yes, and south africa, together in terms of gross product , is catching up with the big seven. and in terms of area, they are already surpassing it in the future , they see and confirmed their place in the brix. this is officially another 23 countries. in the black sea, in the area of ​​​​our snake island, pilots destroyed a high-speed boat with militants and , as reported by the ministry of defense, the ship was american-made, and earlier su-30 fighters of the russian aerospace forces destroyed a ukrainian reconnaissance boat in the black sea near the gas production facilities in the kuplensky direction repulsed five. the attacks destroyed armored vehicles or an american counter-battery station at zaporozhye, wrecked artillery systems, howitzers and guns produced by us- british-french-polish forces. air defense shot down four shells, highmars systems and almost 40 ukrainian drones. an important date in

the history of our country exactly 80 years ago , the battle of kursk ended with the victory of the red army. the key turning point battle of the great patriotic war. after it, our troops only moved forward to this memorable day . the ministry of defense launched a new one on its website multimedia section unique previously inaccessible materials. maps of operations reporting the situation insert the supreme commander-in-chief description of the exploits of the red army soldiers of those who stopped the enemy at the cost of their own lives, a separate section of the photo is the story in the faces of soldiers and officers on vacation and during battles. and also award lists of the heroes of the battle and pictures of lined german equipment. information about useful not only to military specialists, but also to everyone who is interested in the history of their country. by this moment, that's all. see you.

history is sometimes something that never happened, described by someone who has never been there, as one spanish playwright thought. hello we gathered our thoughts today about history. whether it is a strict science or, as one historian said, a prophecy about the past, dear friends viktoria ivanovna ukolova, doctor of historical sciences, i cannot deny myself the pleasure of the last roman, as the doctor of historical sciences calls me, i am vladimir, a light candidate of political sciences, so i am very scared, in first, political science. i

what i want to start ukalling, yes, in his famous, so to speak, work of the british historian. there is such a thought at the beginning that history is for human self-knowledge. i’m here, in order not to go overboard , i’ll just read out the value of history lies in the fact that thanks to it we find out what a person has done and thus, what he is victoria , how would you respond to this thought. you know, history, first of all , is needed by every human generation in order to find itself in the flow of time and in the flow of universal life, because only by turning and opposing oneself to something that could be self-identified before, therefore history is the most important factor in the existence of mankind. that is almost like nature.

how do you comment. well, actually, yes history. as a matter of fact, it really is about us, but about us in time, because about us in statics to understand, in general , nothing is possible, well, about how to look at well, yes, and fully imagine a person's life. it is very difficult. there photographs are always in general, deceptive, and in time, yes, and, especially with previous generations. and we can say a lot, and hmm actually. we specifically study ourselves in time in order to really say something about ourselves. well, let's talk about how we study ourselves, what is clear, that the topic is immense. i would really like us to touch on different aspects of all this, but since i formulated the topic, how is history a rigorous science? well , maybe a little so journalistic sharpened. that's when we talk about science the entire division of sciences. let's admit it to the humanities. there are definitely natural or any other divisions. all the same

, science is associated with a certain law of forms. here is there a legitimate story, as it happens answered yes this question around this question, which is natural for many. yes centuries i would say, uh, since the 19th century, especially, apparently, the history of the armed forces has its own global laws of development, which are far from always possible e s- sufficiently formulated. i would rather say that hmm the general orientation of those or other periods of historical events. for example, here are the colossal upheavals in those times when the world system is changing, the transition from the magnificent to the conditional. rome, uh, by the middle ages, 300 years of uninterrupted wars of uninterrupted chaos were needed in order for the new

system to be structured, then almost thousands of years pass, but a little less, if you count from the thousandth year and e, when a new period begins, the renaissance reformation occurs, an increasingly huge period over and the warrior including the early modern era and a new world is born, well again a new different attitude to history. so we got such regularities, as it seems to me, in such a turbulent period. well, here are the laws and patterns. it's not the same, and the same fedor alexandrovich well, probably not the same thing, it's probably clear that the concept of regularity implies a certain mitigation. yes, so to speak, but here's the answer to this question. i'm like such a standard story, i will always remember what it's like. as a matter of fact, this question was answered before me, yes, and here. in in general, one can immediately say that , by and large, when it came to the laws of history,

