| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
111646
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Place renaming is an archetypical feature of regime change in (post-)Soviet Russia. In the case of Leningrad / St. Petersburg it is interpreted here as an attempt at temporal boundary-making: in renaming streets, local elites tried to erect a symbolic time border between 'old' and 'new'. Since post-Soviet renaming mostly amounted to returning to places the maiden names they bore in the imperial period, toponymic changes since the perestroika did not imply a radically new semiotic mapping of the cityscape. In choosing memory landmarks for cultural self-identification that refer to an idealised European past, place-namers also tried to establish normative boundaries to situate St. Petersburg in a desired geopolitical space. Like other discursive constructions, these renaming processes are not free of contradictions however.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
087658
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article uses Chinese and Russian sources to relate the visit of a Chinese diplomatic mission headed by Anson Burlingame, Zhi Gang, and Sun Jiagu to St. Petersburg. It reveals unknown details about this visit showing that the Russian government received the Chinese delegation at the highest level, observing all the rales and standards of diplomatic etiquette of that time. It was in St. Petersburg that the mission leader, American diplomat Burlingame, passed away, requiring his immediate replacement. This first official mission of the Qing Empire to a Western country was a milestone in the development of relations between Russia and China and helped to bring them up to a qualitatively new level by paving the way to establishing China's permanent embassy in Russia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
128488
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Actual position of the investigation of this territory was expressed in academician V. V. Radloff's words: "Importance of the investigation of the Turkic tribes' remains in the far east is unquestionable because these
countries have never been visited by experts of the Turkic languages. And we have only odd bits of information collected by outside observers who were not specially prepared for aimobjective".' In 1891 N. F. Katanov was sent by Imperial Saint-Petersburg Academy of Science and Imperial Russian Geographic Society to Eastern Turkestan as the most prepared specialist in the Turkic languages. The investigation of the territory was held in the framework of an investigation project of the Turkic tribes in Eastern Siberia, Mongolia and Northern China to analyse the Turkic tribes' language and household activities. At that time Eastern Turkestan or Uigurstan was a part of China as its northern region - Xinjiang which included Kashgaria (southern part) and Dzungaria (northern part). Population of this region comprised of different Turkic groups: the Turcomen- Uygurs and Kazakhs-Kirghiz worshiping Islam, the Mongolians-Oirats and Chinese Turcomen worshiping Buddhism, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
126463
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
St. Petersburg nearly half the joy of the Russian maritime show lay in its locations: A tiny island across river Neva of St. Petersburg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
127475
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
THE ST. PETERSBURG SUMMIT, which took place on September 5-6, became the culmination of the "Russian year" in the life of the G20, the main forum of international economic cooperation between its member states.
On the Eve of the Presidency
THE PROCESS of the formulation of the presidency's priorities and agenda began in the spring of 2012. The experience of our predecessors was closely studied, as was the experience of the Russian presidency at forums similar in scale and profile (the G8 in 2006, the SCO in 2008-2009 and APEC in 2012).
The definition of the presidency's priorities became a serious challenge to the Russian side. A large diversity of multi-vector trends in the development of the global economic and financial system, as well as in the evolution of the positions of the G20 participants had to be taken into consideration. There was also another factor that could not be ignored: The uneven implementation of the G20's previous decisions, which gives cause for periodic talk about the declining effectiveness of that forum and its role as one of the global governance mechanisms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|