1. Introduction The collapse of the Eastern bloc and the Soviet Un- ion initiated several waves of place names changing. These waves affected both Russia and all the other countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In Russia, the renamings were heterogenous in terms of ty- pology, geography and chronology. There were ex- amples of restoring of older place names, changing of names to completely new ones or simply adjust- ing the names to local languages. In big cities, the renamings affected central parts in the first place, while distant districts kept their Soviet toponymy. On the other hand, some regions were not involved into renaming campaigns, and villages and smaller cities mostly ignored them. Finally, each Russian region has witnessed several peaks of renaming activity during the 1990–2000s depending on local politics. This initial period of “toponymic cleansing” (Rose- Redwood et al., 2010) is relatively well described and researched in different aspects: political strug- gles for the renamings (Gill, 2005; Marin, 2012), discussions and popular responses (Nemcev, 2014; Journal of Geography, Politics and Society 2020, 10(3), 29–41 https://doi.org/10.26881/jpgs.2020.3.04 InStItutIonS, StakeholderS and the cIty In the 2010S renamInG PolIcy In ruSSIa Nikita Lomakin Institute of Anthropology and Ethnography of Russian Academy of Sciences, Lenin Ave 32a, 119017 Moscow, Russia e-mail: lomakinu@gmail.com citation Lomakin N., 2020, Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia, Journal of Geography, Politics and Society, 10(3), 29–41. abstract The article presents an overview of the renaming tendencies in Russia of the 2010s and the main stakeholders of the name changing. On the base of the administration websites, online media petitions and other open sources, three cases are exam- ined in detail: 1) Perm, where half of Maksim Gorky street was renamed after the surgeon Sergey Sukhanov in 2015; 2) Kazan, where at the same time Esperanto street was renamed after Nursultan Nazarbaev, causing mass protests for several years; 3) Volgograd, with the discussions about returning to its older name Stalingrad being led for years. Based on the analysis of these cases, the following tendencies are identified: changes of stakeholders motivation for renamings, transfer of power to name from parliamentary institutions to administration, a new perception of the city center and distant districts; and, finally, the appearance of alternative mechanisms of social memory encouraged by the wiping out of older names. key words political toponymy, memory culture, Russia, renamings. received: 01 June 2020 accepted: 30 August 2020 Published: 30 September 2020 30 Nikita Lomakin Terentiev, 2015; Kangaspuro, Lassila, 2018; Nikitin, 2020), memory politics (Galaktionova, 2016; Thakak- hov, 2019). These studies correspond to the stud- ies of similar processes in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (Palonen, 2008; Light, Young, 2014; Crețan, Matthews, 2016). However, there seem to exist fewer studies of what is going on after the landscape has been considerably transformed and society has got tired of symbolical changes and discussions. The 2010s witnessed the decrease of interest to the restoration of older names or “nation building” renamings both in popular discussions and in po- litical milieux. The disappearance of one of the most famous ‘players’ in the field – Restoration Founda- tion in the early 2010s is an unmistakable sign of this process. During this period, political parties paid less attention to the topic, just rarely speculating on ‘loud’ renamings. The renamings became more in- dividual and less paradigmatic. New stakeholders lobbied the memorialisation of a single person or (and) smaller corporate interests. In this article I will try to describe several features of this new period by analysing three cases of renamings from different cities of the Russian Federation: Perm, Volgograd, and Kazan. Examining these cases, I will reconstruct the chronology, logic and results of the decision- making process as well as the views and opinions of the main and secondary stakeholders. In conclu- sion, I will focus on institutional changes (changes in decision-making process), new stakeholders and the new perception of “palimpsest” urban space (a result of renamings of 1990–2000s) by stakeholders. 2. methodology and sources The cases from Perm, Volgograd and Kazan are re- constructed with the help of websites of local and federal media, social networks (Facebook, Vkontak- te, Livejournal), official websites of administrative and representative bodies of the Russian Federation and its regional authorities. To provide background for these stories, the news aggregator platform Yan- dex. News was used. Using keywords like “renaming”, “street”, “square”, “station” I detected 111 more cases of urban objects renaming disputes in the Russian Federation in 2010–2020, among them 34 successive renamings. The disputes of 2011–2012 are covered by the project “Monitoring the Politics of History” (NGO International Memorial). This project gath- ered news of online and offline media dealing with the culture of memory and political debates about history. The archive of the project is available on Livejournal.com and contains 74 more news about renamings. Undoubtedly, it is the tip of the iceberg: many renamings did not attract any attention of the media. But these stories help to understand the dy- namics better. In this article, I will follow the critical toponymy approach, which considers toponymy as a result of cultural, social and political interaction (Eller, Hackl, L’upták (eds.), 2008; Berg, Voulteenaho (eds.), 2009; Rose-Redwood et al., 2010) and focus on stakehold- er analysis. I will proceed with three cases of renam- ing: in Perm in 2015, in Kazan in 2015, and discussion about the renaming of Volgograd in 2000–2010s. 3. Perm, 2015 Sergey Sukhanov, a famous cardio surgeon from Perm, founder and head of the public cardio surgery centre “The City of heart”, died of cancer on the 24th of July, 2015. He was known as one of the best sur- geons in Russia and had performed thousands of heart surgeries. Since its opening in 2012, “The City of Heart” had a contradictory reputation. The centre was praised as one of the best of its kind in Russia and as a world-class Cardiology hospital (Zverintse- va, 2013). However, there had been a series of scan- dals caused by several patients’ deaths of infections, by chasing off the number of surgeries to the detri- ment of their quality and by a patient being beaten by the doctor (Pleshakova, 2013; Federal’nyj centr…, 2019). Being a famous surgeon, Sergey Sukhanov couldn’t avoid making himself a political career. In- deed, since 2013 he was a co-chair of the Permian branch of All-Russia People’s Front (an NGO coalition around Vladimir Putin and ruling United Russia Party) (Permskij kraj…, 2013). In 2014, the documentary “Cardiopolitics” (dir. S. Strelnikova (2014)) about “the political price” of “The City of Heart” was filmed: to get money for the construction, Sukhanov had to become the face of the pro-Putin local elite. Later, the film received several awards at film festivals. The first measures to memorialise Sergei Sukh- anov on city maps were taken right after his death. On the 1st of August 2015 (only a week after the surgeon’s death), local media announced the fu- ture naming of the garden in front of the “The City of Heart” after Sukhanov (Belkina, 2015). A plate on the wall of the hospital was to be installed sometime later. The situation began to change rapidly after an initiative group for memorialisation of Sergey Sukh- anov was created. It consisted of the widow of the surgeon, doctor Natalia Chernysheva, the secretary of the local branch of United Russia party Nikolay Demkin and the businessman Piotr Pavlov. The Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 31 initiative group set a new goal: to rename a street af- ter Sukhanov. All negotiations of the initiative group with local authorities were conducted secretly. But in November 2016, Nikolay Demkin addressed a public speech to the city parliament. In this speech, he complained that the renaming decision was be- ing slowed down because of formal obstacles. He argued