Angelina Vashchuk, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: va_lina@mail.ru.
The paper reveals the history of the creation of federal districts in Russia in the context of administrative reforms in the early 2000s and provides an analysis of the opinions of Russian scholars on the prerequisites for the formation of federal districts and the political consequences of this part of the reforms. The author concludes that despite the conceptual pluralism that characterized the Russian Federation during the Yeltsin era, many researchers believe that the economic and political positions of regional elites strengthened in the second half of the 1990s. This is confirmed by analysts who relied on Far Eastern materials. The role of the Plenipotentiary Representative of the President in the development of the intermediate level of governance between the highest federal authorities and the bodies of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation is studied basing on the synthesis of activity-based and biographical methods. The paper outlines the main areas of activity of K.B. Pulikovsky, the first Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in the Far Eastern Federal District (2000—2005). His political portrait is revealed through the prism of the Plenipotentiary’s attitude towards the Far East as a whole, as well as towards the issues that were relevant in the context of his administrative responsibilities and the President’s directives for the development of the Far East within the framework of the Far Eastern Federal District. The political portrait is presented from two perspectives: 1) the analysis of experts, journalists, and contemporaries; 2) K.B. Pulikovsky’s assessments, as recorded in his memoirs. As a former military officer, the first Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative in the Far Eastern Federal District went through a challenging process of adaptation to the government system, and his state-oriented mindset proved to be relevant in the context of political centralization in the early 2000s. At the same time, he can be regarded as part of the group of administrative politicians who determined the further development of the institution of Presidential Plenipotentiary Envoys in Russia’s Federal Districts.
Keywords: Russian Federation, President of the Russian Federation, administrative reform, federal districts, concepts of Russian scientists, Far Eastern Federal District, Plenipotentiary Representative of the President of the Russian Federation, K.B. Pulikovsky, governors of the Far Eastern Federal District.

Nonna Platonova, Far Eastern State Transport University, Khabarovsk, Russia. E-mail: platonova_nonna@mail.ru.
In 2025, a quarter century passed since the establishment of the Far Eastern Federal District which has become a distinctive indicator of the development of Russia’s national economy. In this paper, the author highlights the importance and relevance of the macroregion for sustainable economic growth and strengthening the country’s national security amid contemporary global transformations influenced by changes in the international environment. The paper focuses on the key outcomes of the state investment program “Economic and Social Development of the Far East and the Baikal Region until 2025”. It provides an assessment of the current achievements and successes of the Far Eastern Federal District. The author highlights its place in the geopolitical space of the Asia-Pacific region, revealing prospects for expanding the competitive advantages of the Russian Federation’s national economy. Along with successes, the author pays special attention to the influence of regional factors on the effectiveness of implementing the strategic plans outlined in the program document with an emphasis on their historical consistency. Additionally, it explores the reasons behind the incomplete implementation of strategic government projects. The paper emphasizes that maintaining the vector toward comprehensive and sustainable development raises concerns due to predominantly infrastructural orientation of investment projects. Despite the measures taken by the highest leadership, issues related to population and labor resource shortages remain relevant. It is summarized that the work of the Government of the Russian Federation continues in this direction, and the support of the Far Eastern Federal District remains a priority for the state.
Keywords: Far Eastern Federal District, national economy, state strategy for socioeconomic development, raw materials, investments, population size.

Yuriy Avdeev, Pacific Geographical Institute of the Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: avdyural@mail.ru.
The paper analyzes the strategic documents of the Far Eastern Federal District during the post-Soviet period. It traces the dynamics of decisions adopted at the federal level and evaluates the achievement of goals and the fulfillment of tasks. The analysis focuses on the two most inertial processes: population reproduction, the level of which should correspond to national interests, and the spatial organisation of the world’s largest country, which must respond to the needs of the economy and the population. No optimal solutions have yet been found for either of these issues although they are crucial for Russia’s socio-economic development and its participation in integration processes with other countries. The paper identifies the contradictions that hinder the achievement of strategic objectives. Strategic documents are developed by government authorities, but the expected results are beyond the life cycle of decision-makers. Global changes occurring in the world require joint efforts, yet the set of available tools remains the same, preventing the achievement of true “jointness”. Breakthrough results require a paradigm shift at planetary, macro-regional and local levels. New approaches to strategic planning and a new level of competence in decision-making are needed. The alternative to competition and market mechanisms should be long-term planning, cooperation and coordination both among the regions of the federal district and among regions of the country oriented toward integration with Asian countries. This is the key to transitioning from the established concept of the “Far East” to the increasingly common term “Pacific Russia”. One of the most important tasks requiring support at the highest level is the formation of a world’ class city in the east of Russia. This can be achieved through cooperation between Vladivostok and Khabarovsk with a clear delineation of functions between them and the granting of special status and powers to each of them. The paper examines the prospects of the Vladivostok agglomeration, as well as the role of the Eastern Economic Forum as a permanent platform for identifying the most effective options for integration cooperation.
Keywords: Far East, strategy, demographic policy, spatial development, world city, Eastern Economic Forum.

