopolitics’. Results. After the Treaty of Berlin (1878) the Armenian question became a new domain for interaction between the great powers. The analysis conducted herein confirms that ‘Russian Orientalism’ — in geopolitical ideas of the elites — had an anti-Western shade. Paradoxically, in Eastern contexts Russian imperial elites were positioning themselves as representatives of European civilization. However, when it came to defend national interests, their reasoning would obtain anti-Western tones. Occidentalism presupposes a unification of the Western world, which, for example, can be observed in the reports of Ya. Lundekvist and A. Nelidov. The views and shades of Orientalism were determined by practical job tasks. For instance, Governor-General I. Vorontsov-Dashkov was rather a bearer of ‘internal Orientalism’ suggesting a patronizing concern for the Caucasian Armenians. Therefore, there were certain differences in attitudes of capital-based executives and those articulated by ones in the colonized periphery of the Empire. Conclusions. So, the study concludes as follows. Firstly, how the elites tended to perceive the essence of the Armenian question and its Turkish contexts proves the legitimacy of the category ‘Russian Orientalism’ — directed both outside and inside — the latter covering the Caucasus with a certain portion of Armenian population. Secondly, features of Orientalism in geopolitical representations of Russian elites were determined by practical tasks of their service. Thirdly, ‘Russian Orientalism’ is more heterogeneous and its aspects outnumber those presented in Edward W. Said’s study.

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

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

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

In the article the theoretical foundations of the concept "Soviet people" are explored. This concept is disputable both in scientific and political discourses, different opinions has been expressed about the reality of its construction and existence. The article proves that the adjective "Soviet" was in active use as early as the 1930s. What is more, in a situation where the completion of the construction of socialism was delayed, in everyday speech "socialist" was gradually replaced by the term "Soviet". The study tested "Soviet people" as an ideological construct became part of the concept of developed socialism due to the lack of prospects for building communism in the near future. In the work, the authors come to the conclusion that the "Soviet people" is not just an ideologeme, but also a certain type of unity, which is confirmed by social practice. The unity turned out to be fragile, as the experience of the collapse of the USSR showed, but real.