that Sukhanov should be memorialised as soon as possible because of his reputation and his fame all over the world. No need to wait – “Always, there were and there are exceptions”, said the par- liamentarian and mentioned two Permian streets named after famous Permian citizens right after their death. The head of the city seemed to be making excuses, confirming that the plate installation was already approved, and new more radical measures for memorialisation would soon take place (Emeli- anova, Sukhanov, 2015). The “formal obstacles” mentioned by the par- liamentarian were Permian Rules of urban objects naming (2013). According to them, streets could be renamed only to restore their older names or to avoid the duplication of names. Meanwhile, the head of the city ordered to find a street or an object to re- name (the naming of a new street on the outskirts of the city was considered unsatisfactory by the ini- tiative group). Some of the offers were rejected by the initiative group, and the consensus was finally reached on the idea to rename the Karl Marx square in the city centre. The square could be renamed be- cause its name is hard to pronounce (according to the Rules, easy pronunciation is one of the criteria a place name should satisfy) (Emelianova, Sukhanov, 2015). The fate of this idea is unknown, but soon a new way of renaming was invented. The Maxim Gorky street, which is located in the proximity of “The City of Heart”, was split into two streets, one of which was named after Sukhanov. The widow of Sukhanov presented this idea to the toponymic commission. While arguing for renaming, she mentioned that the prestige of all the doctors should be honoured by making the “right” decision. A representative of the government referred to a survey showing that 91% of citizens approved the renaming. The sugges- tion of commission members to wait for a little and name a new street after Sukhanov was rejected by the initiative group. Finally, on the 18th of February 2016, the decision was made and the renaming was approved (Chuvatova, 2016). The new name of the street appeared even before the memorial plate was installed on “The City of Heart”, which in the same month was also renamed in honour of the surgeon (Viktor Basargin…, 2016). The renaming was criticised in the media, two members of the toponymical commission were also among the critics – the blogger and local activist Denis Galitsky and the head of the regional archive Andrei Borisov. Discussions took place on the pages of several Permian media (where comments were allowed) and in social networks (Emelianova, Sukh- anov, 2015; Galitsky, 2015, 2016; Tolmachev, 2016). There were two points of criticism. Firstly, renaming (or naming) of a street after a person shouldn’t di- rectly follow her/his death. Some commenters even mentioned the contradictory reputation of “The City of Heart”. Secondly – and this point was more popu- lar - the renaming will be bad in any case. The ini- tiative group should agree on the naming of a new street and stop lobbying the renaming of the already existing ones. This criticism was disregarded both by the toponymic commission and the initiative group. 4. kazan, 2015–2017 The Esperanto Street, the only one devoted to this artificial language in Russia, existed in Kazan (capital of the Tatarstan Republic) between 1927 and 1949 and then from 1988 till 2015. The restoration of this older name in 1988 was one of the first renamings of the 1990s wave. In June 2015, the street changed its name again, adopting the name of Nazarbaev (in honour of the leader of Kazakhstan, on the eve of his 75th anniversary). The first rumours about the renaming appeared on the 24th of June (Alexey, 2015), while the docu- ment establishing the new name of the street was published on the 26th of June. Despite them, no one was ready for such an extraordinary decision. Indeed, renamings were rather uncommon for the capital of Kazakhstan in 2010-s. From 2005 till 2018, there were only eight cases of renaming (Reestr…, 2016). Almost all of the renamed streets were locat- ed on the outskirts of the city. Thus, the renaming of a street in the centre seemed to be very unusual. Another uncommon thing was that Nursultan Naz- arbaev was a still-living person, while “recommenda- tions” (Reshenie…, 2015) for the street naming allow to name streets only after people who died 10 years ago or earlier. Finally, the last astonishing point con- sisted of a complete absence of discussion preced- ing the decision (Antonov, 2015a). The process of decision-making remains unclear and can be reconstructed only in general terms. As most documents of the kind, the Act of renaming (Postanovlenije…,2015b) referred to the recom- mendation of the city toponymic commission and was signed by the head of the city government, 32 Nikita Lomakin Denis Kalinkin. However, the document contained an unusual trait, which was the motivation of deci- sion. Indeed, instead of the standard mentioning of “a group of ” petitioners, which is a formal require- ment, it mentions only one petitioner, “the head of the national cultural autonomy of Kazakhs of Tatar- stan S. Djaksybaev”. On the 3rd of July, an opening ceremony of the new street name took place. At the beginning of the ceremony, the petitioner and head of Kazakhs of Ta- tarstan association Djaksybaev said that it had taken two months to consider his petition (V Kazani…, 2015). It means that the petition had to be sent to the authorities of Kazan not later than the end of April, while in his interview from early February 2015 the idea of renaming isn’t even mentioned (Dzhak- sybaev…, 2015). Therefore, the petition had to be written between February and April 2015. It seems that the starting point of the renaming process was the visit of a Kazakh delegation led by the head of the Kazakh’s Government Karin Masi- mov to Kazan on the 5th of February 2015. The del- egates visited the Kazan IT-park, the University, the Helicopter factory, and had a meeting with Rustam Minnikhanov, the head of the Tatarstan republic. The speed of decision-making, as well as the neglect of formal rules and unwillingness of authorities to dis- cuss the renaming, show that the real decision was made even before the petition of Djaksybaev was considered. The meeting on the 5th of February most probably was the starting point of the whole process. After the petition for renaming was registered, there were only three steps left. On the next stage of the decision making, the authorities had to choose the object for renaming. It seems that they were bound by the initial arrangements. Although the street after Nazarbayev could be located on the out- skirts of the city or in the new futuristic IT district (In- nopolis), which was being constructed to the west of Kazan1, they still opt for a street in the centre of the city. Esperanto street seems to have been cho- sen because of the strangeness of its name for the functionaries. The author of the language had never been to Kazan and had no connections to the city. «Esperanto is a nonsense name. I would reconsider the decision if the street in hand was named after a person. It is not, so the name change shouldn’t in- sult anybody», pointed out Rasil Valeev, the head of the Committee of Culture and Nations of Tatarstan State Council (Antonov, 2015a). There were a couple 1 This idea was proposed by one of the activists during the later discussions. It seems to be obvious that the authorities had to consider this option before. of additional arguments for the renaming of Espe- ranto street. Firstly, the Tatarstan Nations Friendship House is situated here, which allows to treat the street as a place of Friendship of Tatars and Kazakhs. Secondly, it was planned to install the sculpture in honour of Kazakhstan in the public garden nearby (Na ulice…, 2015). Some of these reasons were re- vealed by the government in the formal answers to the criticism (Alexey, 2015). On the next stage, the recommendation from the toponymic commission had to be gained. In June 2015, the Commission consisted of 21 members, 11 of whom were delegates from the city govern- ment or parliament, while 10 others represented the academic community and Civil society (Reshenie…, 2014). To avoid tension, the head of the commission