Nikolay Vorontsov,, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: nsv91@yandex.ru.
The paper reconstructs the history of the preparation, holding and results of the First Far Eastern International Economic Congress of 2005 (FEIEC, September 27—28, 2005, Khabarovsk) as well as the subsequent evolution of the Far Eastern forums until the early 2010s as platforms for developing strategic decisions on regional development. The research objectives include the analysis of the prerequisites for convening the congress, its organizational structure, the topics of the round tables, key recommendations, as well as the transformation of the congress into annual forums and the emergence of alternative platforms (the Pacific Economic Congress). The source base consists of unpublished documents from the State Archive of the Khabarovsk Region and the congress materials published in eight volumes. The results of the study show that the Congress of 2005 gathered about 1,300 participants from 20 Russian regions and 15 countries, identified and analyzed systemic problems of the Far East (raw material dependence, depopulation, infrastructural underdevelopment) and produced detailed recommendations on subsoil use, forest and fishing industries, transport, energy, finance, cross-border cooperation, innovation, demography and tourism. The 2005 FEIEC established the institutional tradition of regular high-level discussions on the problems of the eastern regions. Its recommendations largely anticipated subsequent state decisions (special economic zones, the ESPO oil pipeline, the Eastern Gas Program). The unified system of forums created with federal government support in 2009—2010 became the predecessor of the Eastern Economic Forum.
Keywords: Far Eastern International Economic Congress, Far Eastern International Economic Forum, Pacific Economic Congress, Khabarovsk, Vladivostok, Asia-Pacific region, regional development.

Svetlana Kovalenko, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: ostina@list.ru.
The administrative reform carried out in Russia since the early 2000s has affected all levels of government, restructuring the relationship between the federal center and the regions. For the federal center, a key objective was to strengthen the centripetal forces of Russian federalism and further consolidate presidential authority. One of the key elements of this reform was the establishment of a “power vertical”, conceived as a means of improving the governance and efficiency of the state apparatus. This process undoubtedly had a significant impact on the federal subjects, including those with specific statuses, such as the Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug. The reform, which began in 2000, set specific goals: to unify administrative practices, improve the efficiency of decision-making, and ensure more consistent implementation of federal laws throughout the country. Centralization of power was viewed as a counterweight to the centrifugal tendencies that had intensified in the 1990s and as an instrument for overcoming regional differences that could hinder the implementation of a unified state policy. The reform unfolded in three stages. The first stage focused on strengthening federal legislation and unifying the legal framework. The legislative autonomy of regions was limited, unified governance standards and mechanisms for monitoring compliance with federal norms were introduced. The judicial and law enforcement systems were reformed to ensure uniformity in the application of the law. The second stage, the most well-known, involved the creation of federal districts and the appointment of presidential plenipotentiary representatives. This strengthened the central control, improved coordination of government bodies, and ensured monitoring of the socioeconomic situation. Plenipotentiary representatives supervised governors and facilitated dialogue between regional and federal authorities. The third stage was characterized by further centralization, a review of the formation of the Federation Council, and changes to the electoral systems for regional leaders. This limited the influence of regional elites on federal processes and ensured the loyalty of governors to the federal center. The powers of the heads of the constituent entities of the Federation were significantly limited, and their independence was reduced to a minimum.
Keywords: administrative reform, vertical of power, Chita, Aginsky Autonomous Okrug, center — region.

