Introduction. The centuries-long civilizational aggression of the collective West against Russia and the Russian World, which has reached truly unprecedented proportions in recent years, has always had and continues having a significant Slavic dimension. The extremely complex relations within the fateful triangle of “Russia/the Russian World – the Slavs – the West” were most succinctly, accurately, and aphoristically expressed by F.I. Tyutchev, a renowned Russian poet, thinker, and seasoned diplomat who was thoroughly informed about the essence of this issue. “But still, we are brothers by blood!” wrote F.I. Tyutchev in 1867 about the relationship between Russia and the Slavs. “That, that is what they hate in us! You are not forgiven for Russia, nor it is forgiven for you!” [1, pp. 188–189].

Subtly observed by Tyutchev, the racial and civilizational hatred inherent in the West toward the very fact of the deep kinship between Russia and the Slavs, and toward any attempts to unite them, explains the centuries-old policy of “divide et impera,” inherited from Ancient Rome, which the West has consistently pursued toward the Slavic world as a whole, and toward Russia in particular. The essence of this policy has remained unchanged; only its specific forms have varied depending on the era.

In the Middle Ages, this civilizational policy of “Drang nach Osten” manifested itself in the ecclesiastical aggression of the collective West led by the Roman Curia against the Orthodox Slavs through the forcible imposition of ecclesiastical unions and the equally forcible Latinization of the Slavic peoples. In the 19th century, the expansion of the collective West against the Slavs took the form of the systematic and skillful application of various techniques of ethnocultural and ethnoconfessional engineering, which resulted, among other things, in the emergence of the notorious “Ukrainian project,” whose seeds were carefully sown by Austro-Polish ethnocultural agronomists in the second half of the 19th century, and whose poisonous fruits have only now fully manifested themselves. In the 20th century, the aggression of the collective West found expression in a series of outright genocides against Orthodox Slavic peoples, first and foremost against the Russians and Serbs during World War I and World War II. In this regard, it is telling that the very first concentration camps in Europe, including the infamous Thalerhof, were established as early as September 1914 for Galician Rusyns, bearers of a pan-Russian identity, and Serbs.

Materials and Methods. This study, based on extensive and diverse source material, conducts a comparative analysis of various forms and methods of Slavophobia and Russophobia. The extremely sophisticated nature of the collective West’s anti-Slavic policy manifested itself, in particular, in the effective use of certain Catholic Slavic peoples as instruments of aggression against Orthodox Slavs. This, in particular, became one of the causes of the tragic phenomenon of “small-scale” Nazism, characteristic primarily of Croats and Ukrainians. According to the renowned Russian philosopher and leading expert on “small-scale Nazism,” E.A. Popov, “ideologically speaking, the parties and movements classified as ‘small-scale Nazism’ were followers and in most cases, imitators of the ideas of German National Socialism. Their military-political orientation manifested itself in pro-Hitler collaboration. Various versions of “small Nazism” acted as satellites of Hitler’s Germany, facilitating the occupation of both their own countries and other nations by the Third Reich…” [2, p. 9].

The exceptional relevance of this issue lies in the fact that “the silence at the Nuremberg Tribunal regarding the crimes of ‘small-scale Nazism’ committed by the allies and satellites of Hitler’s Germany and by Nazi-collaborating parties and organizations is one of the reasons for the resurgence and even glorification of various forms of Nazism in a number of countries (Finland, the former Baltic republics of the USSR, Ukraine, Croatia, and others) and the mainstream West’s shameful turning a blind eye to the resurgence of Nazism” [2, p. 15].

Meanwhile, despite the immense importance and obvious relevance of this topic, in the Russian humanities unacceptably little attention is paid to the issue of “small” forms of Nazism in particular, and to the relationships within the “Russia/Russian World–Slavs–West” triangle in general.

Results. The long-overdue effort to address the neglect of the issues of “small-scale Nazism” and Slavophobia began within the framework of inter-Slavic academic cooperation, initiated by scholars in the humanities from Russia, Belarus, Serbia, and the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina). A particularly important event within the framework of this inter-academic cooperation was the International Scientific and Practical Conference “The Genocide of the Slavic Peoples in the 20th Century,” organized by the Autonomous Non-Profit Organization “Center ‘Europe’” and scientific and public organizations from Serbia and the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) on May 26–30, 2025. Representatives from all Slavic countries, with the exception of Poland, Ukraine, and Croatia, participated in this pan-Slavic scientific forum, which is noteworthy in itself. The comprehensive academic collection [3] published following this conference included scholarly articles by researchers from Slavic countries (Russia, Belarus, the Czech Republic, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and France, devoted to the most important, as well as the least studied and often unknown aspects of the collective West’s genocidal policies toward the Slavic peoples.