and vice mayor Liudmila Andreeva decided not to gather the commission and to vote via email. Ac- cording to the interview of the commission member Farida Zabirova (Antonov, 2015a), members of the commission were not allowed to see the results of the voting, only the final decision: the commission recommended to rename Esperanto street. As Zabi- rova pointed out, at least four people (including her) voted against the renaming. The final step was to sign the decree and to pub- lish it on the governmental website. The interest- ing point here is that on the 4th of March 2015 the naming procedure was changed (Reshenie…, 2015). According to the former legislation, it was the city parliament who voted for (re)naming of urban ob- jects. The new procedure didn’t include voting in the parliament, the only decision-making institute was the city government. Changes in the legislation oc- curred after the supposed date of the agreement on Nazarbaev Street (the 5th of February), but obvious- ly, we cannot be entirely sure whether these events are connected. Denis Kalinkin, the head of the city government, signed the document about renam- ing on Friday, 26th of June. The replacement of signs started immediately. No one anticipated that instead of the benefits of making a present to the 75th anniversary of Naz- arbayev, the authorities will gain a headache for several years ahead. The inhabitants were informed about the decision by the workers who installed new signs during the weekend. Very soon, an initia- tive group was formed to start the resistance activi- ties. A few days after, several protest petitions were written and published online (Alexey, 2015; Ivanov, 2015), the most popular of which was signed by more than 5,000 people. The inhabitants brought a civil suit against the government because of mul- tiple violations of the procedure and sent a letter to the embassy of Kazakhstan (Yankova, 2015). The Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 33 extraordinary name changing of one of the central streets followed by the protests inevitably attracted the attention of the media. Since the 26th of June, the struggle for the name was covered by the local press. The oppositional parties “Yabloko” and “Par- nas” issued statements supporting the inhabitants. On the 1st of July, the administration invited several members of the initiative group as well as journalists for the discussion. As “Vechernyaya Kazan” newspa- per explains, the functionaries insisted that resist- ance is pointless as all the decisions have already been made, adding that the new name would attract investments from Kazakhstan and that the street will be decorated and repaired. On the 3rd of July, a pompous opening cer- emony was scheduled. This meeting gathered the first President of Tatarstan Mintimir Shaimeiv, the current President Rustam Minnikhanov, the ambas- sador of Kazakhstan Marat Tazhin and the mayor of Kazan. Curiously, the street opening ceremony was held indoors. As some of the newspapers pointed out, initially it was planned to be held in the square near the city Philharmonic. The organisers, however, feared that protesters would ruin it. As a result, the VIPs gathered in the House of Nations Friendship, while the protesters (eight people) stayed outside holding posters with anti-renaming slogans. Even after a short conversation with the mayor, who tried to calm them down, the protesters refused to leave the place. Later, four of them were arrested (and charged, with one person even sentenced to 20 hours of public work) (Antonov, 2015c; Grigorieva, 2015). The campaign for returning the Esperanto name included the installation of self-made street-name signs, several meetings in public places, lots of peti- tions. According to some statements of the officials, the authorities even acknowledge that the renam- ing was a mistake, but could not take the decision back. During the talk with protesters on the 3rd of July, the mayor admitted “hastiness” and “bad work of the city government”, but insisted that the deci- sion had already been made (Metshin izvinilsja…, 2015). On the 22 of July, Farid Mukhametshin, the speaker of Tatarstan State Council, called the deci- sion “premature” (Muhametshin nazval…, 2015). Still, the last hope for the inhabitants was the court. The claim was registered on the 21st of July. The idea of a legal claim was to stress the viola- tions of the formal procedure: indeed, there was only one petitioner (instead of a formally required group of more than 10 people), the street was named after a living person (which was prohibited), this person has no connection to the history of Kazan (while lots of Tatar men of culture were Esperantists). On the 12th of August, the court announced its decision: most of these arguments were inconsistent because they refer to the recommendations to the toponym- ic commission, not to the strict requirements; there- fore, their violation can’t be considered as a reason to cancel the renaming (Antonov, 2015d). Later, on the 3rd of December, the Supreme Court of Tatar- stan repeated the arguments of the lower insertion court (Delo № 33a-15912/2015…, 2015). The court became a place where different approaches to the toponymic policy clashed. However, both sides just repeated the same arguments. The only new one was that, among other rhetorics, representatives of the initiative group stressed the fact that the govern- ment monopolised the right to name and rename the streets. The promises to reconstruct the street and gain special attention of Kazakh companies to the inhab- itants of the street came true later. In August 2015, some repair works were done. In February 2016, it was announced that the inhabitants of Nazarbaev street could attend the basketball match between the Kazan team Unix and the Kazakh Astana for free (by showing their passports with the registration on Nazarbaev street). In Spring 2016, a new monu- ment in honour of the friendship between Kazakh- stan and Tatarstan was erected. In March, discounts on an air-trip to Kazakhstan for all the inhabitants of Nazarbaev street were announced but were not confirmed later. However, all these efforts turned out to be in vain and did not change the attitude of the inhabitants towards the renaming. Indeed, the reparation works were claimed to be cheap and of low quality, the free basketball tickets were regarded as a joke, while air-discounts caused a scandal (An- tonov, 2016; Yankova, 2016). Surprisingly, the discussion about Nazarbaev street resulted in the modification of the naming procedure. The first changes were made in March 2015, when the city parliament refused to approve the names and handed this responsibility over to the government. In December 2015, a reform of topo- nymic commission was introduced: formerly part of the city parliament, it became henceforth a consult- ing body of the mayor. The prohibition of naming after living persons was abolished (Postanovlenie…, 2015a; V kazanskoj…, 2016). This renaming has had a long echo. In 2019, a petition to name one of the streets after Vladimir Putin was published. According to its author, the Ta- tar capital already has a street named after a living head of state, so why not memorialise Vladimir Pu- tin, who has done more than Nazarbaev for Kazan? (V Kazani…, 2019) In several petitions, the Kazan’s inhabitants proposed to rename Nazarbaev street 34 Nikita Lomakin after somebody else (V Kazani…, 2016) and to name some other object after Esperanto (Yankova, 2017). Every year, several actions of “symbolical renaming” (e.g. installing self-made street signs) take place. On the 26th of July 2016, the activists celebrated The Es- peranto Day by projecting letters of the Esperanto alphabet (Ĉ, Ĵ, and Ŝ) on the walls of the former Es- peranto Street. 