Studia Humanitatis

В статье исследуется специфика формирования образа российской провинции на примере Самары в американском информационном дискурсе конца XIX – начала XX вв. Автор обосновывает актуальность темы тем, что сложившиеся в этот период стереотипы об «отсталости» и тяжелых бытовых условиях жизни стали частью американской социальной мифологии и влияют на современные информационные процессы. Для решения проблемы вводится новый методологический концепт «воображаемый регион», позволяющий проследить эволюцию образа в динамике на длительном историческом отрезке.

The brief stay of Lenin in Copenhagen during the late summer and autumn of 1910 has generally occupied only a marginal place in studies of the Russian history movement. Overshadowed by the historical events of 1917 and by Lenin’s longer periods of exile in Switzerland, France and Britain, the Copenhagen visit has nevertheless attracted increasing scholarly attention as an illuminating episode in the history of transnational socialism. During his stay, Lenin attended the Eighth Congress of the Second International, participated in meetings among Russian social democratic delegates, established contacts with socialist activists from across Europe, and pursued extensive research on Danish agriculture and cooperative institutions in the Royal Danish Library. This article argues that the significance of Lenin’s Copenhagen lies less in his formal role during the congress than in the wider political and intellectual environment in which it occurred. Copenhagen functioned as a hub within an international network of revolutionary exiles, allowing socialist activists to exchange ideas, debate strategy and maintain political organizations across national borders. Examining Lenin’s activities through Soviet, Western, Danish and recent historiography demonstrates how interpretations of the visit have evolved alongside changing understandings of the Russian history in 1917 and international socialism.

This article examines the obstacles to and the prospects for deeper cooperation among the BRICS countries in the field of information technology. It argues that digital sovereignty is at once the main motive for such cooperation and its principal constraint. The study reviews the institutional architecture that BRICS has built since 2017, including the Partnership on the New Industrial Revolution, the Digital BRICS Task Force and the remote sensing satellite constellation, and then identifies five obstacles: structural heterogeneity, divergent data-governance regimes, technological dependence on Western suppliers, the rivalry between China and India, and weak institutionalization. It then assesses the most promising tracks for optimization, among them cross-border payment infrastructure, a shared data-governance framework, digital public infrastructure, sovereign artificial intelligence and space-based data. The article concludes that the prospects are real but uneven, and that progress depends less on technical capacity than on a governance design that preserves national control while allowing systems to interoperate.