However, the most significant and fruitful attempt to conceptually analyze the relationships within the “Russia/Russian World–Slavs–West” triangle was the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Russian World and Slavic Geopolitics” [4], organized by the Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “Center ‘Europe’” in collaboration with the journal “International Life.” The conference was funded by a grant from the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad on April 23–24, 2026, in Rostov-on-Don. The issue of protecting the rights of Russian compatriots living abroad rightfully became one of the central themes at the conference.

The exceptional importance and relevance of the conference’s topic were clearly demonstrated by the composition of its participants, which included scholars and public figures from Russia and a number of European countries, including Belarus, Serbia, the Republika Srpska (Bosnia and Herzegovina), the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Italy, and Romania.

A distinctive feature of this conference, as with other conferences organized by the “Europe” Center Autonomous Nonprofit Organization, is the active participation of representatives from relevant departments of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its five departments participated in the conference held on April 23–24, 2026. The conference opened with a speech (delivered via videoconference) by the official spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova, Director of the Department of Information Policy at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Ms. Zakharova’s speech, which was both insightful and eloquent, immediately set a high standard for the conference.

The statement by the official spokesperson for the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs should not be viewed solely in terms of the political agenda. Maria Vladimirovna Zakharova put forward several principled, scientifically grounded arguments that would do credit to any serious researcher. We would like to highlight two points: the West’s inherently anti-Slavic policy and the West’s (not entirely unsuccessful) efforts to artificially pit Slavic peoples and countries against one another. We believe these points are unquestionably accurate and profound. They require further scholarly and expert analysis, as well as broader public dissemination.

Rodion Valeryevich Miroshnik, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, delivered a welcome address to the conference participants. The text of the address was read by Viktoria Alexandrovna Sergeeva, First Secretary of the Department for Multilateral Cooperation on Human Rights at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This text is also replete with programmatic statements and is distinguished by the depth of its analysis of the issue. Let us focus, in particular, on the following points: the noted emphasis on youth in the context of studying and popularizing the topic; and “the aspiration to build a unique, self-sufficient ideological model of the world order in the context of Slavic unity.” The latter point is particularly important. As will be shown below, R.V. Miroshnik aligns himself with a group of philosophers (A.G. Dugin, E.A. Popov, and before them A.S. Panarin, V.L. Tsymbursky) who believe it is necessary to reject the West’s “neocolonial legacy” in ideology (a term coined by A.G. Dugin) and to create their own, “soil-based” or “autochthonous” model of social organization.

Leaders and advisors from several departments of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs took an active part in the conference. The conference was opened by Andrei Vyacheslavovich Rumyantsev, Senior Advisor to the Fund for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad, who spoke in detail about current issues facing the Fund’s activities in today’s extremely challenging conditions. Statistics were presented. Specifically, showing a positive trend in the growth of the organization’s representative offices and projects (human rights, scientific, and public). The topic of the Fund’s human rights activities was continued in a presentation by Vasily Erokhin, a student at Rostov State Medical University, in which he reconstructed the socio-political context surrounding the Fund’s establishment and operations and analyzed its main areas of focus and methods.

In an in-depth report by Mikhail Lvovich Averianov, an advisor to the Second CIS Department of the Russian Foreign Ministry, various cognitive operations on the international stage were comprehensively analyzed using specific examples in the context of the Ukrainian crisis as one element of the collective West’s struggle against the Russian World. The report exposed the inherently Nazi methods employed by the Kyiv regime in its cultural and linguistic policies. The total ban on all things Russian (since the start of the special military operation, 20 million books in Russian have been seized from Ukrainian libraries and thrown into landfills!) draws a parallel between the Ukrainian ruling regime and Hitler’s regime.

Conference participants and guests including scholars, university faculty and students, foreign politicians, and others had the opportunity to witness the exceptional professionalism and intellectual depth of Russian diplomats. Scholars and diplomats complemented one another and engaged in a fruitful dialogue.