5. Volgograd, 2003–2018 Volgograd is one of the biggest cities in the south of Russia and a place where one of the cruelest bat- tles in the history of WWII took place. During the 20th century, the city changed its name twice: in 1921 Tsarisyn became Stalingrad, and in 1961 Stal- ingrad turned into Volgograd. The latter renaming was a part of the destalinisation company initiated by Nikita Khrushchev in 1956. In the history of modern Russia, the debates about the name of the city are the most famous and most politicised toponymic topic (Kangaspuro, Lassila, 2018). The arguments for and against restor- ing one of the older names have remained the same for decades. The supporters of the name Tsaritsyn stress that it is the “original” name of the city, exist- ing since 1589. Stalingrad, on the other hand, seems to be a significant name because of the heroic and most tragic battle. Stalinists regard this name as a way of commemorating Joseph Stalin. Antistalin- ists, from their part, ignore this connotation and emphasise the crucial role of the Stalingrad battle in the history of WW2. Their standard argument refers to toponyms outside the USSR named after Stalin- grad battle, the most famous of them being a square in Paris. The name Volgograd is praised as a depo- liticised one and a name that has existed for more than 60 years. Its supporters consider the renaming as a sign of restalinisation of the country. Still, the most pragmatic argument against renaming is the surveys. Since the1990s, there has been no survey that would show the majority of renaming support- ers in the city (Serenko, 2003; Ukolov, 2014). The first discussions about renaming started in one of the crisis moments of federal policy, during the presidential election of 1996. The first President of Russia Boris Yeltsin started his campaign on a very low basis with almost no supporters in the country. In May 1996, the obvious leader was the head of the communist party Gennadiy Zyuganov. The cam- paign of Yeltsin started in Volgograd. Speaking with veterans of Stalingrad battle, he did everything to gain their hearts, in case of victory promising among other things to rename Volgograd (after holding a referendum in the city). It seemed to be a good move because before that (and after) the idea of re- naming was monopolised by the communists (Ser- enko, 2003). Yeltsin won the elections in Volgograd and the country, but no referendum was held. The next attempt to rename the city was made by its governor, communist Nikolay Maksuta, who held the office in 1997–2010. In August 2001, Mak- suta promised to return the name of Stalingrad be- fore the 60th anniversary of the Stalingrad battle (2003). While proposing this, Maksuta admitted the possibility of a referendum (Gubernator…, 2001). The idea of renaming was supported by Zyuganov, the leader the communist party, but leaders of oth- er parties were against it. Among them, Vladimir Zhirinovsky (Liberal Democrats) pointed out that “returning of the name Stalingrad is a justification of the Stalin regime” (Gubernator…, 2001). The re- action of federal authorities came much later. Dur- ing the broadcasting “direct line” in December 2002, Vladimir Putin shared his negative attitude towards the renaming using the same argument as Zhiri- novsky (Prezident…, 2002). Meanwhile, Maksuta did not stop his attempts. On the 21st of January 2003, the Parliament of Volgogradskaya Oblast voted for the renaming bill. According to it, the renaming af- ter voting in the State Parliament and the Council of Federation became possible, with no direct referen- dum needed (which violated federal legislation on the matter) (Svyatoslavskaya, 2003). The project was sent to the State Parliament, where it was lobbied by Alexey Mitrofanov, a member of the Liberal Demo- crats party. On the 5th of March 2003, the bill was rejected (Golosovanie…, 2003), having failed to gain the support of the ruling party United Russia. On the 24th of July 2004, Putin ordered to change the name of the city on the main monument to the Fallen during WWII – the tomb of the Unknown Sol- dier under the walls of Kremlin. “Stalingrad” was to be written there instead of “Volgograd” (the monu- ment dates back to 1967) (Vladimirov, 2004). This de- cision can be considered a model one for all the later cases of cancelled renamings. Here, a symbolical gesture was made instead of a full-scale renaming. The next stage of discussions was initiated by the communist party together with their conserva- tive allies Labor-union of nations of Russia and “The Nature of the Time” movement. In November 2012, several not very numerous demonstrations in Volgo- grad started a campaign of collection of signatures to rename the city (Filimonova, 2012). In January 2013, the leader of the communists Gennady Zyu- ganov stated that more than 100,000 signatures were collected and sent to the Presidential admin- istration (G. A. Zyuganov…, 2013). The President Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 35 didn’t react this time, but soon the Parliament of Vol- gograd (where United Russia party constituted the majority) issued a bill which allowed to symbolically rename the city on the fest days (Vneocherednoe…, 2013). This renaming means that every year, for six days Volgograd becomes the Hero City of Stalingrad. On the 2nd of February 2013, Vladimir Putin dem- onstrated how this new symbolism works in practice. He visited Volgograd for festivities in honour of the 70th anniversary of the Stalingrad battle and made a speech, where Stalingrad was mentioned 14 times, while the name Volgograd wasn’t mentioned at all (Putin, 2013). Alexander Strizoe, a political scientist from Volgograd, commented then that “personally for the President of Russia, the changing of names did take place” (Serenko, 2013). In general terms, Pu- tin reacted to the starting discussion the same way as ten years before, i.e. by performing a symbolical action that partially made further discussion useless. However, for most people, the question was not yet solved. In early February, the renaming was dis- cussed on all the levels of state hierarchy and in all the media (Kuznetsova, 2013). Officials of higher-lev- el (e.g. Valentina Matvienko, the head of the Federa- tion Council) agreed that a referendum should take place shortly. Parties tried to take political advan- tage of the discussions (e.g. V. Zhirinovsky, the head of the Liberal Democrats, stated once more that the renaming meant the justification of Stalin and his actions); there were political associations which became famous while discussing the toponymic. On local levels, the discussion revealed itself in bus branding (so-called Stalinobus) (The “Stalinobus”…, 2013) or “self-made” street renamings (Volgograds- kaya street was unofficially renamed into Stalingrad- skaya in Ekaterinburg) (V Ekaterinburge…, 2013). Af- ter the 2nd of February, Kremlin officials commented on the situation only once: Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary of Vladimir Putin, stated that the renaming was now unnecessary (Lednev, 2013). After several months of discussions and PR companies, no refer- endum was organised. A new wave of discussions rose in June 2014 after Putin’s statement that he doesn’t object to the renaming of Volgograd and supports the idea of a referendum (Putin predlozhil…, 2014). Later, the press-secretary of President specified that it shouldn’t be considered as a demonstration of presi- dential support (Peskov: SMI…, 2014). Meanwhile, Putin’s phrase initiated a new series of statements from political activists, representatives of parties, and church. However, the scale of the campaign was much smaller than the year before. It seems that this wave as well as the approaching anniversary of the Victory inspired the communists to a new initiative. On the 11th of February 2015, they introduced a project of a State Parliament statement: Volgograd must be renamed into Stalin- grad, one of the central squares in Moscow must be renamed and decorated with a Stalin’s monument (Projekt…, 2015). The project was doomed from the beginning and it is hard to believe that the commu- nists didn’t understand it. While the idea of renam- ing Volgograd could find supporters outside the party, the renaming of a central square in Moscow and the installation of a monument sounded so pro- stalinist that no other party or fraction in the State Parliament could support it. It seemed that the main purpose of the bill (rejected on the 25th of February 2015) (Rezul’taty…, 2015) was to restore control over the idea of renaming the city (Pertsev 2015). The last attempt to rename Volgograd was con- nected to a new anniversary of the battle in 2018 and the presidential election of 2018. While most politicians didn’t use the opportunity to speculate on the matter, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the former op- ponent of the renaming, used the idea for his elec- toral campaign (Fest, 2017). Simultaneously, local authorities began to promote the idea of the renam- ing of the Volgograd airport. They insisted on chang- ing the name of Gumrak into Stalingrad (Aeroport…, 2016; Markush, 2018). If the idea seizes the minds of the Russians once again, the renaming of the airport could become a new symbolical answer to it. In the meantime, Zhirinovsky obtained 5.65% votes, and Gumrak was never renamed. 