The article is devoted to the successes and failures of Russian foreign policy during the reign of Nicholas I. The key sources of the research are memoires of people who were in close attendance on the Emperor, foreign diplomats, travelers and members of European royal families. They noted some traits of his personality, political views, commitment to order and military service. They left valuable remembrance about all important foreign-policy cases the Russian Emperor was involved in: Russo-Turkish War (1828–1829), contacts with the Balkan states, Eastern Question within the framework of the Russian role in the course of events of the Egyptian–Ottoman War (1832–1833); hostility against French Revolutions and contacts with the allied Prussia and the Austrian Empire. These reminiscences make it possible to discover the attitude of Nicolas I to the European revolutions in the first half of XIX-th and illegitimate monarchs in Europe. They let us track the way the foreign policy influenced the Russian inner policy. The sources are very informative to explain the different steps of Russian foreign policy in the most important points – in the Middle East, in Europe and in Turkey.

 

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries Europe was largely influenced by the French Revolution, which appeared as a major blow to the Westphalian political system. Motivated by its revolutionary ideas with the aim to spread them throughout Europe, to confirm its political and economic hegemony on the continent, the First French Republic and later the First Napoleonic Empire during its numerous wars conquered and controlled most of western countries, including the Netherlands, which later also became a satellite state of France. As a major opponent of France’s aggressive policy of that period and Napoleon’s defeater, Russia and its Emperor Alexander I took a significant part in the postwar settlement of Europe. However, Russia’s key role in liberating European countries, among which the Netherlands, from France’s oppression and in establishing their independence is often omitted and ignored in western historiography. By using archival documents, including Dutch ones, the author’s purpose is to show that due largely to consistent policy of Alexander I towards restoring independence of the Netherlands, in full accordance with Russia’s national interests, to the Emperor Alexander’s personal participation at the Congress of Vienna, a new state was formed in 1815 – the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. An essential instrument of Emperor Alexander’s foreign policy which strengthened the ties between the two countries was the dynastic marriage in February of 1816 of his younger sister Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna with Dutch Hereditary Prince of Orange William who became in 1840 the King of the Netherlands William II.

The article is devoted to the issue of migration in Russia in the Early-modern time the Orthodox subjects of the Ottoman Empire and its vassal States. It presents the dynamics of migration, the analysis of its causes, revealed the social origins of immigrants, studied the place which they received in Russian society. Found that the Russian government was interested in migration. The Greeks always were readily accepted in Russia and received Russian citizenship. The Russian government was guided by several motives. In the first place, the government proceeded from the doctrine of Moscow as the III Rome. The concept was laid on the Russian Tsar functions of the Byzantine Emperor. After the fall of Byzantium the mission the only Orthodox sovereign ruler – Moscow Tsar, was the defense of Orthodoxy and the salvation of believers. Using Greek migration was implemented a complex of Messianic beliefs about Holy Russia. In addition, the migration was allowed to expand the Russian privileged class for the former nobility of Byzantium, as well as to replenish the ranks of specialists in military affairs. The motives of the resettlement of the Greeks themselves in the first place were religious. The threat of Islamization sounded like the main reason for their desire to stay in Russia. The authorities have always responded to such requests. As a result, Russia moved more than 200 people. The most intensive migration was purchased in periods of close diplomatic relations between the Russian and Greek parties: when adopting an Imperial title, the establishment of the Patriarchate and preparation for the Smolensk war (1632–1634), the Church ritual reforms of Patriarch Nikon. Social origins of immigrants have varied greatly. It was the inhabitants of the Danubian principalities, who were captured by the Tartars; the military rank of the Ottoman army, merchants, artisans, members of the families of the Turkish authorities, landowners, representatives of Byzantine aristocratic dynasties, the relatives of the higher Greek clergy. They all had the opportunity to obtain a recommendation letter of the patriarchs of the Christian East. This document was created by the possibility to obtain the rank of Moscow nobleman. In the period under review, more than two dozen immigrants entered the Czar’s court; seven of them have confirmed the title of Prince. About ten immigrants have become translators of the Diplomatic department. Other immigrants enrolled in the Department for Foreigners serviceman, where from 1630 to 1654 was a special military Greek company. From 1641 to 1672 in Moscow there was a Greek settlement. Greek colonies appeared even in Siberia, for example, in Tomsk. Greek immigrants have influenced the development of Russian society

