The article analyzes a number of problems posed in the monograph by Professor A.I. Filyushkin "Inventing the First War of Russia and Europe" devoted to the perception of the Livonian and other wars by contemporaries and descendants. One of these problems - namely, the reasons for long-standing aspiration of Russians to the Baltic - attracted the attention of Professor P.A. Krotov, and he published a review of this work. His review criticizes the main position of the author of the book, according to which the Moscovite rulers moved in this direction seeking to expand and protect their possessions, and not having the aim of developing merchant shipping, as is commonly believed. Defending the traditional point of view, P.A. Krotov bases his evidence on the example of Ivangorod, which, in his opinion, became the first Baltic seaport of Muscovy and the forerunner of St. Petersburg. The weakness of the scholar's position lies in its speculative nature. Realizing the importance of real evidence to prove the functioning of Ivangorod as a commercial seaport, P.A. Krotov does not point out a single one, which is why his entire review loses its academic validity. In addition, focusing on this fictitious drawback of the book, the critic overlooks its other, quite real flaws. Therefore, the second part of this article is entirely devoted to their identification. By and large, the article aims at correcting the shortcomings that interfere with the holistic perception of the innovative concept of A.I. Filyushkin, which is objectively worthy of attention.