6. comparison In this paper, I investigated three cases of renam- ing from different regions, where different types of stakeholders took part and which had different re- sults. The renaming in Perm, one of the main Russian cities in the Ural region, was initiated by a local (and yet influential) initiative group. Alliance with the rul- ing party and support of the administration of the city allowed it to rename one of the streets in the city centre. The new name caused almost no resistance because of the successful choice of the place, which is both central and unpopulated. On the contrary, the renaming in Kazan, the capital of the Tatarstan Republic, was lobbied by the government of an- other country. The unsuccessful choice of a street to rename combined with a short-sighted interaction with inhabitants caused protests and a wave of blam- ing the city administration, the aftermath of which is still visible. The last case has almost no connection to local communities and was included in the fed- eral agenda by parties and federal functionaries to 36 Nikita Lomakin speculate on painful topics of WWII and memory of repressions. Thus, it can be regarded as an example of the interaction of Moscow and regional elites. Based on these three cases, we can identify differ- ent types of initiators and stakeholders of toponymic discussions and decisions. The Permian case shows the collaboration between the city government (the initiative to name a garden in the proximity of “The City of Heart”), individual initiative, and party lead- ers. It seems to be impossible to achieve the desired outcome (i.d. to rename a square or a street in the city centre) without such a collaboration. While ar- guing for renaming, its supporters refer to the ideas of local memorialisation (the Permian citizens me- morialised in street names) opposing them to typi- cal Soviet toponyms (e.g. Karl Marx square, Maksim Gorky street). The hastiness and persistence of the initiators reveal their mistrust of the procedure and the local government. They simply seize an opportu- nity when they have enough influence to memori- alise their friend or relative and write them down in the history of the city. The Kazan case presents a completely different situation. The decision about renaming and me- morialisation of a living person was made against all formal recommendations and procedures. The task of the city functionaries was to find a street, the renaming of which would cause less protest. The choice was bad but it was the renaming procedure itself which made things worse. Indeed, by neglect- ing all preparation, failing to give explanations, and provide a satisfactory discussion, the administration did cause a conflict. But as this case shows, the main problem consists not in political mistakes, but in the very tendency to exclude non-governmental or representative bodies from toponymic discussions. In this case, for instance, the main argument of the authorities consisted of their right to make this deci- sion regardless of other points of view. The changes made in the toponymic legislation after the renam- ing of the Esperanto Street also confirm this point. It is hard to identify the initiators of discussions about the name of Volgograd. Sometimes, it seems that the discussion emerges “out of nowhere” (e.g. in June 2014), while in others it is initiated by a political party (communists or Liberal Democrats) and their local institutions. Surprisingly, the discussion on the federal level is much more competitive and at the same time more disposed to compromise. Here, the case of Volgograd shows how symbolical gestures can reduce tension. Permian and Kazan cases reveal the organisation and tactics of protest against a naming decision. In both cases, the protest did not have any institu- tion or organisation behind it. The initiative group in Kazan was organised specifically to fight for the street name. No civil organisation openly supported the protesters, although the oppositional parties issued several statements in Kazan. This can be re- garded as a determining factor in defining the resist- ance tactics. In Perm, the website Livejournal became the main platform for discussions. In Kazan, the Internet also played a crucial role. Indeed, numerous peti- tions and publications issued by the protesters were used by the media to exert strong informational pressure on the administration. The unique trait of the Kazan case is its strong offline component: some discussions were set offline in the cafes or streets, there were also so-called “partisan” renamings, when people installed street-name signs with the name Es- peranto. The most important platform, however, was the court. The decisions of local and supreme court revealed the absence of a unified procedure as well as the legal weakness of the “recommendations” to the toponymic commission. Three cases demonstrate the key role of admin- istration in decision making. The differences in the regional legislation do not affect this tendency: in Kazan, the Toponymic Commission was part of the parliament, but the decision was made outside the parliament. As the Volgograd case shows, no one but the President has enough power and influence to al- low or to prohibit the referendum, which up to date remains a part of the formal procedure of renaming. In Perm, the parliament was used only as a platform for blaming speeches against the head of the city. The judicial authorities, such as courts in Kazan, just repeated the arguments already formulated by the administration. The key role of the administration results in two features of decision making. Firstly, the decision is prepared and made in a non-transparent way. The logic, motivation and circumstances of the decision are not clear at first sight and have to be reconstruct- ed in most cases and reveal themselves only in criti- cal situations like the ones we have seen in Perm and Kazan. For the administration, this inner motivation is regarded as more important than the formal topo- nymic regulations. In Kazan, the “recommendations” were not treated as law and for this reason ignored. However, we can refer to several cases in Moscow toponymу where renamings were made against the law (e.g. renamings in honour of the writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the politician Akhmat Kadyrov). Secondly, ordinary citizens do not have any influ- ence on the decision. Although in the toponymic dis- cussions both sides refer to the results of public sur- veys, no one explains the methodology used while conducting them. The cheapest way to understand Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 37 the public opinion is the Internet poll, which is fre- quently used both by the administration and local newspapers. However, there is no technology allow- ing to restrict the possibility of participation only to a specific region or audience, which hampers the conduction of such surveys online. Another way to show that public opinion has been taken into con- sideration is to refer to petitions signed by a group of people. As can be seen in Kazan, it is a standard pre- amble for all the (re)naming decrees. This approach is more formal and seemingly more reliable than just citing survey results. Another way to determine what people really think of renaming is a referendum which, being very expensive, still remains a very rare procedure (in the 2010s Russia, the only referendum on the question of renaming was conducted in 2017 in Tutaev, where people voted against restoring the older name) (Tikhonov, 2017). However, we might see a much more intensive use of such referenda in the future, as, according to some analytics, they will