However, it would not be true to say that in the AT group of scholars integration tendencies are dominating.

The point is that the integration strategy for AT group encounters the maximum constraints and tactical difficulties. The language problem, the problem of translation, turns up a problem of hermeneutics here, bringing forth a necessity to relate the conceptual system of Soviet psychology, conceptual system so complex and sophisticated, with the conceptual system of the mainstream.

Consider for example the difficulties in translation of a key scientific term of AT – "sub'ekt". Translation of this word as "subject" (unfortunately, it happens often) immediately renders a text meaningless because of the mismatch of semantic fields, because of the difference of the meaning attributed to the term in the texts of Russian scholars and meaning of the word "subject" in English texts. Sub'ekt means somebody who's activity is generated by his own needs, who is choosing and pursuing his own aims, serving his own purposes: a self-determined and self-actualizing agent. And in English "subject" means the opposite – it is something or somebody who is put under some pressure, exposed to some action, subjected to some impact… This difficulty of translation of the notion of "Sub'ekt" into English could probably account for the fact that AT approach caused more interest in Germany and in Scandinavia than in the English speaking countries.

A special hermeneutics is needed for the integration of AT texts into the mainstream. So, the tactics of the movement towards integration for AT trend should be discussed by itself, but the necessity of the strategy for integration seems obvious.

The question of the place and significance of Russian psychology in the international science is not limited to the formal parameters of evaluation of quality of scientists' work. This is a key point today for professional self-identification for Russian psychologists, who from the very beginning of their professional education are actively assimilating production of foreign science, while at the same time, the vast majority of them are able to speak and write only in Russian.

Let us specify that by "international science" we mean the mainstream of scientific knowledge, which was shaped in the West after the World War II, and which is an objective reality of the contemporary world, where psychological practices have become a mass profession with more or less universal standards, where people live, study and work, moving from country to country.

Meanwhile the "Russian psychology" can be understood in different ways. By "Russian psychology" we can mean the psychological theories generated and developed in Russia. At the same time we can mean by "Russian psychology" the contemporary professional community in Russia.

Russian professional community has grown in number thousand times in the 90's. Such rapid quantitative growth naturally was accompanied by decline in the quality of education (on average) and – on average – by change of preferences from complex fundamental theoretical concepts of Soviet science to Western theories, presented in an accessible form in translated textbooks and addressing the demands of psychological practice. For "Westerners" in the Russian professional community this time is a period of growth, accompanied by problems natural for developing countries.

At the same time, Russian psychology as one of the great schools of the 20th с is going through a dramatic crisis. Speaking about Russian psychology as scientific knowledge, the question of its place in the international science is, first, the question of the impact on the development of the world science of Russian theories that had been integrated into its context, like Vygotsky's and Pavlov's, and secondly, it is the question of the causes and consequences of other Russian theories remaining obscure for the international science, not integrated in the context of the mainstream.

The tendency towards a kind of "partial isolation" from the mainstream, showing itself in "counterglobalist" attitudes, emerging in recent years, withdrawal of participation in the English language mainstream, are dangerous for the AT trend. Can such a science exist in contemporary world outside of mainstream? For how long? Won't a "partial isolation" turn up an ivory tower, cut off from sources of livelihood, from the influx of new blood also from psychological practice and education in Russia?

The answer to the question of the "optimum integration", the optimal combination of national specific and global traits in Russian psychology, cannot be universal and overall, and it cannot be formal. In search of "the optimum integration" it is necessary to take into account theoretical and methodological orientations of the scientists, as the motives and constraints to integration can be substantially different. It is hardly reasonable to push those who develop Russian Orthodox Psychology to publish in international journals in the same way as those who follow Western traditions. I believe it would be a big mistake to evaluate publications in high-ranking Russian journals lower than international publications. And my main concern here is the necessity of all possible support to internationalization of the AT trend, which is a highly challenging task. I believe the classification presented here can be a useful tool in determining "the optimum integration" for different types of developments in contemporary Russian psychological science.

Concerning Interpretations of Activity Theory

The history of Russian psychology is an intensively developing field in international science (Cole, 1996; Dafermos, 2014, Engestrom et al, 1999; Graham, 1993; Janousek and Sirotkina, 2003; Joravsky 1989; Valsiner 2009; Van der Veer, 2007; Vassilieva, 2010; etc.). The most recognised branch of Russian psychology outside Russia is Activity Theory (AT). However, the general view of AT in international science is lacking in important aspects and areas necessary for a proper understanding. It is generally assumed that "In the early 1930s, Vygotsky's school of thought started to disintegrate. A new school, advocating what is now known as 'activity theory', emerged in that process of disintegration (van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991). According to activity theory, the emergence and development of mind is determined by