Рњрµсѓс‚рѕ Рісѓс‚сђрµс‡рё Рќрўр’ - Р’сѓрµрјсѓ Сѓрірѕс‘ Рёрјсџ?! (19-01-202... 【4K - 2K】

: A significant portion of the debate focused on the actions of Baltic states and Ukraine, where Soviet and Russian-linked names are being systematically replaced. The guests debated whether this is an "erasure of heritage" or a sovereign right to redefine national narratives.

: The episode title poses a rhetorical question—does everything truly deserve its "own" (new) name, or are some names "eternal" because of the history they represent? Conclusion : A significant portion of the debate focused

: Within Russia, the discussion often touches upon the restoration of historical names (e.g., pre-revolutionary names) versus maintaining Soviet-era toponyms. The question remains: how do we balance different layers of the past? Conclusion : Within Russia, the discussion often touches

: Experts argued whether changing a sign on a building actually changes the mindset of the people living in it, or if it is merely a symbolic gesture used by politicians to distract from economic issues. The title "To Each Its Own Name

The title "To Each Its Own Name?!" reflects the program's attempt to analyze the wave of renamings of streets, cities, and monuments occurring both in Russia and its neighboring countries. The hosts, and Ivan Trushkin , along with invited experts, explored whether these changes are a necessary step toward national identity or a destructive "war on history." Key Discussion Points

The episode concludes that names are more than just labels; they are instruments of political influence. The debate in "Mesto Vstrechi" serves as a microcosm of the broader struggle for cultural hegemony in Eastern Europe. The program underscores that while names may change on a map, the historical events they represent remain a permanent part of a nation's collective consciousness.