Abstract: The article reviews O. Figes' monograph "Crimea, The Last Crusade", dedicated to the Crimean War of 1853-56, published in Russia in 2021. The work of the English historian is considered primarily in the light of approaches to the study of historical memory developed in modern historical science. It is noted that, despite the rich tradition of studying the Crimean War in Russian and Western historiography, the topic of the formation of historical memory of the war of 1853-1856 and the existence of the image of this war in Russia and the countries of the anti-Russian coalition for more than a century and a half has been touched upon little in the literature. Meanwhile, the ongoing discussion in the world historical science on the topic of the "memorial turn" convinces of the importance of updating the memory of such important events of the past as the Crimean War. The emphasis on "places of memory", such as the city of Russian glory of Sevastopol, as can be seen from the public agenda, is also becoming an important means of foreign and domestic policy, a way of reflecting society on its past, present and future, an instrument for solving political and state tasks broadcast through the education system, literature, art, and the press. In this sense, the topic of memorialization of the Crimean War in various countries, raised by O. Figes, undoubtedly needs further development in the Russian historiorgraphy.

Keywords: Russian studies, russophobia, Russia and the West, Sevastopol, Pierre Nora, sites of memory, history of memory, history of Russia, The Crimean War, Orlando Figes

Abstract: The article addresses the main ideas discussed in the book written by Petr Tolochko “Ukraine Between Russia and the West: Historical and Journalistic Essays”. Petr Tolochko is a famous Ukrainian scholar of Medieval history, who made a great contribution to Soviet and world scholarship with his research in the field of Ancient Rus'. The reviewed book is focused on events taking place in modern Ukraine and in Ukrainian historical sciences. The reforms of the latter are based not on historical research, but on the desire to follow national ideology. Petr Tolochko analyzes the political and ideological foundations of this situation and presents refutations of a number of historical interpretations proposed by the new Ukrainian historiography. The scholar raises questions about the unity from the roots of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples in the culture of Ancient Rus', as well as about the proximity of Ukrainian culture to Russian or to Western cultures. For Petr Tolochko, the unity of the source is indisputable, but the solution of the second question is ambiguous. The main danger of the new historical ideology is that Ukraine is put in the position of being a victim of Russia's imperial influence. This contradicts the role that Ukrainian political and cultural figures played in the formation and development of Russian culture and statehood. In addition, as a consequence of this approach, a historical inferiority complex is implanted in Ukrainian self-consciousness. The prospects and hopes of overcoming the crisis processes lie in seeking a dialogue between cultures. The downside of modern Ukrainian ideology is one-sidedness, contrary to the diversity and complexity of its historical development.

Keywords: historical inferiority complex, historical influence, historical development, historical responsibility, Ukrainian political crisis, national ideology, history of Ukraine, history of ancient Russia, historical science, dialogue of cultures