attract voters to the polling stations when a federal election is held at the same time (Rozhkova, 2017). The last important point concerns the seman- tics of space revealed in the discussions described above. First of all, both in Perm and Kazan, stake- holders were interested in renaming a street in the city centre and refused the opportunity to name a new street in a distant district. This attitude can be explained by the “palimpsest” state of the city centre toponymy. In Soviet cities, most central streets were named after core concepts or figures in the com- munist pantheon. Such naming practice protected the centre against the renaming and equalised the “prestige” of all other districts of the city (Efremov, 1985). The Fall of the Soviet Union and waves of place name changing disturbed this balance. The city cen- tre became “available’ for the renamings of all kinds. In practice, it meant that the groups seeking for the most prestigious place to name were primarily at- tracted by renaming Soviet or other “vulnerable” lay- ers of toponymy in the centre. Naming a street on the outskirts was considered far less prestigious. From this perspective, the choice to rename Es- peranto street in Kazan is significant. In the 1990s and 2000s, Kazan street names experienced waves of nationalisation. For this reason, most streets were named after national heroes or kept their “So- viet” names. While deciding which street to rename, functionaries did not choose a Soviet toponym, but a “strange” international one. It can be considered as a demonstration of hierarchy: national toponyms are the most valuable, then go Soviet one, and only then get everything else. 7. conclusion Indeed, three cases are not enough to provide the full dynamics of discussions around the topic of to- ponymic changes, but they allow to at least trace some trends on the matter. The first of them is the appearance of new types of stakeholders in the re- naming discussions, who are less politicised and par- adigmatic than “players” of the previous period. The restoration of older names or nationalisation of the landscape cannot be regarded as motto anymore, while private and corporate interests are much more respected. The discussion around the renaming of Volgograd demonstrates the tiredness of society: in 2013, the renaming of Volgograd was a topic dis- cussed all over the country, while in 2017 the same topic did not attract any attention of the media out- side Volgograd. The second trend was revealed in the Kazan case. It shows that the power to name is gradually being transferred from parliamentary in- stitutions to administration, which is secured by the changes in legislation. The decision-making process has thus become even less transparent. As the Vol- gograd case shows, it is only the president who can successfully lobby or prohibit renaming on the na- tional level. The third trend concerns the city space. The city centre toponymy has become more pres- tigious and because of that changeable. For larger cities, it means that the city centre has become the most toponymically heterogeneous place, Soviet districts will keep their original toponymy while the newer ones will follow recent trends in commercial naming. Finally, the last trend shows that even dis- cussions and fights brought to an end do not van- ish without traces. For instance, the renaming of Esperanto street in Kazan has served as a stimulus for some people in Kazan to form a group with a pur- pose to preserve memory about the language. This is just one example of how wiping out older names en- courages alternative mechanisms of social memory. Dememorialisation thus becomes memorialisation. acknowledgements This work is supported by the Russian Science Foun- dation under grant № 19-78-10076 references Aeroport Volgograda pereimenujut v Stalingrad (Eng. Volgograd Airport renamed to Stalingrad), 2016, Ob- shaya gazeta, 24 August 2016, https://og.ru/socie- ty/2016/08/24/83043 (accessed 10 May 2020). 38 Nikita Lomakin Alexey E., 2015, Peticija o nezakonnom pereimenovanii (Eng. Unlawful Renaming Petition), Portal of state and munici- pal services of the Republic of Tatarstan, https://uslugi. tatar.ru/open-gov/detail/997790 (accessed 10 May 2020). Antonov K., 2015a, Nursultana Nazarbaeva propisali na Jes- peranto (Eng. Nursultan Nazarbayev registered on Espe- ranto street), Kommersant (Kazan), 1 July 2015, https:// www.kommersant.ru/doc/2758566 (accessed 10 May 2020). Antonov K., 2015b, Vlasti Kazani namereny oblagorodit’ uli- cu, pereimenovannuju v chest’ Nursultana Nazarbaeva (Eng. Kazan authorities intend to decorate the street, re- named in honor of Nursultan Nazarbayev), Kommersant (Kazan), 5  August 2015, https://www.kommersant.ru/ doc/2782762 (accessed 10 May 2020). Antonov K., 2015c, Aktivisty zaplatjat za “Okkupaj-Nazarbaj” po 10 tysjach rublej (Eng. Activists will pay 10 thousand rubles for “Occupy Nazarbay”), Kommersant (Kazan), 6  July 2015, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2762875 (accessed 10 May 2020). Antonov K., 2015d, A esli by ulicu nazvali v chest’ Janukovi- cha (Eng.“And if the street was named after Yanukovych), Kommersant (Kazan), 13 August 2015, https://www.kom- mersant.ru/doc/2787366 (accessed 10 May 2020). Antonov K., 2016, Kazancev s propiskoj na ulice Nazarbaeva pooshhrjat besplatnymi biletami na basketbol’nyj match s klubom iz Kazahstana (Eng. Kazan residents with a resi- dence permit on Nazarbayev Street will be encouraged with free tickets for a basketball game with a club from Kazakhstan), Kommersant (Kazan), 5 February 2016, https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2910453 (accessed 10 May 2020). Belkina A., 2015, V Permi mozhet pojavit’sja skver imeni Sergeja Suhanova (Eng. In Perm may appear the square named after Sergey Sukhanov), 59.ru, https://59.ru/text/ gorod/62540751/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Berg K. D., Voulteenaho J. (eds.), 2009, Critical Toponymies: The Contested Politics of Place Naming, Ashgate Publish- ing, Farnham – Burlington. Chuvatova K., 2016, Otshhipnuli ot Gor’kogo v pol’zu Suhanova (Eng. Tweaked from Gorky in favor of Sukhanov), 59.ru, https://59.ru/text/gorod/62583531/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Crețan R., Matthews P.V., 2016, Popular responses to city-text changes: street naming and the politics of practicality in a post-socialist martyr city, Area, 48(1), 92–102. doi: 10.1111/area.12241 Delo № 33a-15912/2015 (Eng. Case No. 33a-15912/2015), 2015, Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, h t t p s : / / v s - - t a t . s u d r f. r u / m o d u l e s. p h p ? n a m e = s u d _ delo&name_op=case&_id=9243479&_uid=c399c17f- 0e7d-4158-b666-bae2774a4f50&_deloId=1540005&_ca- seType=0&_new=5&srv_num=1 (accessed 10 May 2020). Dzhaksybaev: “Stavim zadachu vsestoronnego razvitija ot- noshenij Tatarstana i Kazahstana” (Eng. Dzhaksybaev: “We set the task of comprehensive development of relations between Tatarstan and Kazakhstan”), 2015, Tatar-Inform, https://www.tatar-inform.ru/news/society/04-02-2015/ dzhaksybaev-stavim-zadachu-vsestoronnego-razvitiya- otnosheniy-tatarstana-i-kazahstana-5465647 (accessed 10 May 2020). Efremov Yu., 1985, O khode i principakh naimenovaniya moskovskikh ulits (Eng. On process and principles of Mos- cow streets naming), Voprosy Geografii, 126, 33–47. Eller N., Hackl S., L’upták M. (eds.), 2008, Namen und Ihr Kon- fliktpotential im Europäischen Kontext (Names and their conflict potential in the European context), Vulpens, Re- gensburg. Emelianova N., Sukhanov V., 2015, Pereimenovanie ot vs- ego serdca (Eng. Rename with all my heart), Kommersant (Perm), 13 November 2015, https://www.kommersant.ru/ doc/2852108 (accessed 10 May 2020). Federal’nyj centr serdechno-sosudistoj hirurgii imeni S. G. Suh- anova (Eng. Federal Center for Cardiovascular Surgery named after S. G. Sukhanov), 2019, Wikipedia, https:// ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Федеральный_центр_сердечно- сосудистой_хирургии_имени_С._Г._Суханова (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). Fest L., 2017, Zhirinovskij: “Pereimenovanie Volgograda v Stal- ingrad – odin iz punktov moej predvybornoj programmy” (Eng. Zhirinovsky: “Renaming Volgograd to Stalingrad is one of the points of my election program”), City of Heroes, http://gg34.ru/news/policy/25321-zhirinovs- kij-pereimenovanie-volgograda-v-stalingrad-odin-iz- punktov-moej-predvybornoj-programmy.