scholarly journals CILECT as the Project of a World Film School: Origins, Specifics, Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 8-24
Author(s):  
Vladimir Malyshev
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Cooperation ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
International Association ◽  
The United States ◽  
100Th Anniversary ◽  
State Institute ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Film Education

The continuing introduction of digital technologies into the production of meaningful and engaging audiovisual images accentuates the necessity of international cooperation in the sphere of the professional education of those young people who are planning to work in film, television and other screen arts. All over the world film schools are challenged by problems the solution of which requires consolidated participation of worldfamous masters. This has been recently confirmed at the Congress of the International Association of Film and Television Schools (CILECT) Congress held in October 2019 in Moscow in connection with the 100th anniversary of the All-Russian State Institute of Cinematography (VGIK). This essay analyzesVGIK's contribution to the process of perfecting programs in the field of screen arts at different stages of their development. The essay explores issues of CILECT development since its foundation in 1954. Initially, CILECT was supported by nations with developed film cultures, such as Brazil, Chile, Czechoslovakia, France, Italy, Poland, the Soviet Union, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Today, the Association unites 180 film schools from 65 nations. The essay analyzes VGIK's role in the development of film education and, more generally, the development of screen arts; and emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in this technological, digital age.

International Whaling Commission

1957 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-702 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Association ◽  
Substantial Reduction ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Whaling Commission ◽  
Food And Agriculture ◽  
Food And Agriculture Organization ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
The Cost

The eighth annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission took place in London July 16–20, 1956, under the chairmanship of Dr. G. J. Lienesch (Netherlands). All seventeen contracting governments, with the exception of Brazil, were represented, with observers from Italy, Portugal, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, and the International Association of Whaling Companies. During the deliberations the Commission 1) received from the Bureau of International Whaling Statistics data on the operations and the catch for the past season; 2) received various scientific papers concerning the stocks of whales, and almost unanimously favoring a substantial reduction in the catch in view of evidence that the stock was declining, recommended that the catch for future seasons should not exceed 15,000 blue whale units, and, with one dissentient, recommended that the limit should be reduced in the 1956–1957 season to 14,500 blue whales; 3) after examining the returns rendered in respect of infractions of the whaling regulations, noted that, in general, there had been a decrease over the previous year; 4) received further confirmation from the Commissioner of the Soviet Union of the use of fenders of porous rubber to replace the present use of whale carcases for this purpose; 5) allocated an equivalent of $1400 towards the cost of whale marking; and 6) requested the United States to prepare a protocol for the amendment of the convention requiring every factory ship to have on board two inspectors who were generally of the same nationality as the flag of the ship, to permit consideration of a scheme to appoint independent observers in addition to the national inspectors.

scholarly journals The United Nations and the Soviet Union: Diplomacy and Propaganda in the Twilight of the Cold War

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Zapariy
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Elite ◽  
The Political ◽  
Berlin Crisis ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Specific Material ◽  
Multilateral Diplomacy ◽  
The Cold War

Referring to the preparation of Soviet diplomacy for the 3rd session of the UN General Assembly, this article examines the process behind the development of the political line of the Soviet delegation, as well as the principles of covering the “UN” theme by the press, informing the population and shaping public opinion on major international problems. On the basis of specific material, the author demonstrates the principles of Soviet diplomats’ work on the preparation of analytical materials, the development of recommendations, and the implementation of propaganda measures at the UN in response to the changing international situation. Archival materials allow us to understand the attitude of the Soviet political elite to multilateral diplomacy and reconstruct the USSR’s assessment of the effectiveness of the organisation’s activities both in the field of maintaining international security and in the non-political sphere. Referring to the analysis of materials from the Russian Foreign Policy Archive (AVP RF) and the Russian State Social and Political Archive (RGASPI), the author reconstructs the rationale behind the propaganda campaign in the Soviet press against Trygve Lie, the first UN Secretary-General, in connection with the publication of the annual report on the organisation’s work between 1947 and 1948. Coordinated criticism of the world’s highest-ranking diplomat became an integral part of the political game in connection with the settlement of the Berlin crisis, as well as an important element in the strategy of a massive propaganda offensive against the United States, aimed at portraying the Truman administration as the culprit of the imminent split in Europe and Germany.

