After the collapse of the USSR, with the independence of the former Soviet republics there established a period characterized by historians as a transition from a totalitarian to a democratic regime. In each of the republics the transition period was characterized according to its internal characteristics and consistent patterns and in dependence of national and historical peculiarities of development as well as external factors. However, we can note the similarities of post-Soviet syndrome. First, there is an upsurge of interest in national history and the nationalization of history in all CIS countries. Secondly, the science of history goes through a painful stage of revaluation of many facts and events, there has changed the political emphasis in historical studies. The problem of national revival became the main task of the historians. Third, fundamental importance in modern historical science has the factor of expansion of historical research.

Since the mid-1990s, on the border of millennia, there has emerged a series of papers (theses, articles, monographs, documents etc.) focused on the new, western trends in historical scholarship - historical anthropology, intellectual history, the history of the individual, gender history, etc. The younger generation of historians especially helped the development of the new areas. Natural interest of historians to these research entailed serious methodological consequences - an interdisciplinary approach, the search for synthesis through diversity, civilization, historical and cultural approach, etc. New social history has become explored through the prism of historical anthropologism. A human, his way of thinking and behavior, lifestyle, spirituality, mentality and everyday life became the subject of research, and anthropological method has proved itself in the heart of the problem of human history.

An important place in contemporary debates takes the problem of interpretation of historical facts and rewriting of history. However, in our view, the question of rewriting of history should be differentiated. On the assumption of academic, scientific positions, through the introducing new historical documents, new methodological approaches there occurs the rewriting of history. But a feature of the fundamental historical scholarship is that the historical facts should serve science, not politics. At the same time, the real political science is impossible without history. Politicized history becomes declarative and futile. There are many different estimates of a single event or process. Therein lies the strength and weakness of history, but we must remember that history is a science, not an appendage of politics and an instrument of politicians.