Using primary sources in Russian and British historiography, the author analyzes the evolution of public thought in Great Britain in the second half of the 19th century, its turn from individualism and principle of “night-watchman state” to a more socially-oriented position. This transformation, which occurred under the influence of both evident and hidden factors, was one of the key prerequisites for formation in the seventh decade of the 19th century of the New Toryism and “social liberalism” doctrines, the framework of which was used by the British government to chart a course for systematic social reforms in the areas of health care, elementary education, residential development and labor law. By analyzing the views of J. Bentham, J.S. Mill and T.H. Green, as well as literary works of the period in question, the author traces the process of alienation of the “laissez-faire” policy (the classical principle of state non-interference in economy) by a certain part of the British society and the readiness to reassess the role of the state in the social sphere. The article presents in detail the search for philosophical, social and socialistic thought, aimed at solving the deepest social problems and predicating, in many aspects, the cycle of social reforms carried out by the Disraeli and Gladstone cabinets under the auspices of the state in the middle of the late Victorian period. The author points out that the social policy of the prime ministers W. Gladstone in 1868-1874 and B. Disraeli in 1874-1800 was historically the first precedent when the liberal doctrine which took the shape of the so-called Manchester liberalism in Great Britain had to recognize the principles of social state, economic regulation and a stronger role of the state in the British society. The author notes that the foundations of most of the social reforms that are now perceived as integral components of a modern democratic society were laid precisely in this historical period. Thanks to the flexibility of the English establishment, that was able to assess the strength of public opinion and to offer social doctrines aimed at meeting the growing social demands, the British government demonstrated the art of subtle political maneuver and the possibility of a bloodless way of carrying out social reforms.

 

The article analyzes the features of the situation in the Middle East in the modern world. Special emphasis is placed on consideration of the peculiarities of the perception of the region by representatives of the great powers in historical retrospect. To put these peculiarities objectively, the author uses comparative and historical-descriptive methods. The article also reveals specific causes and consequences of the strategic interest of the great powers towards the Middle East. Later the author explains the possibilities of a new approach to the region on the part of modern Russia and presents the analysis of archival materials shedding light on the actions of the great powers in relation to the Middle East in retrospect and in the near future. This allows to consider a new Concept of Russia’s foreign policy and the possibility of its implementation in the Greater Middle East in the foreseeable future. The article describes new technologies of political actions of the Russian Federation in the Middle East region, taking into account the factor of peacemaking and the creation of normal living conditions for the countries and peoples of the Greater Middle East. The specific peacekeeping efforts of the Russian Federation are compared with the policies of other great powers in the region. This allow to forge the assessment of the broad interpretation of the Greater Middle East in contemporary world politics. Furthermore, an attempt is made to clearly define strategic goals and characterize the patterns of tactical actions of the Russian government within the entire Middle East territory. This preconditions the need to expand the Russian presence not only in the Greater Middle East as well as in other turbulent zones. The article underlines the importance of consistency in the actions of effective crisis diplomacy and multilateral cooperation of the Russian Federation in the region and throughout the world.

The article examines the attempts of American diplomacy to achieve a breakthrough on the Palestinian-Israeli track between July 29, 2013 and April 24, 2014 in order to come close to signing the Permanent Status Agreement between the conflicting parties under the US mediation within the framework of the previous agreements reached at the tripartite Summit of 2000 in Camp David. The study is based on an analysis of the “Kerry Plan” prepared by the US State Department, which laid the foundations of solving key issues of the PalestinianIsraeli confrontation. Details of the Kerry Plan were never disclosed, but its content was reconstructed by the authors on the basis of an analysis of the materials of the negotiations that were conducted under the auspices of the United States in the past. The article draws a parallel between the negotiation process in 2013-2014 and the process that was initiated by the administration of President B. Clinton in 2000-2001. The plan proposed by J. Kerry, like the initiative of B. Clinton, was focused on solving only the issue of future borders by exchanging territories, but did not touch upon other principal issues of the Permanent Status (refugees, Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem). It is obvious that such an approach, which completely disavowed the existing international legal basis for the Middle East settlement, was leaning to deliberate failure. The study allows to conclude that the settlement of the conflict under the auspices of the United States on a separate basis under the “Camp David scheme”, successfully approved by the US diplomacy in resolving disputable issues between Egypt and Israel in the late 1970s, does not work on the Palestinian track.