scholarly journals Times of change. A roundtable in memory of Yuri Dubinin

2021 ◽  
pp. 84-88
Author(s):  
Е. A. Akifyeva
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Future Generation ◽  
Academic Community ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
State Institute ◽  
Deputy Minister ◽  
Professional Career ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Russian State ◽  
High Level

The roundtable in teleconference format dedicated to the 90th anniversary of a renowned Soviet and Russian diplomat Yuri Dubinin was held at MGIMO University on October 7, 2020. The event was organized by the Department of Diplomacy of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, the family of Ambassador Dubinin, as well as by the MGIMO Student Union and MGIMO Diplomatic Club. Yuri Dubinin, MGIMO graduate, has made a great contribution to promotion of Russia’s interests on the world stage, contributed to expansion and strengthening of ties between the Soviet Union (and later Russia) and the Western countries. During his professional career Yuri Dubinin held a number of high-level positions at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the USSR and Russia, namely those of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Spain, USA, France and Ukraine, Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia; at the final stage of his career Ambassador Dubinin shared his professional experience with the future generation of diplomats serving as a Professor of the Department of Diplomacy of MGIMO University. The roundtable presentations were made by Yuri Dubinin’s colleagues from diplomatic corps who are currently serving as diplomats, representatives of other Russian state authorities and academic community, as well as members of Ambassador Dubinin’s family.

Russia

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy J. Colton
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Economic Recession ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mikhail Gorbachev ◽  
Crimean Peninsula ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Fundamental Information ◽  
Russian State ◽  
Current Affairs ◽  
Vladimir Putin

Today’s Russia, also known as the Russian Federation, is often viewed as less powerful than the Soviet Union of the past. When stacked against other major nations in the present, however, the new Russia is a formidable if flawed player. Russia: What Everyone Needs to Know® provides fundamental information about the origins, evolution, and current affairs of the Russian state and society. The story begins with Russia’s geographic endowment, proceeds through its experiences as a kingdom and empire, and continues through the USSR’s three-quarters of a century, and finally the shocking breakup of that regime a generation ago. Chapters on the failed attempt to reform Communism under Mikhail Gorbachev, the halting steps toward democratization under Boris Yeltsin, and the entrenchment of central controls under Vladimir Putin bring the reader into the contemporary scene and to headline-grabbing events such as Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine and its military intervention in Syria. Drawing on trends within Russia and on ratings and rankings compiled by international organizations, Colton discusses the challenges facing the country--ranging from economic recession to demographic stress, political stagnation, and overextension in foreign policy--and to the realistic options for coping with them. The book shows that, although Russia is not imprisoned by its history, it is heavily influenced by it. Colton illustrates Russia’s greatest strength and, ironically, its greatest weakness: the ability of its people to adapt themselves to difficult circumstances beyond their immediate control. Russia, as Putin has asserted, will not soon be a second edition of the United States or Britain. But, Colton shows, there are ways in which it could become a better version of itself.

The Role of the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Korean War

2018 ◽  
pp. 97-130
Author(s):  
Denzenlkham Ulambayar
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Korean War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Archival Documents ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
History Of