In a paper by Nikola Ožegović, Ph.D., professor at the University of Banja Luka (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Nikola Ožegović analyzed the fascinating philosophical and literary legacy of Bishop Nikola (Velimirović) of the Serbian Orthodox Church by exploring the theme of the historical fate of Russia, the Serbs, and the Slavs. It should also be noted that N. Ožegović is known as the author of a comparative study of the ideology and practical cooperation of Croatian and Ukrainian Nazis (represented by the OUN-M) in the Independent State of Croatia during World War II, which constituted an exceptionally valuable contribution to the study of the phenomenon of “minor” Nazism in Eastern Europe.

A prominent Slovak politician and a political and spiritual figure of pan-European and pan-Slavic stature, who served as Prime Minister of Slovakia from 1991 to 1992. Jan Čarnogurský in his report “Slavic Peoples Facing the Challenges of the Modern Age: A View from Slovakia” provided a detailed analysis of the challenges and problems facing the Slavic peoples now part of the European Union. According to J. Čarnogurský, the Slavic peoples are the “stepchildren of Romano-Germanic Europe,” and their preservation as ethnocultural communities within the EU is not guaranteed, quite the contrary. His colleague, the renowned Slovak international relations expert Štefan Aster, focused in his speech on the practical aspects of implementing the Slavic idea in the modern world, emphasizing the exceptional importance of preserving traditional Slavic values in the face of the aggressive expansion of globalism.

It is worth noting that the speech by Jan Čarnogurský who, without exaggeration, is a legendary figure in the Slavic world and sparked considerable interest not only among an academic audience. Mr. Čarnogurský gave several interviews to television channels, attempting to convey the truth about what is happening in the EU and the threat to the Slavic peoples posed by this union.

Eduard Anatolyevich Popov, Ph.D., Director of the “Europe” Center Autonomous Nonprofit Organization in his presentation “The Russian World and the Slavic World: External and Internal Challenges and Prospects for Integration,” identified as one of the most crucial and pressing tasks of our time the need to overcome the mental and cognitive neocolonial dependence of Russia and the Slavic peoples as a whole on Western narratives that are inherently hostile to them, noting the importance of creating their own worldview and their own system of civilizational coordinates. The Rostov philosopher quoted a speech by the renowned philosopher and geopolitician Alexander Dugin, who called for the decolonization of the mental and ideological sphere in Russia. As E.A. Popov notes, Russia, which is in a state of undeclared war with the West, continues to remain within the paradigm of liberal-Western ideology. Specifically, models of liberal (representative) democracy and migration policy continue to function. The author sees the only way out in a transition to a civilizational model: the Russian civilization synonymous with the Russian World.

The Rostov philosopher understands the “Russian World” (following the scholar and statesman he cites, Doctor of Historical Sciences G.L. Muradov) as a multi-ethnic community with a Russian ethnic and Orthodox spiritual core. Russia is in dire need of allies not only in the countries of the “Global South,” but also in Europe. And it is only natural to seek allies among the Slavic and Orthodox peoples of Europe. Historically, Russia has successfully leveraged the Slavic factor on more than one occasion. For example, during World War I, approximately 50,000 soldiers of the Czechoslovak Corps, former soldiers and officers of the Austro-Hungarian Army, fought on the side of the Russian Empire. Today, however, neither the government nor academia in Russia is engaged with the Slavic theme, a fact that has inevitably affected the effectiveness of Russian policy in Slavic countries. E.A. Popov understands Slavic geopolitics as both a collection of integrationist aspirations and projects of Slavic countries and peoples and, at the same time, as a distinct strand of Russian geopolitics that has been severely weakened and has ceded the lead to liberal and neo-Eurasian projects. According to the Rostov scholar, who was the initiator and chief “ideologist” of the conference, Russia has an existential need to rely on the Slavic world, but Slavdom also needs Russia’s support for its own survival. “Russia is not only a Slavic country,” the philosopher concluded, “but it is also true that Russia is, first and foremost, a Slavic country”.

E.A. Popov’s presentation sparked a lively discussion at the conference. In particular, Artem Alekseevich Zakharov, a staff member of the Department of Slavic and Eastern European Affairs at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who delivered a presentation on “The Transformation of the System of International Relations and Issues of Slavic Cooperation,” rightly noted that a number of fundamental points in the program of “classical” Slavophilism as espoused by A.S. Khomyakov and the Aksakov brothers are now outdated. At the same time, however, the Slavic idea undoubtedly possesses certain potential. Discussions on this crucial and extremely complex issue continued on the sidelines of the conference.