The article reveals the stages in the formation of the USSR policy in the field of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution, the features of the developed policy and practical conclusions that could be useful in advancing the current Middle East policy of the Russian Federation. Initially, the Soviet Union perceived the Palestinian theme primarily from the point of view of the problem of refugees. However, Moscow increasingly felt the need for reliable allies in the region. The movement for cooperation between the Palestine Liberation Organization and the USSR was bilateral: the PLO departed from revolutionary romanticism and began to follow a pragmatic line to expand contacts with opponents of Israel. Moscow began to consider the activities of the PLO as part of the national liberation movement, took a sharply anti-Israeli stance. Such a distortion led to a loss of freedom of maneuver in the region and to the announcement of deliberately non-constructive proposals for a Palestinian-Israeli settlement. Only since 1985 the USSR returned to a more flexible position, which sought to combine the interests of the Palestinian people and Israel. At the present stage, Russian diplomacy uses Soviet experience and connections, especially in the sphere of personal contacts. But Russia’s role in the Middle East conflict resolution has decreased due to subjective and objective reasons. Against the backdrop of the Arab Spring and the Civil War in Syria, Palestinian issues have become secondary in the agenda of Moscow, which, however, can lead to a new surge of violence and tension. Special relations with the Palestinian national liberation movement have always been an advantage of Soviet and then Russian diplomacy. The authors believe that this advantage should be used more actively to strengthen Russia’s positions in the region.

The article analyzes the development of Russian-Saudi political interaction after the restoration (at that time of Soviet-Saudi relations) of bilateral relations in September 1990. The article focuses on the role of the Russian Muslim community in shaping the Russian politics towards Riyadh in the 1990-2000s. The authors state there are both periods of “crises” and detente in the development of Russian-Saudi political interaction that were marked by events in Chechnya and former Yugoslavia in 1994-2000, “Arab Spring” 2011, the post-September 2015 era, the Russian anti-terrorist campaign in Syria. The alternation of these periods is the constant of Russian-Saudi political contacts, despite the similarity in the approaches of both sides to the ways and methods of solving crisis situations in the Middle East region, as well as the Saudi’s pro-Russian position regarding the change in the status of the Crimea and the situation in the east of Ukraine. The general attitude of both sides towards ISIS and Jabha al-Nusra as a source of terrorism, regional instability and the challenge of international security does not remove the two main contradictions that divide Moscow and Riyadh – attitude toward the official Syrian regime and the Iran’s regional policy. The study comes to the conclusion that Russia and Saudi Arabia are interested (albeit for various reasons) in diversifying their foreign policy and foreign economic relations.

The proposed article focuses on the change in the approach of the regional organization of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to Russia’s role in the Middle East region and the efforts of its members to establish fruitful cooperation with it. A new approach followed the events of the “Arab Spring”, among which the outcome was a complication of the regional situation and the emergence of a series of crises that forced the members of the GCC to expand the number of allies among the world’s leading powers. Russia’s active participation in resolving crisis situations in the Middle East, primarily in Syria, influenced the change in the GCC policy towards Russia, which realized its increased interest in establishing strong ties with the countries of this region. The article compares the relations that existed between Russia and the GCC states in the Soviet period and the initial period of the Russian Federation’s existence, and those relations that began to develop after 2011 amid growing instability in the Middle East region. A new stage in bilateral relations was caused by the coincidence of their interests in the fight against the increased terrorist threat. The parties were also interested in conducting political consultations to resolve regional crisis situations. The coincidence of points of view between Russia and the GCC on the Middle East settlement has always been a reliable basis for building mutual understanding between the parties. At the same time, the contradictions that arose between them on the issue of ways out of the Syrian crisis led to a cooling in their relations. The authors conclude that the place of Russia in the foreign policy priorities of the GCC is going to grow. The mutual interest of the parties in political interaction is reinforced by the need to coordinate policy in the energy market, the largest suppliers of which are both Russia and the GCC states. In addition, both sides are striving to expand economic and militarytechnical cooperation, which will create a favorable situation for establishing relations in the political sphere.

