Just after becoming the first-ever successful, democratically re-elected President of Russia, Boris Yel'tsin ambitiously called for creating, within the next year, a new ideology that would reflect the new state of affairs in Russia—in essence, he was calling for “re-imagining,” or reinventing, the foundations upon which Russian national community is based. With this directive, Yel'tsin was confirming something that had already become clear to many observers of Russian politics: post-Soviet Russian political life not only continued to resist democratization and pluralism, but also appeared to exhibit signs of discomfort without an officially-sanctioned ideological reference point by which the political players could set their compasses. The Kremlin's quest for a restoration of Russia's credibility as a great power included serious consideration of religion, specifically Russian Orthodoxy, playing a leading role in helping to reformulate an ideology acceptable to diverse communities within Russia in order to replace the now-defunct Marxist–Leninist ideology of the Soviet state. The old French adage “plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose” seems particularly appropriate for the new Russia in its efforts to regain credibility as a great power, along with the prestige and respect to which it had become accustomed. This article examines the dynamics of the Russian search for a new ideology in order to help restore its credibility as a great power, as suggested by Yel'tsin's call for a new “national idea.” But the search for a new ideology began well before Yel'tsin made this statement, and, therefore, the following discussion focuses on the interplay between religion and politics in this quest, covering the first five years of a reconstituted, post-Soviet Russia, that is, the time period roughly from the collapse of the Soviet Union up to the Duma (parliament) elections of December 1995 and the two-stage presidential elections of June-July 1996.

The radical right in the Ukrainian political spectrum is dominated by three movements—the Nationalist Union Ukrainian State Independence (DSU), the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA, formerly the Ukrainian Inter-Party Assembly, UMPA) and the Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists (KUN). The UNA is dominated by the highly secretive Ukrainian Nationalist Union (UNS) which grew out of the nationalist wing of the Association of Independent Ukrainian Youth (SNUM). The KUN was launched in 1992 in Ukraine as the overt arm of the émigré Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera faction (known commonly as OUN revolutionaries, or OUNr).

In 1920 the Belarusian Soviet Socialist Republic emerged upon the ruins of German and Polish occupation. It replaced the short-lived Belarusian Democratic Republic as the embodiment of national statehood. The ensuing decade came to be an important but ambiguous period in Belarusian history. New state institutions such as the Commissariat of Public Enlightenment, the Institute of Belarusian Culture, and the Belarusian State University carried out unprecedented “nation-building” policies designed to reverse the effects of tsarist Russification and foster the development of Belarusian national culture. Parodoxically, many of the same institutions also implemented various aspects of “Sovietization.” A myriad of measures under the label “socialist construction” served to integrate ever more closely Belarus into the Soviet Union.

Literature in many languages (documentary, monographic, memoir-like and periodical) is abundant on the sovietization of Czechoslovakia, as are the reasons advanced for it. Some observers have argued that the Soviet takeover of the country stemmed from an excessive preoccupation with Panslavism in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by a few Czech and Slovak intellectuals, politicians, writers and poets and their uncritical affection and fascination for everything Russian and Soviet. Others have attributed the drawing of Czechoslovakia into the Soviet orbit to Franco-British appeasement of Hitler's imperial ambitions during the September 1938, Munich crisis. At Munich, Czechoslovakia lost its sovereignty and territory, France its honor, England its respect and trust; and the Soviet Union, by its abstract offer to aid Czechoslovakia (without detailing how or in what form the assistance would come) gained admiration. Still others have pinned the blame for the sovietization of Czechoslovakia on machinations by top leaders of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, who, as obedient tools of Moscow, supported Soviet geopolitical designs on Czechoslovakia, who sought and received political asylum in the USSR during World War II, and who returned to Czechoslovakia with the victorious Soviet armed forces at the end of World War II as high-ranking members of the Soviet establishment. Finally, there are some who maintain that the sovietization of Czechoslovakia commenced with the 25 February 1948, Communist coup, followed by the tragic death of Foreign Minister Jan Masaryk on 10 March 1948, and the replacement, on 7 June 1948, of President Eduard Beneš by the Moscow-trained, loyal Kremlin servant Klement Gottwald.