The presentation by Evgeny Alexandrovich Palamarchuk, Ph.D. in History and professor at the Rostov Branch of the All-Russian State University of Justice, focused on the phenomenon of Russophobia in the context of contemporary challenges. The speaker paid particular attention to the origins and subsequent evolution of Russophobia as a defining characteristic of the collective West, as well as to specific manifestations of this phenomenon. The renowned Rostov scholar conducted a comprehensive historical analysis of the emergence and evolution of Russophobia in the West, including such forms and aspects as Nazi Russophobia and contemporary liberal Russophobia.

Kirill Vladimirovich Shevchenko, Ph.D. in History and professor at the Minsk Branch of the Russian State Social University (Republic of Belarus), focused his remarks on the genocide of the Rusyns of Galicia and Ugric Rus during World War I and on the geopolitical consequences of this tragedy for Russia. As the speaker emphasized, the physical extermination of hundreds of thousands of Rusyns, bearers of a pan-Russian identity, by the Austrian authorities, with the support of local Ukrainian activists, in concentration camps and during mass extrajudicial executions, predetermined a radical change in the ethnocultural character of Galicia, which after World War I was definitively transformed into a bastion of radical Ukrainian nationalism [5].

It is worth noting that over the past two or three years, the topic of the genocide in Galician and Carpathian Rus has been emerging from academic and public obscurity. New publications on this topic are appearing, authored by professional historians [6, 7], as well as government officials. In particular, former President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev addressed this topic in his article in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s journal “International Life” [8]. A truly landmark event in the context of raising public awareness of this topic was the speech by Russian Foreign Minister S.V. Lavrov at the embassy conference on May 23, 2025 [9].

It is gratifying to note that this topic was also prominently addressed at the conference in Rostov-on-Don. In addition to the speech by K.V. Shevchenko cited above, the topic was raised in presentations by students from Rostov State Medical University. The presenters noted that they had been studying this topic for several years now, which has received little attention in contemporary Russian historiography. These budding scholars, second-year students Daniil Mararu (scientific adviser: E.A. Popov) and Evgenia Vostrikova (scientific adviser: O.N. Kamalova), demonstrated both a mature command of the subject matter and a solid grasp of complex historical material. As a result, the city of Rostov-on-Don has become one of the centers for Rusyn studies and Slavic studies.

The speech by the renowned Czech historian, intellectual, and public figure, historian and philosopher Josef Skala, which focused on Nazi plans for the genocide of the Slavic peoples, using the example of Czechoslovakia under Third Reich occupation, generated a tremendous response [10]. As J. Skala noted, the truth about the actual events of those years is deliberately distorted and misrepresented by contemporary European politicians. Dr. Skala did not limit himself to historical topics but drew parallels to the present day. The issue of pro-Hitler collaboration among the so-called Sudeten Germans on the eve of and during World War II has taken on an unexpected new dimension and a relevant political significance in our time. This is linked to the activities of organizations representing the descendants of Sudeten Germans, i.e. former citizens of the so-called First Czechoslovakia. Possessing significant lobbying power within the federal and state governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, these organizations have become a factor in the domestic politics of modern-day Czechia. The Sudeten German issue, which seemed to have been settled once and for all, is once again coming to the fore in Czech society and political circles. This is one of the visible manifestations of the consequences of the breakdown of inter-Slavic ties and the uncritical approach of the ruling Czech elites toward relations with Berlin.

Interesting presentations were delivered at the conference by participants from Romania: Mihail Lauruk, chairman of the Coordinating Council of Organizations of Russian Compatriots in Romania, and the renowned scholar, Ph.D. in History, professor Nicolae Yuga. M. Lauruk’s presentation focused on the socio-political situation in Subcarpathian Rus’, which has become a testing ground for social engineering. Rusyns, Romanians, and Magyars (Hungarians) are being subjected to forced Ukrainization. The participants from Romania drew a very accurate comparison between the policies pursued by the official government in Kyiv and those of Nazi Germany. Professor N. Yuga discussed in detail “new totalitarianism:” the forms and methods used to establish what is “correct” and “objective” in academic circles. While censorship was in effect during the Nicolae Ceaușescu regime, the researcher notes that in the “democratic” and “free” European Union, a far more sophisticated form of censorship is at work. There are taboo topics (for example, migration to European countries from Muslim regions, the Special Military Operation, and a number of others). Inconvenient topics or “incorrect” interpretations of either forbidden or permitted topics are simply not allowed to be published, and it is impossible to obtain grant funding for them. Professor N. Yuga, a former research fellow at the Romanian Academy of Sciences, illustrated these arguments with examples from his own academic work. The scholar’s conclusion is unequivocal: modern Europe is, to an even greater extent, a totalitarian society than Romania was during the Ceaușescu dictatorship.