 

This article is an attempt to formulate a non-standard multifactor approach to the problem of consolidating Russia’s presence in the countries of the Middle East. It explores the possibility of creating in the Arab countries a system of educational courses related to innovation. These courses will make it possible for young people in the region to form an attitude towards our country as one of the leaders in the high-tech economy, to strengthen their loyalty to representatives of domestic business. In the future, the ecosystem of innovations can be formed as a result of educational efforts. That is going to allow Russian business circles to take part in the commercialization of new technologies created by innovators of the region. Russia’s innovative presence in the Middle East region can be embodied in the form of joint ventures, the outsourcing of a number of industries and the provision of technological services as well as joint applied scientific research. Such efforts will bring changes in the existing international division of labor by creating more favorable conditions for the development of the economy of the Russian Federation and its transition to the economy of innovation. Moreover, the article draws attention to the possibility of cooperation between Russia and Israel for the organization of a platform for effective interaction between representatives of innovative communities of Muslim countries of the Middle East and participants of the high technology market of the Jewish state. The article shows that the implementation of such a strategy will allow our country to become meaningful player in the process of economic and socio-political transformation of the region. The promotion of innovative business in the region should be part of a wider strategy for promoting a positive image of Russia, creating economic grounds for existing political and military-political ties with the countries of the Middle East.

 

Russian-Turkish relations, spanning more than five centuries, have gone through a number of trials. However, at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century these relations became especially dynamic. Transformations of the relations occur now more often and exert serious impact both on the states, and on the region in general. The collapse of the USSR can be considered as the beginning of intensive changes in the relationship between Russia and Turkey. The geopolitical competition in the post-soviet area, economic cooperation and the threat of terrorism were the main points of interaction. Gradual transition of Russian-Turkish relations from competition to multidimensional partnership began in the early 2000s, with the election of president V. V. Putin in Russia and with the coming to power in Turkey of the Justice and Development Party. The new form of partnership was promoted as being vital for cooperation in Eurasia for resolution of conflicts, combatting terrorism, trade and energy sphere. Further development of the relations resulted in willingness of the two countries to transition from a multidimensional to a strategic partnership. The beginning of this process started in 2009. Nevertheless, shortly thereafter disagreements concerning the events in the Middle East, with the beginning of the «Arab Spring» began to have a negative impact on the bilateral relations. The situation surrounding Ukraine also had its negative effect. Even so, the economic relations and cooperation in the energy and trade spheres continued to develop, up to the tragic events related to the shoot-down of the Russian bomber aircraft SU-24 in November 2015. After this, the Russian-Turkish relations deteriorated to their lowest point, practically in all spheres. Since August 2016 the relations have been gradually improving. This led to the restoration of political dialogue, improvement of the economic relations and to the realization of the energy projects frozen earlier. The article studies historical and contemporary stages of the transformation of RussianTurkish relations to understand the causes of these changes and their impact on the further dynamics of bilateral relations. The main research methods are the historical method for disclosing the retrospective and contemporary development of Russian-Turkish relations and the comparative method for comparing the nature and scale of bilateral interaction at various historical stages. As a result of the research it was found out, that historically, there is no progressive and stable development in the Russian-Turkish relations. At the same time, the causes of negative transformations are directly related to geopolitical competition for influence in regions, and positive changes are mainly due to economic interests, especially in the energy sector. At the same time, there is no division of economic and political interests, often serious disagreements on regional issues lead to the severance of economic ties and vice versa, economic cooperation has a positive impact on bilateral relations.

The article addresses the problem of self-determination of the Kurdish ethnos in Syria. Kurds are an indigenous people in this territory and for a long time lived within a single space within the Ottoman Empire. The artificial division of the Middle East into states in the interests of European powers led to ignoring the interests and rights of the Kurdish ethnos. Self-organization of Kurds in Syria occurred gradually and mainly under the influence of external factors. The first one was the political activity of Kurds in neighboring countries, the second – the assimilation efforts of the Syrian authorities. Although the Kurdish population, basically, retained its identity, half a century of assimilation policy led to the erosion of the Kurdish ethnic enclaves in the north of the country. Moreover, self-organization and political mobilization of Kurds in Syria began to be accompanied by disagreements and splits of the main political forces. Kurdish political parties sought to act as a “third force” in the course of the civil war in Syria. However, disagreements prevented this, as well as certain pressure from Western countries, which pushed the Syrian Kurds to support the moderate opposition. The power vacuum in the north of Syria was able to fill the center-left party “Democratic Union”. This political force is in contact with the official Syrian authorities and, at the same time, receives US support. Created by the efforts of the “Democratic Union” the Kurdish autonomy in the north of the country provides stability in territories with the Kurdish and mixed populations, and also performs socio-economic functions. This makes the Kurdish autonomy an important element of negotiations about the future political structure of Syria.