Elena Chernolutskaya, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok. Russia. E-mail: chvalery@mail.ru.
The paper analyzes the nature and dynamics of institutional interactions related to the adoption and implementation of the extended phase of the Kuril Federal Target Program in 2001—2005 as an indicator of the effectiveness of regional policy during that period. The study highlights the role of political actors at the central and regional levels with an emphasis on the presidential plenipotentiary office in the Far Eastern Federal District established in 2000. The author concludes that during this period the issue of the Kuril Program firmly entered the Russian political agenda. It was repeatedly discussed at personal meetings of the President of the Russian Federation with Sakhalin governors and presidential envoy K. Pulikovsky, in the presidential administration, the government, the State Duma and the Sakhalin Regional Duma. Delegations of high-ranking officials and parliamentarians studied the problem directly on the Kuril Islands. At all levels, the importance of the Program for overcoming the critical socioeconomic condition of the Kuril subregion and its further development wasn’t questioned. The emergence of the institution of a presidential plenipotentiary representative in the Far Eastern Federal District strengthened the regional link in the system of “center-region” relations. However, despite the political relevance of the Kuril Program, its practical implementation in 2000—2005, as in the 1990s, remained unsuccessful due to permanent underfunding. The regulation of this issue continued “in a manual mode.” The example of the Kuril Islands shows that the effectiveness of regional policy through the programoriented management method remained very low during that period. A noticeable turning point occurred only in 2006, when the Program received significantly increased budgetary funding. This shift reflected both the improved fiscal capacity of the Russian state and the Kremlin’s firmer position on the “Kuril territorial issue”.
Keywords: Kuril Islands, program-targeted management method, presidential plenipotentiary office in the Far Eastern Federal District.

Natal’ya Kuzhina, State Archives of Khabarovsk Krai, Khabarovsk, Russia. E-mail: natali_1985_06_30@mail.ru.
The paper provides an assessment of the state of agriculture in the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD) and examines the challenges of developing an agricultural policy for the region. It uses specific examples to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the Far Eastern agro-industrial complex. The paper employs the method of political anthropology to reflect the perspectives of significant political figures in the region on the current agricultural development policy. The paper shows the activities of the Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative in the Far Eastern Federal District and his attitude towards the agricultural policy implemented by the Center. It also reveals the cooperation between the Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative and the Interregional Association “Far East and Transbaikalia” (MADVIZ) in improving the situation in the agro-industrial complex, as well as their joint efforts to provide information on the effectiveness of Moscow’s policies for the development of the industry, thereby ensuring feedback from the regions. The author concludes that the specifics of the Far East influenced both the course and results of the agrarian reform and revealed all the intricacies of modernizing Russia’s rural areas. Statistical data suggests that the northern territories of the Far Eastern Federal District, despite their lack of favorable geographical location and natural and climatic conditions, can be equally significant for the development of agriculture in the Far Eastern Federal District. The study of the relationship between governmental structures at different levels revealed that the Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative of the Russian Federation serves as a link between the federal center and the regions.
Keywords: Far Eastern Federal District, Far East, Presidential Plenipotentiary Representative, association, region, agriculture, agrarian reform, land relations, leasing, grant, agricultural enterprises.

Yuliya Kovalevskaya, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: tupa67@mail.ru.
The paper examines Far Eastern residents’ subjective perceptions of changes in their everyday lives from 2000 to 2013. Unlike the crisis of the 1990s, the transformation of everyday life in the 2000s occurred against the backdrop of rapid economic growth and a specific regional policy embodied in several development programs for the Far Eastern Federal District (FEFD). The development programs of 1996 (revised in 2002), 2006 and 2013 declared, among their objectives, the stabilization of the population and improvement of the living standards of Far Eastern residents. However, investments were directed toward several large-scale raw materials and/or infrastructure projects, which increased the disparities in the Far Eastern economy between the extractive and manufacturing sectors. The national context shows that, according to various sociological surveys, the number of Russians who reported positive changes in their economic situation increased from 37% to 46.1% between 2000 and 2012. The Far East differed from other regions of the country in its more pessimistic assessments: approximately 10% of respondents considered living conditions favorable in 2012. The problems that remained unresolved throughout the “stable 2000s” included poor quality and rising prices for housing and utilities, declining access to healthcare, education, and social support, as well as a high risk of becoming a victim of crime or violence. Personal documents and photographs from the Uglegorsk District of the Sakhalin Region serve as a unique case study that complements and clarifies the Far Eastern specifics of the relative normalization of everyday life. Above all, many manifestations of the crisis persisted in the early 2000s: the closure of enterprises, reduction in employment, salary delays of up to six months, etc. The worn-out Soviet technical infrastructure continued to deteriorate, while the social infrastructure was subject to “optimization”. A reflection of the low standard of living and depressive everyday life in the peripheral regions is the constant theme of death, which runs as a leitmotif in almost every letter and conversation.
Keywords: Russian Far East, Far Eastern Federal District, everyday life, post-Soviet period, “fat 2000s”, extractivism.