The presentation by Yevgeny Pavlovich Shulga, Candidate of Historical Sciences and head of the Department of Social and Humanities Education at Surgut State Pedagogical University, on the topic “Russians of Central Asia: The Journey Home” generated significant attention. In his presentation, the researcher analyzed two parallel and interrelated issues: the repatriation of Russians from the post-Soviet states of the Central Asian region, and the immigration to Russia of members of the titular peoples of that region. The fate of the Russian community in Central Asia during the late Soviet and post-Soviet periods has been dramatic and even tragic: some Russians faced severe pressure from the region’s ethnocratic regimes and radical nationalist movements; while others became the targets of persecution and physical violence (some researchers even speak of elements of genocide against Russians in Tajikistan).

These topics are deliberately treated as taboo by the ruling authorities of the Central Asian republics and the Russian government, which do not want to create tensions with their allies (whether real or imagined) in the region. For example, as E.P. Shulga notes, the size of the Russian community in Tajikistan has shrunk fourteenfold in less than two decades. At the same time, Russia pursues an open-door policy toward the “titular” peoples of Central Asia, who are regarded as compatriots. Russian citizenship is readily granted even to those who espouse Islamist and aggressively Russophobic ideologies. Numerous immigrants from Central Asian countries receive generous funding through the maternity capital program (2 million rubles), after which they return to their historical homelands. E.P. Shulga also cited other statistics: the crime rate among migrants from Central Asia. For instance, 75% of rapes in Moscow are committed by them.

This methodologically sound report by a scholar from Surgut, rich in factual evidence, raises the question of a fundamental overhaul of migration policy in the Russian Federation, especially in light of the special military operation and the explosive nature of the alliance between Ukraine’s intelligence services and the Russophobic elements within certain Central Asian migrant enclaves. At stake is nothing less than the survival of the Russian state and the Russian people.

An extremely professional and thoroughly researched presentation on the historical background of the Ukrainian crisis (based on material from the Ukrainian SSR) was delivered by Associate Professor at MGIMO and Candidate of Historical Sciences Andrei Yuryevich Sidorov. The renowned researcher from Moscow analyzed the nature of Ukrainian Soviet statehood and ideology, which was from the outset rooted in a sense of superiority over Russians and Russia. The presentation demonstrated that as early as the Soviet period, a project to create a nationalist quasi-state had been implemented on Ukrainian territory. Thus, our knowledge of Ukraine, which is quite limited, is enriched by the introduction of new methodological approaches. It turns out that the roots of the Ukrainian crisis lie not only in the notorious “Piedmont of Ukrainian nationalism,” as Lviv is called. Another, no less important source of the crisis was “Soviet Ukraine” and more precisely, its ruling elites and its scientific, educational, cultural, and enlightenment institutions.

MGIMO, one of Russia’s leading universities and a training ground for Russian diplomats, was well represented by two of A.Yu. Sidorov’s students: third-year student Vladimir Andreev and second-year student Kirill Epishenkov. Both presentations were highly praised by all conference participants. V.V. Andreev’s presentation, which, in terms of its quality, was on par with that of an established scholar and analyst, on the contemporary generation of Ukrainian Nazism is truly groundbreaking in Russian historiography on this topic and deserves the utmost attention in both the scholarlyacademic and political-diplomatic spheres.

Discussion and Conclusion. A key distinguishing feature of this academic forum was the active participation of early-career researchers: undergraduate and graduate students. Presentations were given by universities in Rostov-on-Don (Rostov State Medical University, Don State Technical University, Russian Academy of Justice, Southern Federal University), Surgut, Sevastopol, MGIMO, and the Minsk branch of the Russian State Social University. The papers presented during the sessions of several student sections addressed a range of pressing issues facing the Russian and Slavic worlds and often demonstrated the maturity of scholarly research, a fact noted by many conference participants. Only for the sake of brevity are we unable to name the authors of the strongest papers, the list would be long and impressive.

During numerous discussions and informal conversations among conference participants, attention was drawn both to the exceptionally high academic standard of this scholarly forum and to the urgent need for further academic conferences devoted to issues related to the Russian World and Slavic geopolitics.