it was, in general, an attempt to transfer some rules of the game, say, from the natural sciences, yes , to the science of man. therefore, i would probably not talk about the laws of history, or rather, i would not say so. in the ordinary sense , in the sense that out of many people they are trying to create a certain system. yes , so to speak, which is like, as if there are atoms in it, they are people, yes, so to speak, which are really there according to certain, it seems the rules are played so to speak, they are not invading, yes, natural science, but a person is free, and in this sense he is, uh, far, not always predictable. and it may be, by the way, that he is free - this is a certain law of history. yes, this is unpredictable, fundamentally unpredictable. but i once talked on a similar topic with igor evgenievich surik. and he said that the laws of history may be , but the big question. are we capable of knowing them? here is victoria ivanovna, what do you think? i think he was pretty much

right, but he paid attention obviously. she is a very complex thing that when we look. already that is, we see the general course of history, we structure it and generally somehow cognize it, i try to catch it. well, some general flow and a general direction of development, and we find them, not only we establish them, but also from the natural course of life from the natural interaction of people and historical events. and here, to finish with this, so to speak, the general theoretical part of our dissertation. yes, am i right? i understand that if you look for some extreme points of view in those approaches about which you said that there were many of them. yes, there are discussions that we will have marx at one pole. well, with rather tough ones like that. yes , but at the other, well, let's say heinrich rieker, who said that the sciences are about culture. they

have a relationship with individual and somehow valuable things, and not with laws and laws like science. in nature, uh, these are such extreme yes points of view, as far as i understand the assessment, and i'm just wondering. here, you personally to which are you leaning more towards the pole on this spectrum, so to speak? i think marx yes is a very good example indeed. yes, that is, this is an attempt to create a theory of everything in the humanitarian sphere, yes, a formula, so to speak, a total formula. yes, here, which even in the natural sciences itself cannot be created. yes, but on the other side. eh, maybe not a rickert, just the idea that a person does not exist in certain circumstances, and the name is determined, but to say, but on the contrary, that a person, in fact, determines in ultimately, those processes, yes, that is , let's say, on the other side at the other pole,

maybe there will be a microhistory, maybe there will be a history of a person of a specific person of specific people. but klyuchevsky, by the way, argued. yes, as far as i understand with the fact that history is concerned with a specific person, or am i confusing something, e, of course, he argued, but in fact, here is his era as a whole , my scientific great-grandfather klyuchevsky argued, yes, naturally existed in certain circumstances. naturally yes. and, but e, nevertheless, nevertheless, to a large extent determined them, that is, here he is, so to speak, e, not without such populist influence. yes, so to speak, not without a populist approach. yes, he said that a is the people in the first place, and only then the victorian person. remember, we somehow with you, but we talked and now i can distort, of course. correct me, but you said that if you look for some laws, then these are just the turning points in the clash of different cultures. yes, i'm trying

to convey in my own words. and usually you or not rarely. yes wins the way that counts. well , it was somehow less. the roman empire , i'm probably not very sure not. i understand what you're talking about, but i also wanted to no, it's just such an ordinary turn of speech. you know, one usually gets the impression that when a person is free, he does as he wants. in general, the whole history consists of these fragmentary actions, fragmentary events, fragmentary events. e even the processes are so short, but just like a mosaic folds into a single whole. for example, everyone was hagia sophia you see the golden glow and you don't think it came together from a mass of pieces of a t-shirt and just the same in

