***** AIM: The aim of this study is to further explore the content of Soviet nostalgia in recent writings of selected current Russian authors in the impertsy current, i.e. the empire restoring current, with emphasis on finding which aspects of the Soviet Union these authors harbor nostalgia for. ***** DELIMITATIONS: Aleksandr Dugin and Aleksandr Prohanov are selected as the authors to be studied, on the basis of their centrality in the impertsy current. Regarding selection of texts to analyze, it’s chosen to examine 516 of their articles published on specified web sites in 2014 and 2015 and four relevant books published in 2014, 2012, 2010 and 2004. ***** NOSTALGIA: Next follow discussions of the concepts of nostalgia in general, political nostalgia in particular and Soviet nostalgia in special. It’s also discussed how these concepts relate to the task of analyzing the selected impertsy texts with respect to Soviet nostalgia. More specifically, when it comes to nostalgia in general, a typology based on the categories of restorative and reflective nostalgias is introduced. An overview of how Soviet nostalgia has developed historically in post-Soviet Russia is also given. ***** INDICATORS OF SOVIET NOSTALGIA: Nineteen indicators of Soviet nostalgiaare extracted from the scholarly secondary literature on nostalgia in general, political nostalgia and Soviet nostalgia in particular. The purpose of the indicators is to function as a tool for detecting elements of Soviet nostalgia in the upcoming analysis of the selected impertsy texts. ***** NATIONALISM: Next the concept of nationalism in general is discussed, a typology of contemporary Russian nationalism is presented, and the contemporary impertsy current is positioned in the contemporary ideological landscape of Russian nationalism. A presentation of the development and the ideology of the «red-brown» predecessor of the contemporary impertsy current is also provided, as well the ideology of the contemporary impertsy current. Also provided are biographies of Dugin and Prohanov, as well as earlier research on Dugin’s and Prohanov’s ideologies in general and on Soviet nostalgia-related aspects of these ideologies in particular. ***** ANALYSIS: Then follows the very analysis of the selected Dugin and Prohanov texts with respect to Soviet nostalgia. The same two approaches are used for all texts in the analysis: 1) When one or more of the nineteen indicators of Soviet nostalgia (produced earlier in the study) are observed in a given text, a context specific evaluation is made regarding whether the observation should be considered as a finding of Soviet nostalgia or not. 2) Other background knowledge about Soviet nostalgia and the impertsy ideology is also taken into account during the examination and analysis. This in order to detect instances of Soviet nostalgia in the given text which wouldn’t had been detected with the use of the indicators of Soviet nostalgia alone. ***** RESULTS FOR DUGIN: It was found that Dugin is nostalgic for the feeling of «familiarity» (his term) with both the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, the (perceived) innocence of both the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire, tradition in itself and his three components of tradition – religion, hierarchy and collective identity, what he sees as some of the «real» effects of Marxism put into practice in the Soviet Union (i.e. the creation of nationalist (sic!) societies with national cultures, unique identities and strong traditions), Communism’s social solidarity and social justice aspects, the influence (ideological and real political power) over territories in the former USSR and over other territories in Eastern Europe, the Russians’ role as the «great people» (his term) relative to other and «smaller peoples» (his term), the (perceived) friendship between the peoples, the state’s lost subjectness and independence, the ideological and political leadership over a global alternative to the Western one, the Russians’ role as «the core» of a union (in both the USSR and the Russian Empire) of different peoples and cultures, the Russians’ role as the integrating force in such a union, and for having control over strategic sectors in the economy of such a union. In general, Dugin seldom expresses nostalgia for the USSR specifically. On the contrary, in most cases he shows nostalgia for features which the Russian Empire and the USSR had in common as he sees them, i.e. for features which in his view tie these two periods together, i.e. for Great Russia. However, in a smaller number of cases, he shows nostalgia which is a mix between nostalgia for the USSR and for Great Russia. No instances of nostalgia for features of the Russian Empire exclusively were observed, however. That is, many instances of nostalgia for features common to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union were detected, but no instances of nostalgia for features of the Russian Empire that weren’t also considered to be features of the Soviet Union. Among Dugin’s nostalgias, his most intense ones seem to be, as a main rule, those for features which the Russian Empire period and the Soviet period had in common. His other nostalgias seem to be less intense and more ambivalent regarding to which degree they are directed towards Great Russia in general or the Soviet Union in particular. Thus, when it comes to the relative intensities of Dugin’s nostalgias, in most cases it seems to be a correlation between the intensity of nostalgia and the object of nostalgia’s perceived degree of continuity in time – from the Russian Empire period to the Soviet period: High continuity usually goes together with high intensity, while low continuity usually goes together with low intensity. ***** RESULTS FOR PROHANOV: Prohanov was found to be a nostalgist for the Soviet victory in the WWII, the heroes of the WWII, weapons from the WWII, Stalin, the Stalinist type of Soviet culture, the whole country in the whole Soviet period, the Red Army, the Soviet industry, the Soviet people, the unification of different peoples in the struggle for a common goal in the Soviet period, the Russian people’s function as the organizing force in this struggle, (Stalin as) the strong leader who organized different peoples towards this goal, «the empire» in general, the Soviet civilization, the Soviet state, the «basis» (his term) of the Soviet state, the ideological postulates of the Soviet state, the «constants» (his term) which the Soviet ideology rested on, the Soviet values, the Soviet symbols, the Soviet leaders, the USSR as a great power in general, the USSR’s geopolitical influence in the world (i.e. the USSR’s status as a world power), the bipolar system of balance of geopolitical influence from the Soviet period, the USSR’s position as a pole in this system, the USSR’s geopolitical power over territories which were integral parts of the USSR/the Russian Empire and over other Eastern European countries, the Communist ideal itself, Communism’s strategic goals, Communism’s collective behavior, Communism’s idea of the common future of the peoples, the view from the Soviet period that the US/NATO/the West are the enemies, the unity of the «red» (his term) worldview from the Soviet period and the «white» (his term) worldview from the Russian Empire period. In general, Prohanov shows much more emotional engagement for the Soviet period than for the Russian Empire period. That is, in most cases he shows first and foremost Soviet nostalgia, and only to a lesser degree Russian Empire nostalgia. However, in a smaller number of cases, he primarily shows nostalgia for features which he perceives as being common to the Russian Empire and Soviet history, so in those cases he shows above all nostalgia for features of Great Russia. However, no instances of nostalgia for features of the Russian Empire exclusively were observed. That is, it was detected some instances of nostalgia for features common to the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, but no instances of nostalgia for features of the Russian Empire which weren’t also considered to be features of the Soviet Union. Prohanov’s nostalgias for objects closely associated (in time and/or subject) with the Soviet victory in the WWII and/or with Stalin usually have the highest intensities, while nostalgias for objects more loosely connected to Stalin and/or the victory usually have a lower intensity. Consequently, for most of Prohanov’s nostalgias, it seems to be a positive correlation between the intensity of the nostalgia and the associative proximity to Stalin and/or to the victory in the WWII: High associative proximity usually goes together with high intensity, while low associative proximity usually goes together with low intensity.