Since the 1990s, when previously classified and top secret Russian archival documents on the Korean War became open and accessible, it has become clear for post-communist countries that Kim Il Sung, Stalin and Mao Zedong were the primary organizers of the war. It is now equally certain that tensions arising from Soviet and American struggle generated the origins of the Korean War, namely the Soviet Union’s occupation of the northern half of the Korean peninsula and the United States’ occupation of the southern half to the 38th parallel after 1945 as well as the emerging bipolar world order of international relations and Cold War. Newly available Russian archival documents produced much in the way of new energies and opportunities for international study and research into the Korean War.2 However, within this research few documents connected to Mongolia have so far been found, and little specific research has yet been done regarding why and how Mongolia participated in the Korean War. At the same time, it is becoming today more evident that both Soviet guidance and U.S. information reports (evaluated and unevaluated) regarding Mongolia were far different from the situation and developments of that period. New examples of this tendency are documents declassified in the early 2000s and released publicly from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in December 2016 which contain inaccurate information. The original, uncorrupted sources about why, how and to what degree the Mongolian People’s Republic (MPR) became a participant in the Korean War are in fact in documents held within the Mongolian Central Archives of Foreign Affairs. These archives contain multiple documents in relation to North Korea. Prior to the 1990s Mongolian scholars Dr. B. Lkhamsuren,3 Dr. B. Ligden,4 Dr. Sh. Sandag,5 junior scholar J. Sukhee,6 and A. A. Osipov7 mention briefly in their writings the history of relations between the MPR and the DPRK during the Korean War. Since the 1990s the Korean War has also briefly been touched upon in the writings of B. Lkhamsuren,8 D. Ulambayar (the author of this paper),9 Ts. Batbayar,10 J. Battur,11 K. Demberel,12 Balảzs Szalontai,13 Sergey Radchenko14 and Li Narangoa.15 There have also been significant collections of documents about the two countries and a collection of memoirs published in 200716 and 2008.17 The author intends within this paper to discuss particularly about why, how and to what degree Mongolia participated in the Korean War, the rumors and realities of the war and its consequences for the MPR’s membership in the United Nations. The MPR was the second socialist country following the Soviet Union (the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics) to recognize the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and establish diplomatic ties. That was part of the initial stage of socialist system formation comprising the Soviet Union, nations in Eastern Europe, the MPR, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the DPRK. Accordingly between the MPR and the DPRK fraternal friendship and a framework of cooperation based on the principles of proletarian and socialist internationalism had been developed.18 In light of and as part of this framework, The Korean War has left its deep traces in the history of the MPR’s external diplomatic environment and state sovereignty

Utopias of One

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Kotin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
World War I ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Jim Crow ◽  
Personal Autonomy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Soviet Period ◽  
Original Research ◽  
The Soviet Union

This book is a new account of utopian writing. It examines how eight writers—Henry David Thoreau, W. E. B. Du Bois, Osip and Nadezhda Mandel'shtam, Anna Akhmatova, Wallace Stevens, Ezra Pound, and J. H. Prynne—construct utopias of one within and against modernity's two large-scale attempts to harmonize individual and collective interests: liberalism and communism. The book begins in the United States between the buildup to the Civil War and the end of Jim Crow; continues in the Soviet Union between Stalinism and the late Soviet period; and concludes in England and the United States between World War I and the end of the Cold War. In this way it captures how writers from disparate geopolitical contexts resist state and normative power to construct perfect worlds—for themselves alone. The book contributes to debates about literature and politics, presenting innovative arguments about aesthetic difficulty, personal autonomy, and complicity and dissent. It models a new approach to transnational and comparative scholarship, combining original research in English and Russian to illuminate more than a century and a half of literary and political history.

Trust, but Verify

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Arms Control ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
East West

This book uses trust—with its emotional and predictive aspects—to explore international relations in the second half of the Cold War, beginning with the late 1960s. The détente of the 1970s led to the development of some limited trust between the United States and the Soviet Union, which lessened international tensions and enabled advances in areas such as arms control. However, it also created uncertainty in other areas, especially on the part of smaller states that depended on their alliance leaders for protection. The chapters in this volume look at how the “emotional” side of the conflict affected the dynamics of various Cold War relations: between the superpowers, within the two ideological blocs, and inside individual countries on the margins of the East–West confrontation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document