history. why, for example, the definition of christ's campaigns or a century? wars or and so on other events. they are given later they are given after uh, hundreds of years after they u happened, because the participants were unaware. they even evaluated what was happening differently, but already through the centuries it was clear that the integrity of these events, the direction of these transmission processes, is dedicated to what the prophecy is. now, i would like to say that there is a difference between prophecy and the prediction of the prophets. after all, they already see, and for them the word is clearly connected with the highest pure being. they do not just know they see, because it already exists in this being, as we know at one time, and therefore they reveal

the historians are looking for it is looking for in the sources. he does not begin to philosophize the one who from some general provisions, he will hardly reach the essence of things, but still he has some assumptions, and he goes into these sources in the same way. they already exist events already occurred, but the historian does not yet know what he will find there, but he knows for sure that there are sources in this soil. he can only find it there. e your support, but if he stops there and does not make any generalizations for himself. i 'm not saying global, then the historical work of historical research will not work.

make way taiga prokhor gromov is coming. a bad person wants to deceive you. my merchant's daughter, and i can't love another.

gloomy river from august 28 on the first we gathered today with thoughts about what is whether history is a strict science or a prophecy about the past victoria ivanovna ukolova fyodor aleksandrovich gaida. i am vladimir legoyda. we continue. what is the significance of historical distance? and what it should be, i understand that it depends on the scale of the event, but still, what is the minimum after which we can call the crusades crusades. it's impossible to determine. generally. yes, so to speak, because, well, everything in common in general is our human history. it basically didn't end. and eventually we have to then say, yes, that when it

ends, then we will put everything in its place. yes, he is a historian. naturally yes to tell him, in fact it is quite convenient to judge from a certain distance. perhaps it would be better if it were larger, but it is desirable that the sources be preserved. this is what, otherwise, yes, it will be difficult. well, but he u very often falls into a certain retrospective trap like this. yes, because he turns out to be, how to say, e smarter than his heroes. yes, this is actually a very misleading situation, so to speak, because, and he is never smarter, in fact, yes, he needs to be fine. it's easy to know the consequences. he just knows the consequences. he is here very often. eh, it’s as if he’s tempted to tell why it should have happened exactly the way it did, yes, then they tell him the truth, well, well, if you drew this very line, it’s great to draw it a year ahead. and that's it, and here and there prostration

begins. yes, because in fact this , uh, in general, a straight line does not exist, we are dealing with people. this is fundamental it is important to know yes and a all of our generalizing models are still a generalizing model, that is, in other words. yes, here are the figures of the crusades, they went to the crusades. not because feudalism came. yes, so to speak, this is this is how we will explain. i think not at all. yes they are no, moreover, they are they, uh, set off from the crusades not because feudalism came and not because feudalism did not come. this is not a conversation about this at all, but to say, this is our generalization, just a scheme about which we can conduct, by the way, endless discussion. this is actually normal and correct, if the renaissance is the status of an independent historical era, and either these are two eras of three or five and a half, yes, but be that as it may, it doesn’t matter. that's really.

all the same, we must, yes, say, approach these people very carefully, yes, say, politely try to understand them, in fact , just like that, as soon as such a conditional dialogue is built up and the historian with not even just the source, but the historian with these people. that 's it then. we are starting something understand. look, comrade scientists here is the question. i will try it. i hope that i can formulate it. so you said, yes, there is this risk, but hmm that someone might think that you know more is, as far as i understand, the standard error of hmm bad history, which evaluate the past from the position of today. yes, using some categories, uh, today's and so on, but in general, in a sense, he cannot evaluate otherwise. yes, of course, we will admit, when we say, there, relatively speaking, the city states by the forest, this is the city of the state. this attempt at a definition can be accepted if it is immediately stated that it is not a city. it was not a non-state in the modern sense, there and so on, but somewhere there is a border

that cannot be crossed using this already existing knowledge. we cannot remove them. yes, in assessing the past, especially the distant past. history has one very important predictive function . humanity always needs support. well, the main support is, of course, religion. it's clear. what makes humanity human in many ways, but history also shows this in our time. i've been watching lately. while research is being split up. rome in fragments is considered intolerant to consider the crisis of the third century crisis in rome, that is , our values ​​are attached and at the same time and examined by a political scientist, especially american rome as an ideal m. of course, not historical. but after all, it is very important here that there are historical rome defining milestones on a huge piece