 

The article examines the current state of and prospects for cooperation of the Russian-Bahraini relationship in the context of the formation of a regional security system. The author analyzes the bilateral agenda between Moscow and Manama in the broad context of the legacy of the USSR in the region, the wide-ranging course of the Russian Federation towards the Middle East in general and the states of the Persian Gulf in particular. Also, the study takes into account the factor of other extra-regional presence in this subsystem, special attention in this context is paid to the role of the United States. As a result of the analysis, the author formulated his own characteristic of the general trends of Russian policy towards the countries of the Persian Gulf. At the same time, relations with Bahrain were considered in the framework of several “baskets” - the most relevant problems for both states, whose influence could be extrapolated from the bilateral agenda to regional and subregional security issues. To such “baskets” the author included problems: Arab-Persian contradictions, terrorism and extremism, Shia-Sunni confrontation, interstate relations in the format of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. The subject of the study was concentrated on the compatibility of Russian and Bahraini positions on these issues in the context of the formation of a regional security system.

 

The article deals with the dynamics of knowledge about the future, factors that determine the need for its »rediscovery« today, among which: the transition of mankind to the dominance of non-linear development; the destruction by globalization of the natural boundaries of civilizational formations, which led to direct interaction of local human civilizations and new conflicts between them; the formation of a unified socio-techno-natural reality; the emergence of complex systems potentially predisposed to the production of catastrophes disasters. This forced scientists to form new models of the future and, accordingly, to develop other theoretical and methodological tools of social forecasting on the basis of which scenarios of the medium-term (up to 2025) and long-term (up to 2050) visions of the international and military political situation are proposed. The authors proceed from the assumption that the validity of these scenarios and the confidence in the knowledge of security should emerge from a comprehensive account of the main stable and variable factors that determine and form the scenarios of Russia’s development in these periods. The most suitable method for long-term forecasting is the longitudinal-scenario method which is based on the creation of a model of a probable scenario of the international and military political situation. In order to accomplish this goal, the model needs a large empirical array of information that is analyzed in several stages by taking into account the influence of the main objective groups of factors that ultimately makes it possible to single out and justify three strategic directions of ensuring Russia’s security in the twenty-first century. The article comes to conclusion that future scenarios of Russia’s development depend on subjective factors such as the quality and intentions of the ruling political elite.

For the last few decades, the system of international relations continues to change. One of the key components of the emerging international order is the European regional order, which currently goes through deep transformations associated with changes of the international system and structural reconstruction of the European communities. The formation of the European regional system is a complex international political process, which is based on various political, social, economic, cultural, historical and other factors. Since the end of the World war II the European Union constitutes a political and institutional basis of relations both between member states and with the rest of the world. However, today the European Union runs through a systemic crisis embodied by ongoing economic and financial downturn as well as a crisis of socio-political structures and models of governance that now threaten the existence of the Union itself. Institutional problems are aggravated against the background of crises in highly sensitive areas such as economy and security, as well as uncertainties in the external international environment. All these factors undermine the ability of the EU to play a decisive role in building a European regional order. The emphasis is shifting towards particular countries, with the greater potential in shaping the international agenda and giving an effective response to modern challenges and threats. Building a stable architecture of the European security system is one of the essential conditions of the European regional order, however contradicting approaches of the parties acknowledge that political and ideological barriers between the East and the West continue to exist. In the context of increasing security threats transatlantic partnership does not lose the relevance though the tough course of the US and its desire to reinforce its leadership in Europe often meets the extreme disapproval on the part of the Europeans. Russian factor also plays inevitably important role, since Russia culturally and historically, economically and institutionally, is inextricably linked with Europe and is an integral part of the European regional complex.