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Filimonova T., 2012, V Volgograde uchastniki mitinga potre- bovali pereimenovat’ gorod v Stalingrad (Eng. In Volgo- grad, protesters demanded to rename the city in Stal- ingrad), Kavkazsky Uzel, http://www.kavkaz-uzel.ru/ articles/216008/ (accessed 10 May 2020). G. A. Zyuganov: Uzhe 100 tys. rossijan podderzhali pereimeno- vanie Volgograda v Stalingrad (Eng. G.A. Zyuganov: Al- ready 100 thousand Russians supported the renaming of Volgograd to Stalingrad), 2013, Communist Party Website (Kurgan), http://kprf45.ru/news/421-g-a-zyuganov-uzhe- 100-tys-rossiyan-podderzhali-pereimenovanie-volgogra- da-v-stalingrad (accessed 10 May 2020). Galaktionova N., 2016 Sociokulturnyi oblik regiona cherez prizmu toponimicheskoi politiki (keis Tumeni i Naberezh- nykh Chelnov) (Eng. Socio-Cultural Image of a Region in Terms of Toponymic Policy (the case study of Tyumen and Naberezhnye Chelny), Regionologiya, 1(94), 152–163. Galitsky D., 2015, Esli “horosho” pytajutsja vybit’ v kamne (Eng. If “good” try to carve in stone), LJ Blog of Denis Galitsky, https://denis-galitsky.livejournal.com/2015/11/17/ (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). Galitsky D., 2016, V Permi dvadcat’ (!) Komprosov? (Eng. In Perm there are twenty (!) Kompros [Komsomol Av.]?), LJ  Blog of Denis Galitsky, https://denis-galitsky.livejour- nal.com/179342.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Gill G., 2005, Changing symbols: The renovation of Moscow place names, The Russian Review, 64, 480–503. Golosovanie po predlozheniju deputata Mitrofanova (Eng. Vot- ing on the proposal of the deputy Mitrofanov), 2003, State Duma Official Website, http://vote.duma.gov.ru/ vote/13616 (accessed 10 May 2020). Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 39 Grigorieva A., 2015, Vojna za Jesperanto: policija zabarrikadi- rovalas’ ot svidetelej (Eng. War for Esperanto: police barri- caded themselves from witnesses), Moskovsky Komsomo- lets, 3 July 2015, https://kazan.mk.ru/articles/2015/07/03/ voyna-za-esperanto-policiya-zabarrikadirovalas-ot-svi- deteley.html (accessed 10 May 2020) Gubernator Volgogradskoj oblasti Nikolaj Maksjuta predlozhil k 60-letiju Velikoj bitvy vernut’ gorodu na Volge imja Stal- ingrada (Eng. Volgograd Region Governor Nikolai Mak- syuta proposed to return the name of Stalingrad to the city on the Volga on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Great Battle), 2001, Echo Moskvy, https://echo.msk. ru/news/50868.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Ivanov L., 2015, Peticija “Nazovite v chest’ Nursultana Abi- shevicha Nazarbaeva novuju ulicu ili naberezhnuju, a naz- vanie Jesperanto sohranite na karte Kazani!” (Eng. Petition “Name a new street or embankment in honor of Nursul- tan Nazarbayev, and save the name of Esperanto on the map of Kazan!”), Change.org, https://www.change.org/p/ назовите-в-честь-нурсултана-абишевича-назарбаева- новую-улицу-а-название-эсперанто-сохраните-на- карте-казани (accessed 10 May 2020). Kangaspuro M., Lassila J., 2017, From the Trauma of Stalin- ism to the Triumph of Stalingrad: The Toponymic Dispute Over Volgograd, [in:] J. Fedor, M. Kangaspuro, J. Lassila, T. Zhurzhenko (eds.) War and Memory in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 141–170. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66523-8_5 Kuznetsova A., 2013, Nado li Volgograd pereimenovyvat’ v Stalingrad? (Eng. Should Volgograd be renamed to Stal- ingrad?), Sobesednik, 8 February 2013, https://sobesed- nik.ru/obshchestvo/20130208-nado-li-volgograd-perei- menovyvat-v-stalingrad (accessed 10 May 2020). Lednev A., 2013, Volgograd ne podderzhal ideju pereimeno- vanija v Stalingrad (Eng. Volgograd did not support the idea of renaming to Stalingrad), Izvestiya, 7 February 2013, https://iz.ru/news/544405 (accessed 10 May 2020). Light D., Young C., 2014, Habit, Memory, and the Persistence of Socialist-Era Street Names in Postsocialist Bucharest, Ro- mania, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3), 668–685. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2014.892377 Marin A., 2012, Bordering Time in the Cityscape. Toponymic Changes as Temporal Boundary-Making: Street Renam- ing in Leningrad/St. Petersburg, Geopolitics, 17(1), 192– 216, doi: 10.1080/14650045.2011.574652 Markush P., 2018, Isinbaeva predlagaet nazvat’ ajeroport v Vol- gograde “Stalingrad” (Eng. Isinbayeva proposes to name the airport in Volgograd “Stalingrad”), Ura.ru, https://ura. news/news/1052356302 (accessed 10 May 2020). Metshin izvinilsja pered zhiteljami Nazarbaeva-Jesperanto za “nedorabotku ispolkoma” (Eng. Metshin apologized to residents of Nazarbayev-Esperanto for “administra- tion faults”), 2015, Prokazan, https://prokazan.ru/news/ view/102685 (accessed 10 May 2020). Muhametshin nazval “skorospelym” reshenie po ulice Jesperan- to (Eng. Mukhametshin called “hasty” decision on Espe- ranto street), 2015, Sobaka (Kazan), http://www.sobaka. ru/kzn/city/city/38414 (accessed 10 May 2020) Na ulice Nazarbaeva mogut postavit’ 1,5-metrovuju kazahstan- skuju nacional’nuju chashu (Eng. A 1.5-meter Kazakhstan national bowl can be installed on the Nazarbayev street), 2015, Prokazan, https://prokazan.ru/news/view/105462 (accessed 10 May 2020). Nemcev M., 2014. O neizmennosti toponimiki postsovet- skogo Novosibirska (Eng. On the constancy of Post-Soviet Novosibirsk place names) [in:] I. Kurilla (ed.), 2014, Istorich- eskaya razmetka prostranstva i vremeni (Eng. Historical Markup of Space and Time), Volgograd State University, Volgograd, 68–76. Nikitin S., 2020, Strana imen. Kak my nazyvaem ulitsy, goroda i derevni v Rossii (Eng. The Land of names. How do we name streets, cities and villages in Russia), NLO books, Moscow. Palonen E., 2008, The city-text in post-communist Budapest: street names, memorials, and the politics of commemo- ration, GeoJournal, 73(3), 219–230. doi: 10.1007/s10708- 008-9204-2 Permskij kraj – novyj adres Narodnogo fronta (Eng. Permsky Kray – the new address of the Popular Front), 2013, Civil Peoples Front Website, https://onf.ru/2013/07/27/ permskij-kraj-novy-j-adres-narodnogo-fronta/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Pertsev A., 2015, Bolee moshhnyh antifashistskih simvolov, chem Stalingrad i Stalin, prosto net (Eng. “There are just no more powerful anti-fascist symbols than Stalingrad and Stalin), Kommersant, 25 February 2015, https://www. kommersant.ru/doc/2674832 (accessed 10 May 2020). Peskov: SMI neverno ponjali slova Putina o pereimenovanii Volgograda (Eng. Peskov: Media misunderstood Putin’s words about renaming Volgograd), 2014, Regions.ru, http://regions.ru/news/2515355/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Pleshakova T., 2013, Ot chego umirajut prooperirovannye v Permskom federal’nom centre serdechno-sosudistoj hi- rurgii? (Eng. What do those operated on at the Perm Fed- eral Center for Cardiovascular Surgery die from?), Argu- menty i Fakty, 6 March 2013, https://perm.aif.ru/society/ details/123123 (accessed 10 May 2020). Postanovlenie “O komissii po toponimike municipal’nogo obra- zovanija g. Kazani” (Eng. Resolution “On the Commission on the Toponymy of the Municipal Formation of Kazan”), 2015a, Kazan Administration Official Website, https:// www.kzn.ru/nayti-dokument/munitsipalnye-pravovye- akty-i-inaya-ofitsialnaya-informatsiya/4918/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Postanovlnenie “O pereimenovanii ulicy goroda Kazani” (Eng. Resolution “On renaming the streets of the city of Kazan”), 2015b, Kazan Administration Official Website, https:// www.kzn.ru/nayti-dokument/munitsipalnye-pravovye- akty-i-inaya-ofitsialnaya-informatsiya/4802/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Prezident Rossii za 2 chasa 37 minut v prjamom jefire otvetil na 51 vopros zhitelej strany (2002 god) (Eng. Russian Presi- dent answered 51 questions of the country’s residents in 2 hours 37 minutes live (2002)), 2002, newsru.com, http:// www.newsru.com/russia/19dec2002/putin.html (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). 