of history, that is, the first rome as the first form of globalization, let's say it now it is determined which for the first time is not entirely accurate, because at the same time the same process is going on in china, which in the third century bc during the punic wars, when there was an example of the struggle between the two leading civilizations hmm for hmm the world mediterranean domination is the same process, yes, uh, here i’ll grab the historical analogies for this expression, how much they help us understand something about today. and i'm here, but i listened to lectures, and about the pelanescu war, i thought how it all helps in modern times, or is there more risk here, or what help do you think. well, they are still explanatory models. yes, so to speak , you can’t overdo it with them, that is. it is impossible to exist without them, but they, uh, cannot

be absolutized, that is, ultimately , just a historian. in fact, he must understand the delicacy of his position. yes, in a sense, he is an intermediary between the people of the past, with whom he builds a certain dialogue and his readers , the people of the present. that is, he, in fact, must, by and large, yes, in the language of the present, tell people modern, and they should understand it, and so to speak. about a-a people or events there, of course, first of all people because a means in people of the past. yes, and here, respectively, yes, so to speak, he should not modernize too much, but at the same time, if he starts, yes , no one will understand, as the people of the past said, of course, here he performs the function of an intermediary , so it's the same with models. but tell me, then ogurevich, in my opinion, said that when you talk with a person from the past it is necessary to hear his answers, and not to

impose your own on him yes, but that's how it is here, so to speak hmm with creativity in science. here is victoria, she will talk to you once, you m-m. in my opinion, it was extremely interesting to argue that history is also a game. of course, there is a place for creative imagination. yes, let's say, uh, at the bertayk he writes the name of a rose and there hoo. how many things, including literary allusions, but this is a book about the middle ages, too, or not. well uh, general human existence is human society and man. that's life. yes, it's a very well-known concept, but the fact is that here's the research under this approach, which has dominated the last 50 years. let's say. so we, unfortunately, especially, trying to understand those who lived before they imposed their thoughts on us and believed that in every

era a person changes dramatically in all the little things. this is wrong. here. uh, now the old idea is starting to break through, which is in the main parameters. these are the parameters that a person, as a biological species , which is inherent in thinking and creating thinking. it stays hmm pretty stable in general. can i answer you, object to you, or answer you with lotman, who said that in the whole era people loved, hated, experienced there, but they did it in different ways, they did it in different ways, but , of course, it remains and this allows humanity to maintain stability, if if there were only changeable images that change in every era, it would not be possible. i would like to convey this integrity of humanity as

a cosmic phenomenon and history. she unites. and by the way, returning to rome is not an accidental appeal. we know we'll take the surface. rome the first rome - the second rome in the third and fourth. well, the ocean is already raging , rome is trying on the fourth crown. these are not the elements of a world-famous historian, and we see how rome tries on the crown in the fourth and therefore, uh hmm why did they try such a hear now, uh, hmm to fix something fukuyama, she said, history ended , liberal democracy won, it turned out to win nothing. and thank god, when the story ends, historians will not be needed. you me. i'm sorry, so bail. eh, in general, existence and history, as sciences, are but i’m talking more about history, which is in

public life and not only in conversations, but as one of the factors in the formation of a new historical reality every time, in connection with this, i have a question because ? i recently talked with philologists here, then i involuntarily recalled, in my opinion, gasparov somewhere in the notes or he quotes baktinat. uh, that shakespeare did not invest, there are hundredths of that hamlet that we read today. today we are also talking about that each generation, including historical documents, reads in its own way, and in what it manifests itself in its own way, it can manifest itself simply in its own way, because you and i live here and now, that is, we look through those glasses , which we have and in general, we cannot remove them. yes, but nevertheless, we are still talking about people, and this is ours, this is human in principle. unity indeed yes and