While traditional ethnic/religious rivals had been incorporated to form the modern multiethnic communist nation-state of Yugoslavia under the forceful presence of Marshall Broz Tito, the collapse of the communist bloc and ensuing revolutionary/democratization wave engulfing East-Central Europe created tremendous uncertainty and the perception of a power vacuum throughout the former communist bloc. Conflicts would erupt based on distinctions along traditional cultural/ethnic lines. The struggle for control and territory among Yugoslavia's political elite ultimately resulted in a series of secessionist conflicts in Croatia (1991–1992), Bosnia-Herzegovina (1992–1995) and most recently Kosovo (1999).

This article surveys the history of Kyiv Rus within the realm of nation building, identity and historical myths. It argues that Ukraine's elites believe that Western, Russian and Soviet schools of history on Kyiv Rus (and Ukraine) are incompatible with nation and state building.

Two schools—Ukrainophile and East Slavic—compete within Ukraine. Nevertheless, the former has been promoted as the dominant school by ruling elites, many of whom date from the Soviet Ukrainian SSR and might personally favour the East Slavic framework. As Stepanenko states, Hrushevsky “is factually theorizing the most convincing version of Ukrainian history.”

For several centuries the overall trend in the world development has been along the way paved by Western civilization. Hence, the predominant flow has been based on borrowed Western cultural features. The issue of cultural interaction among nations with different culture types became fairly topical in contemporary society. Humankind now faces the legacy of moral decline of the past century and is trying to find a way out of its ideological dead end through other cultures and civilizations. In addition, the globalization processes that developed towards the end of the last century have also embraced the nations' cultural ties, turning the cross-cultural communication into an integral part of humankind's existence. The unique role of Russia in Northeastern Asia calls for an answer to the following question: Is there any cultural interaction between the Russian Far East, on the one hand, and the East Asian nations, on the other? And if so, what are its manifestations and how big are they?

Since the 1990s, yet another entity has emerged among the wide range of groups and minorities in the Balkans attracting the attention of politicians, scholars and the public. Known as “Egypcani” in Macedonia and Kosovo, or as “Jevgs/Jevgits” in Albania, these Albanophone Muslims are usually identified as Albanianised “Gypsies” by the societies in which they live, although they consider themselves to be descendents of Egyptian immigrants to the Balkans. Today, Balkan Egyptians are officially recognised as a distinct population group in the Republic of Macedonia, while they enjoy political influence through representative and cultural organisations in Kosovo and Albania.

The development of new states in Central and Eastern Europe during the inter-war period was an enthusiastic attempt to build free and democratic societies, which unfortunately was soon followed by a sense of disappointment among both the public and political elites. This eventually led to the replacement of the young democracies with authoritarian regimes in Estonia, Lithuania, Poland and other countries. I explore this growth of anti-democratic tendencies through the case of Latvian democracy and its opponents in the 1920s and early 1930s. I particularly focus on the role of the nationalist intelligentsia as the author of anti-democratic and pro-authoritarian political ideas.

In December 2001, over 150 citizens of Russia, Israel, the U.S., Ukraine and some other countries gathered in Moscow in their capacity as former activists of the non-official Jewish movement in the USSR to celebrate the 25th anniversary of an event that had never taken place—an unofficial Moscow Symposium on Jewish Culture. The symposium, which had been forbidden by the KGB, acquired an important, but symbolic, meaning (as vivid evidence of the suppression of Jewish culture in the USSR) for the very fact of its non-performance. Celebrating this (non-)event 25 years later, members of the Jewish movement who had been active for some time in the period from the late 1960s to the late 1980s talked about their struggle against the Soviet regime, emphasizing the victory they had gained together with other dissenting groups. They called for the “political support of Israel, the United States, and Russia in their fight against international terrorism,” spoke on behalf of repeal of the Jackson–Vannick amendment, voted for the establishment of a transnational association of Russian (or Russian-speaking or former Soviet) Jews, and even discussed the “historical mission of Russian Jewry.” The issue of Jewish culture was virtually omitted from the discussion.