Zhanna Petrunina, Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. E-mail: petrunina71@bk.ru.
Galina Shusharina, Komsomolsk-na-Amure State University, Komsomolsk-on-Amur, Russia. E-mail: galinalmk@yandex.ru.
The paper examines the role of multidisciplinary humanitarian cooperation in strengthening interaction between the border regions of Russia and China, which in the 21st century is becoming systemic and is based on a comprehensive documentary base. It was determined by the authors that economic relations between the constituent entities of the Far Eastern Federal District and the provinces of Northeast China are complemented by humanitarian cooperation, the foundations of which were laid from the end of the 20th until the 21st centuries. The paper describes existing social, cultural, and educational initiatives. It was revealed that the institution of sister-city relations is of particular importance in strengthening communication between the people of Russia and China, but its potential is not fully utilized in the region and is being replaced by partnerships between the constituent entities of the two countries. It has been proved that language is a promising tool for humanitarian cooperation and a mechanism for strengthening interaction between people. Today, each country is making efforts to promote its language beyond its borders with varying degrees of success. It is emphasized that Chinese is gradually becoming the language of interstate communication in the region while Russian is used less frequently. It is noted that the expansion of humanitarian ties in the Russian-Chinese border region has a positive impact on the development of bilateral relations in the region, but it also affects the transformation of the regional identity of the residents of the Russian Far East, resulting in the formation of a multi-level hybrid identity.
Keywords: humanitarian cooperation, Russia, China, border regions, Far Eastern Federal District, identity, education, science, culture, tourism, intercultural dialogue.

Svetlana Dudarenok, Institute of History, Archaeology, and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: dudarenoksv@gmail.com.
The paper attempts to determine the place and significance of religion in the worldview of Far Eastern residents basing on the results of sociological surveys conducted in various regions of the Russian Far East between the second half of the 1990s and the early 2000s. It is shown that, despite a relatively high degree of religious self-identification, the Russian Far East in the early 2000s continued to remain a confessionally undefined territory. The self-identification of Far Eastern residents as believers was often unrelated to belief in God, but implied a belief in omens, horoscopes, reincarnation, telepathy, etc. The self-identification as Catholics, Lutherans, Muslims, Jews, etc. was rather a desire to emphasize their ethnic identity. The high degree of “Orthodox” self-identification of the population of the Russian Far East was a recognition of Orthodoxy as a natural cultural environment and a national way of life. The specific nature of the religious life in the region during this period consisted of a large gap between abstract, compromised social norms and actual religious beliefs, between formal adherence to Orthodoxy and practical religiosity, and between attitudes toward faith in general and the actual religious life. Despite a high degree of religious self-identification (from 23% to 52% across regions) in the 1990s and early 2000s, religion played virtually no role in the everyday lives of Far Eastern residents. Their “religiosity” was purely formal and based solely on baptism or ethnic affiliation.
Keywords: religion, church, believers, religious self-identification, Russian Far East, sociological survey, religious confessions.

Vladimir Podmaskin, Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnology of the Peoples of the Far East, FEB RAS, Vladivostok, Russia. E-mail: podmaskin@yandex.ru.
The paper defines the features of interethnic interaction in the system of traditional representations of the tiger and the leopard. The main focus is on identifying common and distinctive elements in the history of culture. The analysis of the directions of development of the elements of prehistoric culture required the use of various research methods: the comparative and historical method (cultural interactions were established) and the structural method (the main categories and elements of the cult of these animals in religion were identified). Unknown materials and sources containing information about the tiger and leopard among the indigenous peoples of Nizhny Amur and Sakhalin were identified, described and introduced into scientific discourse. For the first time, the data is summarized and presented in the most complete form. The image of the tiger became the basis not only of the artistic form, but was also perceived as a protector, an ancestor, and a symbol of benevolence in the spiritual sphere of human life. The names of rivers, towns, streets, plants, fish, and stars are associated with the name of this predator. In the Eastern calendar, each year is assigned one of the 12 patron animals: Rat, Bull, Tiger, Rabbit (Cat), Dragon, Snake, Horse, Sheep, Monkey, Rooster, Dog, and Pig. The Years of Tiger include 1938, 1950, 1962, 1974, 1986, 1998, 2010, 2022, and so on. In heraldry, the tiger appears on the coats of arms of cities and territories. As a result, the idea is substantiated that the ancient representations of predators became the foundation for the formation of religious beliefs and mythology, as well as the emergence of totemism and shamanic practice.
Keywords: Asia-Pacific region, animal style, tiger and leopard, cult of predators, calendar of the twelve-year animal cycle, shamanism, totemism.