Axes and Еxtremes of Geographical Variations on the Example of a Multi-Valued and Multi-Scale South

Among the main axes of geographical distinctions, the north-south and west-east ones are the most universal. The article focuses on “souths” at various scales, from global to intra-state and local (on selected cases), but touching other extremes of both geographical axes, their objective features and reflection in the mass consciousness. An “absolutization” of the South fixed by toponymy is noted at any level. It turns to be special within different spatial units in terms of both their objective properties and places. In countries stretched along the meridian, its contrast with the North dominates; where the proportions are more harmonious, the two axes are roughly equal, and in large countries with a latitudinal extension, their South is shifted to the west or east. In Russia, it is limited to the European part. The сommon “minimal” South (Krasnodar and Stavropol krais), and the broad “maximal”, with Transcaucasia, Ukraine, parts of the Center, Lower and Middle Volga areas, are identified by comparing twelve selected pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet macro-regional schemes. The Southern and North Caucasian Federal districts or, less rigorous, the land southward from the Volga-Don “neck”, with its potential expansion to the west, form an “optimal” South. Various signs of the Russia’s South reveal its specifics and perception. The mass images of the South are basically positive, based on geographical concepts, absorbing foreign elements and actively used for business naming and branding. Although Russian science has traditionally been passionate about the North, the role of Southern studies is growing due to the scarcity and value of the South, along with its demographic, geopolitical and economic role.

1. Bagomedov М.А. Socio-demographic problems of Makhachkala-Caspian agglomeration development. Vopr. Strukturiz. Ekon., 2013, no. 4, pp. 8–12. (In Russ.).

2. Belozerov V.S., et al. Territorial planning and demographic development of Kavminvody urban agglomeration. Geogr. Vestn., 2022, no. 4, pp. 19–33. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17072/2079-7877-2022-4-19-33

3. Brandt W., et al. North-South: a programme for survival: report of the independent commission on international development issues. London, Sydney: Pan books, 1980. 304 p.

4. Dados N., Connell R. The Global South. Contexts, 2012, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 12–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504212436479

5. Denisova G.S., Lubsky A.V., Voytenko V.P. Inter-ethnic interaction in the South of Russia as a subject of scientific research. Gumanitarii Yuga Ross., 2018, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 41–56. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.23683/2227-8656.2018.6.3

6. Drach G.V., et al. Tsivilizatsionnye issledovaniya na Yuge Rossii [Civilizational Studies in the South of Russia]. Rostov-on-Don: Izd-vo YuFU, 2018. 304 p.

7. Druzhinin A.G. Yug Rossii kontsa XX — nachala XXI vv. (ekonomiko-geograficheskie aspekty) [South of Russia in the Late 20th — Early 21st Centuries (Economic-Geographical Aspects)]. Rostov-on-Don: Izd-vo YuFU, 2005. 278 p.

8. Druzhinin A.G. Global’noe pozitsionirovanie Yuga Rossii: faktory, osobennosti, strategii. Rostov-on-Don: Izd-vo YuFU, 2009. 288 p.

9. Druzhinin A.G. The Russian South: Approaches and criteria of delimitation. Uchen. Zapis. Krym. Fed. Univ. Vernadskogo. Geogr. Geolog., 2022a, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3–13. (In Russ.).

10. Druzhinin A.G. The “southern vector” of the geostrategy of the Russian Federation in the modern global and Eurasian context: systemic factors of actualization. Nauch. Mysl’ Kavkaza, 2022b, no. 1, pp. 5–16. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2072-0181-2022-109-5-16

11. Druzhinin A.G. Actual problems of systematization and unification of geographical terminology in the research of South Russian regionogenesis. Nauch. Mysl’ Kavkaza, 2023, no. 1, pp. 1–15. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.18522/2072-0181-2023-113-5-15

12. Gusakov T.Yu. Features of the contemporary settlement system on the Crimean Peninsula. Vestn. RUDN, Ser. Sotsiol., 2022, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 186–204. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2022-22-1-186-204

13. Hill F., Gaddy C. The Siberian Curse: How Communist Planners Left Russia Out in the Cold. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003. 302 p.

14. Klinger B.A., Ryan S.J. Population distribution within the human climate niche. PLOS Clim., 2022, art. e0000086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000086

15. Lalu P. Thinking across hemispheres: Further notes on oversights and blind spots in disciplinary African studies. Africa Focus, 2018, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1163/2031356X-03102002

16. Lees N. The Brandt Line after forty years: The more North–South relations change, the more they stay the same? Rev. Int. Stud., 2021, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021052000039X

17. Molho J., et al. Cultural policies in cities of the ‘global South’: a multi-scalar approach. Int. J. Cult. Policy, 2020, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 711–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2020.1811256

18. Martynov V. “Four corners of Russia”: main tendencies of macroregional development. Pskov. Regionolog. Zh., 2018, no. 4, pp. 3–18. (In Russ.).

19. Nekrasov N.N. Ekonomika SSSR — vzaimosvyazannyi narodnokhozyastvennyi kompleks [Economy of the USSR — Interrelated Economic Complex]. Moscow: Znanie, 1973. 65 p.

20. Panin А.N., Belozerov V.S., Chikhichin V.V. Etnicheskii atlas Stavropol’skogo kraya. Stavropol: Izd-vo Stavropol. Gos. Univ., 2014. 304 p.

21. Podosinov A.V. Ex oriente lux! Orientatsiya po stranam sveta v arkhaicheskikh kulturakh Evrazii [Ex Oriente Lux! Orientation by Cardinal Directions in Archaic Cultures of Eurasia]. Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kul’tury Publ., 1999. 720 p.

22. Sazykin А.М., Glushko А.А. Semantic classification of toponyms of Primorsky Krai. Tikhookean. Geogr., 2024, no. 4, pp. 44–63. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.35735/26870509_2024_20_5

23. Southern Religion, Southern Culture: Essays Honoring Charles Reagan Wilson. Grem D.E., Ownby T., Thomas G.Jr., Eds. Oxford: University Press of Mississippi, 2018. 142 p. https://doi.org/10.14325/mississippi/9781496820471.001.0001

24. Tamov А.А., Rodin А.V., Babichev К.Н. Krasnodar agglomeration: problems of integration and connectedness, taking into account the peculiarities of the territorial-administrative zoning of the Krasnodar kray and the Republic of Adygea. Vestn. Adygei. Gos. Univ., Ser. Ekon., 2019, no. 4, pp. 60–68. (In Russ.).

25. Treivish А.I. Gorod, raion, strana i mir. Razvitie Rossii glazami stranoveda [City, Region, Country and World. Russia’s Through the Eyes of a Country Studying Geographer]. Moscow: Novyi Khronograf Publ., 2009. 369 p.

26. Zamyatina N., Goncharov R. “Agglomeration of flows”: Case of migration ties between the Arctic and the southern regions of Russia. Reg. Sci. Policy Pract., 2022, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsp3.12389