It is significant that, at a time in which violent nationalisms are re-entering the European political stage, one of the basic aims of Romani elites in the area of human rights is to be recognized as a nation, a fact marked symbolically by the attention being paid to national emblems. Of course, other issues (equal civil rights, minority rights, political representation or community development) are also among the objectives of Roma organizations (PER Report, 1992, p. 7). However, in the case of these latter issues, the question can be asked, to whom are these basic human rights to be granted? In other words, Romani elites seem to realize that the most important right for which they should strive is the right to have a commonly accepted and externally recognized self-definition as a group which should be granted consequent rights. In the present circumstances, especially in Eastern Europe, there is little doubt that the elected self-identification by the Romani people will be a national one, since this is perceived as stronger and more respectable than other identity-constructs such as ethnic minority.

Das deutsche Interesse an der Ukraine war nicht ausschließlich an die Person des Het'mans gebunden. Gegen Ende des Krieges begann in Deutschland die im März 1918 von Paul Rohrbach und Axel Schmidt ins Leben gerufene “Deutsch-Ukrainische Gesellschaft” (DUG) ihre Aktivitäten auszuweiten. Sie veröffentlichte eine Zeitschrift (“Die Ukraine”), die zunächst bis zum November 1922 erschien. In ihr trafen mehrere an der Ukraine interessierte Strömungen zusammen. Rohrbach und Schmidt waren primär an der Auflösung des russischen Großreichs interessiert, um aus den “Randstaaten” wirtschaftlich für Deutschland interessante und gleichzeitig die politische Lage ausgleichende Gebiete zu machen. Der liberalen Grundtendenz entsprachen das Streben nach freier Markt wirtschaft und die wie selbstverständlich vorausgesetzte Praktizierung der fundamentalen Menschenrechte durch die entstehenden Nationen. Diese beiden letzten Positionen korrespondierten mit den linkeren Exponenten der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik: den großrussischen Föderationsplänen Skoropads'kyjs und der deutschen Militärs widersprachen sie deutlich. Rohrbach war als Feind des Russischen Reiches auch Gegner seiner deutschen Sympathisanten Das Auswärtige Amt hatte sich eine Zeitlang (wie auch das Militär im Frühjahr 1918) Positives von der ukrainischen Selbständigkeit (sowohl gegen Polen als auch gegen die Entente) versprochen; im Zuge der Konsolidierung Sowjetrußlands und der von der Entente Polen gewährten Sicherheiten verlor die bürgerlich-ukrainische Eigenständigkeit dann an Bedeutung, um in abgewandeltem Kontext 1926 erneut Relevanz zu gewinnen.

The huge polar archipelago of Novaya Zemlya is well known as a nuclear testing site devoid of a civilian population. But in many cartographical sources, e.g., maps in the National Geographic Magazine, one can still see a set of settlements along its coasts. Soviet sources showed these settlements until 1956 (Atlas mira, 1954; Atlas mira, 1955), at a time when full military control was established on the islands. But what is the fate of these high latitude settlements now? It is their historical background and population that will be reviewed with special reference to ethnic problems, proving to be a unique experiment in the economic use of this high Arctic area.

Taken as a key area, Novaya Zemlya is the largest archipelago of the European Arctic, ca. 83,000 sq.km., consisting of two main islands and numerous smaller ones. The main islands, Northern and Southern, are separated by the narrow strait, Matochkin Shar. The huge archipelago stretches almost 900 km in a submeridional direction and is considered a structural continuation of the Urals. The mountains often rise more than 1,000 m above sea-level, the highest summit attaining 1,547 m. Almost 25% of the total area is covered by ice. The most extensive glaciation is on the northern and central parts of the Northern Island, which is a vast ice sheet and an outlet of several glaciers.