40 Nikita Lomakin Projekt postanovlenija № 719944-6 (Eng. Draft Resolution No. 719944-6), 2015, State Duma of the Russian Federation Official Website, https://sozd.duma.gov.ru/bill/719944-6 (accessed 10 May 2020). Putin predlozhil provesti referendum o pereimenovanii Volgo- grada v Stalingrad (Eng. Putin proposed a plebiscite on re- naming Volgograd to Stalingrad), 2014, Lenta.ru, https:// lenta.ru/news/2014/06/06/stalingrad/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Putin V., 2013, Vystuplenie na prazdnichnom koncerte, po- svjashhjonnom 70-letiju pobedy v Stalingradskoj bitve (Eng. Speech at a concert dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the victory in the Battle of Stalingrad), President of Russia Official Website, http://kremlin.ru/events/president/tran- scripts/17416 (accessed 10 May 2020). Reestr nazvanij ulic goroda Kazani (Eng. Register of street names of the city of Kazan), 2016, Kazan Administration Official Website, https://www.kzn.ru/content/upravlenie- arkhitektury/adres/Реестр%20286%20на%20сайт%20 18.07.2018.pdf (accessed 10 May 2020). Reshenie “O vnesenii izmenenij v reshenie Kazanskoj gorodskoj Dumy ‘O komissii po toponimike municipal’nogo obra- zovanija goroda Kazani” (Eng. Decision “On Amending the Decision of the Kazan City Duma” On the Commission on the Toponymy of the Municipal Formation of the City of Kazan”), 2015, Kazan Administration Official Website, https://www.kzn.ru/nayti-dokument/munitsipalnye-pra- vovye-akty-i-inaya-ofitsialnaya-informatsiya/10777/ (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). Reshenie “O vnesenii izmenenij v reshenie Kazanskoj gorodskoj Dumy ‘O komissii po toponimike municipal’nogo obra- zovanija goroda Kazani” (Eng. Decision “On Amending the Decision of the Kazan City Duma” On the Commission on the Toponymy of the Municipal Formation of the City of Kazan”), 2014, Kazan Administration Official Website, https://www.kzn.ru/nayti-dokument/munitsipalnye-pra- vovye-akty-i-inaya-ofitsialnaya-informatsiya/10200/ (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). Rezul’taty golosovanija po proektu № 719944-6 (Eng. Voting results for project No. 719944-6), 2015, State Duma of the Russian Federation Official Website, http://vote.duma. gov.ru/vote/89918 (accessed 10 May 2020). Rose-Redwood R., Aldernan D., Azaryahu M. 2010, Geogra- phies of Toponymic Inscription: New Directions in Critical Place-name Studies, Progress in Human Geography, 34(4), 453–470. doi: 10.1177/0309132509351042 Rozhkova N., 2017, V administracii prezidenta ishhut temy plebiscitov (Eng. The presidential administration is look- ing for themes of plebiscites), Izvestiya, 22 May 2017, htt- ps://iz.ru/news/710645 (accessed 10 May 2020). Serenko A., 2003, Bitva vokrug da okolo Stalingrada (Eng. The battle round and around Stalingrad), Nezavisimoe Voen- noe Obozrenie, http://nvo.ng.ru/regions/2003-02-03/9_ stalingrad.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Serenko A., 2013, Vladimir Putin pochtil pamjat’ pavshih geroev Stalingrada (Eng. Vladimir Putin paid homage to the memory of fallen heroes of Stalingrad), Nezavi- simaya Gazeta, 2 February 2013,http://www.ng.ru/re- gions/2013-02-02/100_volgograd.html (accessed 10 May 2020) Strelnikova S., 2014, Cardiopolitika (trailer), https://vimeo. com/121302058 (accessed 10 May 2020). Svyatoslavskaya N., 2003, V bitve za Stalingrad pobedil Vol- gograd (Eng. In the Stalingrad battle won Volgograd), Kommersant, 6 June 2003, https://www.kommersant.ru/ doc/387520 (accessed 10 May 2020). Terentiev E., 2015. Pereimenovanie sovietskih toponimov v  Sankt-Peterburge. Analiz publichnyh diskussii (Eng. Renaming of Soviet place names in Sankt-Petersburg. Study of public discussions), Zhurnal sociologii i socialnoi antropologii, 18(2), 72–86. Thakakhov V., 2019, Identichnost’ i pamyat’ v toponimich- eskoi politike Chechni (Eng. Identity and Memory in topo- nymical policy of Chechnya), Nauchnaya mysl’ Kavkaza,. No 2/2019, 40–49. The “Stalinobus” topic, January-March 2013, Yandex News, https://news.yandex.ru/yandsearch?text=сталинобус &rpt=nnews2&grhow=clutop&rel=tm&within=777&fr om_day=01&from_month=01&from_year=2013&to_ day=01&to_month=03&to_year=2013 (accessed 10 May 2020). Tikhonov A., 2017, Zhiteli Tutaeva Jaroslavskoj oblasti pro- golosovali protiv pereimenovanija goroda (Eng. Resi- dents of Tutaev, Yaroslavl region, voted against renaming the city), Kommersant, 11 September 2017, https://www. kommersant.ru/doc/3408148 (accessed 10 May 2020). Tolmachev A., 2016, Vidimo ne ochen’ obrazovannye ljudi reshi- li prisvoit’ nazvanie «vnov’ obrazovannoj» ulice (Eng. Ap- parently not very educated people decided to name the «newly formed» street), LJ Blog of Legart, https://legart. livejournal.com/1257599.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Ukolov R., 2014, Imenem Stalina (Eng. In the name of Stalin), Lenta.ru, https://lenta.ru/articles/2014/06/13/stalin/ (ac- cessed 10 May 2020). V Ekaterinburge ulicu Volgogradskuju pereimenovali v Stalin- gradskuju (Eng. In Yekaterinburg Volgogradskaya street was renamed to Stalingradskaya), 2013, 66.ru, https://66. ru/news/society/130424/ (accessed 10 May 2020) V Kazani hotjat pereimenovat’ ulicu v chest’ Putina (Eng. In Ka- zan people want to rename the street in honor of Putin), 2019, Novye Izvestiya, 18 October 2019, https://newizv.ru/ news/society/18-10-2019/v-kazani-hotyat-pereimeno- vat-ulitsu-v-chest-putina (accessed 10 May 2020). V Kazani odnu iz ulic nazovut imenem Asgata Galimzjanova (Eng. In Kazan, one of the streets will be named after As- gat Galimzyanov), 2016, Sobaka (Kazan), 18 January 2016, http://www.sobaka.ru/kzn/city/city/42946 (accessed 10 May 2020). V Kazani pojavilas’ ulica imeni Nursultana Nazarbaeva (Eng. A street named after Nursultan Nazarbayev appeared in Kazan), 2015, Plenipotentiary Representation of the Re- public of Tatarstan in the Republic of Kazakhstan, https:// tatkazah.tatarstan.ru/rus/index.htm/news/450721.htm (accessed 10 May 2020). V kazanskoj dume rasskazali, pochemu naimenovaniem ulic teper’ zanimaetsja mjerija (Eng. Kazan Duma explained why the city administration is now manage street Institutions, stakeholders and the city in the 2010s renaming policy in Russia 41 naming), 2016, Prokazan, https://prokazan.ru/news/ view/107574 (accessed 10 May 2020). Viktor Basargin otkryl memorial’nuju dosku v pamjat’ o Ser- gee Suhanove (Eng. Viktor Basargin opened a memorial plaque in memory of Sergei Sukhanov), 2016, 59.ru, htt- ps://59.ru/text/gorod/62599221/ (accessed 10 May 2020). Vladimirov D., 2004, Volgograd pereimenujut v Stalingrad (Eng. Volgograd will be renamed to Stalingrad), Rossis- kaya Gazeta, 24 July 2004, http://www.rg.ru/2004/07/24/ stalingrad.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Vneocherednoe zasedanie Volgogradskoj gorodskoj Dumy ot 30.01.2013 № 72 (Eng. Extraordinary meeting of the Volgo- grad City Council of 01.30.2013 No. 72), 2013, Volgograd City Council Official Website, http://www.volgsovet.ru/ d1d0/Act/Decision/2013/1528 (accessed 10 May 2020). Yankova T., 2015, Posol’stvo Kazahstana o pereimenovanii uli- cy Jesperanto: “Podobnye shagi dolzhny predprinimat’sja otkryto, s uchetom mnenija grazhdan” (Eng. Kazakhstan Embassy on renaming Esperanto Street: “Such steps should be taken openly, taking into account the views of citizens”), Vechernyaya Kazan, 2 July 2015, http://www. evening-kazan.ru/articles/posolstvo-kazahstana-o-pere- imenovanii-ulicy-esperanto-podobnye-shagi-dolzhny- predprinimatsya-otkryto-s-uchetom-mneniya (accessed 10 May 2020). Yankova T., 2016, Zhiteli kazanskoj ulicy Nazarbaeva ne poletjat v Astanu so skidkami (Eng. Residents of Kazan Nazarbayev Street will not fly to Astana with discounts), Vechernyaya Kazan, 22 March 2016, http://www.evening- kazan.ru/articles/zhiteley-kazanskoy-ulicy-nazarbaeva- ne-poletyat-v-astanu-so-skidkami.html (accessed 10 May 2020). Yankova T., 2017, Kazancy ne terjajut nadezhdy vernut’ na kartu Jesperanto (Eng. Kazan residents do not lose hope to return Esperanto to the map), Vechernyaya Kazan, 3  June 2017, http://www.evening-kazan.ru/articles/ka- zancy-ne-teryayut-nadezhdy-vernut-na-kartu-esperanto. html (accessed 10 May 2020). Zverintseva T., 2013, Poshhady jetomu cheloveku ne budet (Eng. “There will be no mercy for this man), Lenta.ru, https://lenta.ru/articles/2013/07/05/doctor/ (accessed 10 May 2020).