Global media, its functioning and its influence on world politics is a popular topic of research. Media is traditionally seen among instruments a state uses in its foreign and domestic policies. Liberal pluralists identify global media outlets as relatively independent actors that interact with other states and non-state actors and have the potential to influence global political processes. However, neither of these two main approaches seems to fully answer the question about what shapes the specific nature of modern media in its media-media interaction as well as interaction with other non-state actors and states? And their specific nature taken into consideration, how can modern media impact world politics? This article aims to answer both of these questions. The article analyzes the existing theoretic approaches to studying media and its influence on world politics, identifies the key features of functioning of the modern global information space, observes the main aspects of interaction between the media, on the one hand, and states and non-state actors, on the other, and studies global media’s means of influencing world politics. The constructivist paradigm shapes the theoretical and methodological framework of the study. The author makes a conclusion about ‘dual nature’ of modern media, which may be among means (used by states and non-state actors) of constructing the ‘reality of world politics’ and act as a relatively independent participant of this ‘reality’. Global media outlets are the main actors in global information space, they shape it and define the dynamics of its development, and at the same time they are influenced by the processes unfolding within it. Moreover, the author stresses that the current state of IT development makes the global information space as an integral organism functioning in accordance with its own internal logic. This functioning is based on interaction and interinfluence of various media outlets (of all shapes and levels) that broadcast and exchange competing visions and cultural stereotypes, i.e. ‘social constructs’. The result of this dynamic interaction is a specific – media – reality, which has become one of the key dimensions of modern world political processes.

The article examines the most important aspects of the problem of the reverse of gas to Ukraine, its significance and consequences for the further development of contemporary international relations in the energy sector between the Russian Federation (gas exporter), Ukraine (transit country) and the European Union (importer). Considering all the elements that are important for the analyzed problem, the answer to the question “how the reverse gas flow influenced the energy security of Russia, Ukraine and the European Union, and the relationship between them” is given, using the explicative method of content analysis and the analysis of several press conferences. To understand all the nuances of relationships in this triangle, a detailed description of the term “reverse gas flow” is offered, as well as an explanation of the differences between “physical” (or real) and “virtual” reverse, which play a key role in the study of this problem. The essence of the conflict lies in the fact that the parties have different points of view on the legitimacy of the so-called “virtual” backhaul. In contrast to the physical reverse, i.e. to the real gas flow through the pipeline, in case of a virtual or a paper reverse, a one-way gas flow takes place, part of the total volume of which the transit state buys and leaves on its territory. The EU and Ukraine believe that a virtual backhaul between them is possible according to the provisions of the Third Energy Package and its relevant norms, based on the fact that the EU countries and Ukraine are part of the so-called. Energy Community. Another point of view regarding virtual backhaul is Russian, which initially opposed virtual reverse on the grounds that the raw material is the property of the state-owned company OAO Gazprom until it crosses the western border of Ukraine. The article details the legal documents on which the above-mentioned countries rely, as well as the official statements of the parties. Based on the analysis conducted, it is concluded that reverse gas supplies to Ukraine represent a temporary and far from perfect scheme, which does not fundamentally solve the problem of disagreements between the EU, Ukraine and Russia in the energy sector, namely, the gas transit. Nevertheless, the observed increase in the volume of Russian natural gas supplies to the EU in 2016 and early 2017 and the forecast for a further demand increase for gas from Russia in the EU in the future indicates that the provision of gas transit through the territory of the Visegrad Group countries, Members of the EU from Southeastern Europe and the search for new ways of supply, as well as the preservation of some of the current ones, occupy the leading positions on the political agenda of the EU countries, Russia and Ukraine, as they relate to their energy security

Thomas Biersteker graduated from Chicago University (BF in Political Science) and MIT (MA in Political Science) and got PhD in Political Science in MIT as well. Later professor Biersteker lectured in Yale University (1976-1985), South Carolina University (1985-1992) and Brown University (1992-2006). He could be described as a constructivist focusing his research on global governance, international organizations and transnational policy networks, construction of sovereignty and regimes of targeted sanctions. Professor Birsteker kindly agreed to give an interview to the “MGIMO Review of International Relations” during a seminar within the research project - Grant of RFBR No. 16-23-41004. The seminar was also attended by M.M. Lebedeva, Yu.A. Nikitin, A.I. Nikitin, I.A. Istomin.