In the fall 1989 issue of Heimatliche Weiten, the semiannual Soviet German literary journal, a bibliographical article by Victor Herdt, “Verzeichnis der russland- und sowjet-deutschen Zeitungen (1728–1989),” lists more than 150 German-language newspapers published in Russia and the Soviet Union. The entries are limited to German Russian newspapers and exclude those of other ethnic Germans, such as the Baltic, Bessarabian, or urban Germans, who differ from the German Russians in origin, culture, and history.

There is a savage irony at the core of Sovietology. Whereas the study of Soviet history and politics should have concerned itself with everything Soviet, it traditionally focused almost exclusively only on what was Russian. By ignoring the non-Russians as something not Russian and, thus, by implication, inconsequential, “Sovietology in one country” contradicted its own premises and, thereby, turned in upon, indeed even negated, itself. By setting the center over the periphery, by detaching the center from the periphery that defined the center as a center, Sovietology in effect emptied the center of its “centrality.” In so doing, Sovietology transformed itself into an inauthentic form of Russian studies—inauthentic in the sense of ostensibly being concerned with the Soviet Union, while, in reality, actually pursuing the study of something with which Sovietology was ostensibly unconcerned.

As the Soviet Union disintegrated and eventually dissolved in 1991, many of its peoples, both so-called titular nationalities and national minorities, put forth demands for independence or, at the very least, self-rule for territories that were said to represent the national patrimony. Among the many peoples who put forward such demands were Carpatho-Rusyns, who, together with fellow citizens of other national backgrounds, demanded autonomy or self-rule for the region (oblast) of Transcarpathia in far western Ukraine. This essay examines from a historical perspective the question of autonomy or self-rule for Carpatho-Rusyns and for all or part of the territory they inhabit, historic Carpathian Rus'. The autonomy question in Carpathian Rus' is hardly new, but one that goes as far back as 1848.

Even before gaining independence in December 1991 from the former USSR, Ukraine had supported Slovenia and Croatia's drive to independence from the former Yugoslavia. In May 1991, Croatian President Franjo Tudjman paid an official visit to Ukraine where then parliamentary speaker Leonid Kravchuk expressed sympathy with Croatia's desire for independence. Tudjman pointed out how Ukraine's seat at the United Nations had given it a head start in obtaining international recognition of its independent status. On 12 December 1991, twelve days after the Ukrainian referendum on independence, Kyiv became one of the first states to diplomatically recognise Croatia and Slovenia; and further, it announced its readiness to open embassies in both countries. Ukraine was the first member of the U.N. to recognise Croatia; the second and third countries, Slovenia and Lithuania, were not members of the U.N. when they recognised Croatia.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the large international companies of the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region (XUAR) began to emphasize collaboration with the former Soviet republics because of opportunities for new markets and raw materials. There are several basic problems, however, demanding serious research into such trade prospects:

(1) The definition of economic and technological variants in the division of labor among Russia, Central Asia, and the People's Republic of China (P.R.C.), including the roles of Kazakstan and Xinjiang.

(2) Defining needs and prioritizing units of production, labor, transportation, etc.

(3) Macropolitical and macroeconomical forecasts of the situations in Russia, Central Asia, and China.

(4) Research on the optimum forms of cooperation.

The purpose of this paper is to compare briefly the situation of national minorities in Europe before and after the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947. More particularly, to contrast the League of Nations system of minority protection with the lack of a similar system within the United Nations framework, and recent attempts to remedy this shortcoming.