This article focuses on the fate of the little-researched Japanese Orthodox priest, Father Sergius (Suzuki), who preached in the Chinese city of Mukden in the early 20th century. Using the biography of Sergius (Suzuki) as a microhistorical example, the article describes the complex inter-state relations in
Northeast Asia in the early 20th century and focuses on the spread of Orthodoxy in East Asia, which is especially relevant in today’s dialogue of cultures. The history of Orthodoxy’s development in Mukden and the changing dynamics of Orthodoxy’s spread in “South Manchuria” are also highlighted, explaining that the “accidental” presence of Japanese Orthodox priests in China in the early 20th century was no accident. Using the method of micro-historical research, the example of the biography of Sergius (Suzuki) traces the changes in the fate of “little people” occurring at a time of great historical events, it says about the plight of the Orthodox Church in China and generally in the Far East of the late 19th — early 20th centuries.

A growth of national ideologies, which became the ideological basis of liberation movements and the creation of national states, can be observed in the 19th century Ottoman Empire. Th is trend is also noticeable in Egypt, which enjoyed wide autonomy within the Empire. At that time, there were favorable conditions for the emergence of large communities of Orthodox Greeks, whose well-being grew rapidly thanks to entrepreneurship and trade. Despite the fact that these people came from diff erent places, by the beginning of the 20th century we can say that they had a common national identity. The article attempts to consider what were the tools for the formation of this identity and how did they act. For this purpose, various sources were analyzed: charters of community associations, memoirs, unpublished diplomatic documents, church journalism and press materials. As a result, it was possible to find out the role played in the formation of a single Greek identity by community organization, Greek consular authorities, schools, the Church, local newspapers and magazines.

The article presents the results of an analysis of the activities of 201 Russian universities based on a survey in the information and analytical system “Monitoring” of the Russian Ministry of Education and Science regarding the strategic objectives of the country’s national and youth policy: harmonization
of interethnic (interethnic) relations, prevention of extremism and preventionof conflicts on national and religious grounds, increasing the level of interethnic (interethnic) and interfaith harmony among young people. It has been revealed that in the vast majority of universities, work aimed at harmonizing interethnic relations among students, as well as improving the quality of their adaptation
processes to new living and learning conditions, is underway. In 64.7% of the universities surveyed there is an International Friendship Club (IFC) or a community with a diff erent name, positioning itself in its activities as an IFC. The main attention in the activities of the IFC is paid to students who arrived
from other countries and, therefore, to building an interethnic dialogue at an international level. The problems of interethnic relations among students that represent the native peoples of Russia are addressed much less frequently. The theme of interfaith interaction is practically relevant. The activities carried out are focused mainly on the tasks of ensuring cross-cultural communications, as well as assistance to foreign students. It is concluded that universities have strong support for working on the harmonization of interethnic relations already, while in the context of an aggravated geopolitical situation, student organizations need to increase attention to the task of increasing the level of harmony among native peoples of Russia and strengthening the unity of the Russian nation.

The changing nature of migration processes in the post-Soviet space, the sharp asynchrony of the demographic behavior of various ethnic groups and other modern factors are aggravating society’s attitude towards diaspora practices. The main motive for uniting the diaspora is ethnofavoritism. It
is possible to interpret both tribalistic and familistic preferences, characteristic of traditional societies, as manifestations of “extended egoism.” These preferences undermine the multi-level and extremely complex system of impersonal trust in a multicultural society and reduce the overall quality of its social capital. Today we are faced with an obvious contradiction in the issue of managing ethnocultural diversity: on the one hand, the diaspora model of behavior in a multicultural society is inevitable, on the other hand, government bodies, civil society institutions, and the media are not coping with the task of stopping the
influence of diaspora practices on increasing interethnic competition in the Russian society.

To understand the modern role of nonprofi t organizations in the system of interethnic relations, it is important to analyze the historical experi-ence of public participation in the formation of ethnic policies in Russia. The goal of this article is to identify the potential of civil society organizations in
the field of harmonization of interethnic relations, and to consider the possibilities and limitations of the potential of national-cultural autonomies based on reference to historical experience and its comparison with modern phenomena. To achieve research goals, the article uses a historical-genetic method that allows us to identify cause-and-eff ect relationships of historical processes and
phenomena, as well as classifi cation methods that allow to systematically analyze
the mechanisms of cross-sector partnership. Th e idea of national-cultural autonomy as a tool for maintaining and harmonious development of the cultural identity of “non-dominant” ethnic groups gained particular popularity in Austria-Hungary and Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. The revival of this concept in our time is due to the fact that NCA is a historically established and theoretically substantiated “classical” principle for implementing ethnocultural development that does not violate the political structure and territorial-administrative composition of multinational states. However, the national-cultural autonomies created in accordance with the 1996 law are heterogeneous
both in size and development potential. Due to this inconsistency, the possibilities of civil society in the ethnocultural and ethnopolitical sphere are realized not only in the form of creating national and cultural autonomies, but also using other organizational and legal forms. Th e nonprofi t sector is the
organizational and economic basis of civil society, and it is in this capacity that it reflects the diversity of public interests. Th e role of the nonprofi t sector is not limited to representing the interests of diverse groups, including national and religious groups, in the public political space. Nonprofi t organizations are called upon to solve specifi c problems of society, provide social assistance, prevent
crises and help resolve them. It is in this capacity that they are most useful as a tool for harmonizing interethnic relations. Civil society organizations, due to natural resource limitations, cannot eff ectively solve the problems of harmonizing interethnic relations without cooperation with the state and business. The issues of development of national culture and national heritage, social assistance
and support for representatives of various ethnic groups, public participation in the activities of government bodies on issues of interethnic relations become the responsibility of various civil structures involved in the system of intersectoral
social partnership.