Year: 2026
UDC: 391(=512.141)
Number: Volume 3, no. 3
Type: scientific article
This article offers a problem-oriented historiographical analysis of studies published between 2018 and 2026 on the intergenerational transmission of memories of the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet past across the post-Soviet space. It aims to identify the principal mechanisms of transmission and to explain how the perceived value of particular elements of Soviet experience relates to attitudes toward restoring the former state structure. The corpus includes 26 peer-reviewed works on family memory, postmemory, youth perceptions of the Soviet collapse, memory politics and digital nostalgia, selected from eLibrary.ru, CyberLeninka and Scopus up to 1 July 2026, together with representative VCIOM and FOM surveys. The study combines problem-chronological, comparative-historiographical, and typological methods. It finds that family narratives remain the primary means of personalizing the past, yet operate selectively: they transmit life scripts, emotional judgments, and everyday norms more consistently than coherent knowledge of the events of 1985–1991. Educational and public institutions provide national interpretive frames, while digital media do not displace the family but amplify established mnemonic trajectories, fragmenting and updating them. The most persistent value interpretations concern social justice, equality of opportunity, solidarity, interethnic coexistence, accessible education and healthcare, social protection, and confidence in the future. Approval of these values does not amount to support for restoring the USSR. The article’s contribution lies in a model of selective value transmission that connects mnemonic actors, channels, modes of remembering, and interpretive outcomes. It also shows that the post-Soviet space is operationalized unevenly: Russian data predominate, whereas systematic cross-country comparisons remain scarce. Intergenerational memory of the Soviet collapse should therefore be understood not as the linear inheritance of ready-made assessments but as the contextual reaggregation of values. This approach distinguishes cultural continuity from political restoration and clarifies how shared Soviet references persist within diverging national memory regimes.
believers, church-state relations, Moscow Patriarchate, religious communities, Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), Council for Religious Affairs (CRA), traditional spiritual and moral values, the Millennium of the Baptism of Rus’