The Power of the Weak Opponent: The Diplomacy of Alexander I in Tilsit

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 209-223
Author(s):  
Claus Scharf

Not only in Soviet patriotic historiography the conduct of war and the foreign policy of Alexander i were regarded as heroic only from the battle of Borodino onward. The earlier years of the Napoleonic Era and the retreat of Russian armies during the summer of 1812 appeared in a negative light. Revisionist research in Russia and abroad offers another interpretation. When the French army in 1807 after some victorious battles reached the Russian border Alexander maintained a much better bargaining position in talks with Napoleon than disappointed critics among the Russian elite recognized. The emperor of the French was not prepared to continue the war on Russian soil and did not make territorial demands on Russia. Napoleon wanted not only an armistice and peace, but also an alliance with Russia against Britain. Thus Alexander, using the power of the weak opponent, succeeded in winning time. Russia was able not only to maintain her strategic goals against the Ottoman Empire in the Rumanian principalities and in the Black Sea, but also to defend the political existence of Prussia as a possible Russian ally in a future coalition with Austria against Napoleon, which meant a sacrifice of Polish interests by Russia.

Author(s):  
F. Turanly

Making studies of written sources relating to the diplomatic activities of Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky, and particularly the Turkish-Ottoman written documents (manuscripts), is required to obtain new data, so as to confirm the fact of the interstate relations of the Ukrainian Cossack State with the Ottoman Empire to have been rising. Moreover, an important meaning of the Black-Sea vector of the foreign policy of the said Hetman was accounted forf by the needs for the Ukrainian people to get sure of a support in its liberation struggle against its enemies. There have been analysed the causes of strengthening the role of the above said trend in the foreign political activities of B. Khmelnytsky. By the way, this problem in due time was paid attention to in academic studies of such famous Ukrainian historians, as Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Omelian Pritsak and Yaroslav Dashkevych, who concentrated mainly in studying separate aspect of the diplomatic activities of the Cossack-Hetmanic Ukraine in regard of the Crimean Khanate and Higher Porte in the middle of the 17th century. For a more detailed consideration of the problem touched in the given study there are also of importance the data, we have obtained from the original chronical manuscript “An order-letter from the Turkish Sultan Mehmed IV to the Cossack Hetman B. Khmelnytsky” that is kept in Kamyanets-Podilsky State-owned Ukraine’s Historical Museum-Archive, and which was firstly involved in an academic circulation. In this letter the Hetman speaks of his devoted friendship with the Sultan and of his loyal servicing to the latter one.


Author(s):  
Alexandr S. Levchenkov ◽  

The article analyzes the influence of the concepts of the Intermarium and the Baltic-Black Sea Arc on the formation of Ukraine’s foreign policy in 1990 – early 2000. The use of these concepts in American, European and Ukrainian geopolitical thought, which historically included the idea of opposing Russian influence in the region, contributed to the increase in tension and was aimed at further disintegration of the Western flank of the post-Soviet space. The article proves that the design of the Euro-Atlantic vector of Ukraine’s foreign policy was already active under the first two Ukrainian presidents – Leonid Kravchuk (1991–1994) and Leonid Kuchma (1994–2005). One of the concrete attempts to implement the idea of forming a common political, economic, transport and logistics space of the Black Sea-Caspian region with a promising expansion of the cooperation zone to the whole of Eastern Europe and the Eastern Baltic during the presidency of Leonid Kuchma was the foundation and launch of a new regional organization, Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, better known as GUAM (composed by the initial letters of names of member states – Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova; when Uzbekistan was also a member of Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, the name of the organization was GUUAM), which is an alternative to Eurasian projects with the participation of Russia.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-61
Author(s):  
MOHAMMAD SALMASIZADEH ◽  

The conflict between the Russian and Turkish in 1877-1878, though formed on the pretext of Russia's support for Christian nations under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, was actually part of the great scheme that European governments had begun to break up the Ottoman Empire and resolve the Eastern Question. The goals of these powers for world domination, that would sometimes results in wars among themselves, were mainly focused on expanding the territorial realm and winning economic gains. These goals were followed under the disguise of gaining freedom for Christians and securing independence for non-Turkish nations. The scientific and technological impairment of the Ottoman Empire compared to the European countries, accompanied by internal rivalries and frequent overthrow of the rulers, were some of the main weaknesses of the Ottoman state causing their demise. In the meantime, Russia was in pursue of its policy of territorial expansion and seeking access to warm waters. Russia's main objective was to obtain access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. Having control over the Straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles that were under the rule of the Ottoman Empire would have connected Russia to the center of world trade in the Mediterranean and would have freed Russia from its land blockages and frozen ports. The causality, the start, and the ramifications of these wars have been reflected in the Iranian historiography of that era. Mohammad Hassan Khan Etemad al-Saltanah, a great historian of the Nasereddin Shah Qajar Age (1848-1898), using the reports of Iranian officials in Russia and the Ottoman Empire, and two books of Montazame Nasseri and Merat al-Boldan that were translations of selected articles from the French and Ottoman newspapers have recorded this important historical event. The reasons for Iranian attention to this historical event forms part of the modern and global historiography of Iran, in which attention to the developments in the Ottoman Empire plays an important role in Iran's acquaintance with modern civilization.


Belleten ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 64 (241) ◽  
pp. 949-968
Author(s):  
Yücel Güçlü

The basic foreign policy of Turkey under Atatürk was one of friendship with all its neighbours and non-involvement in Great Power politics. Atatürk was essentially a realist. He repudiated adventurism and expansionism. What Turkey wanted was to accomplish its internal reconstruction in peace. The major stance of Atatürk's diplomacy was not only pacific, but was also clearly respectful of law. Since the Republic of Turkey came into existence, the main background of Turkish foreign policy had been friendship with the Soviets. Good relations with Russia guaranteed Turkey's continued security on its northeastern frontier and in the Black Sea. Following the Italian conquest of Ethiopia and basically on account of this fact a Turco-British rapprochement started to take shape since 1935. Close co-operation between Turkey and Britain during the Montreux Straits Conference further accelerated the pace. Another aspect of Turkish foreign policy was the Balkan Entente of 1934 to guard against aggression in the region. Turkey's part in the Saadabad Pact of 1937 had also been active and enthusiastic. Regaining of Turkish sovereignty over the Straits at the Montreux Conference and winning back of the district of Hatay were among the most important successes of the Turkish diplomacy under Atatürk's auspices.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 79-84
Author(s):  
OLEG V. Donetsk National University ◽  

Basing on a constructivist approach to international relations and foreign policy, the author has defined the conceptual content of the script, in which the experts of the Ukrainian National Institute for Strategic Studies imagine Crimea and the Black Sea region. The study was carried out on the basis of the materials of the Institute's analytical reports to the messages of the President to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine in 2014-2018. It was found that the ideas about Crimea contained in them are extremely mythologized: in the political picture of the world of the Institute's experts, the peninsula is considered as a “Russian bridgehead”, a source of “military threat" and an "occupied territory". Ukrainian experts are convinced that the motives of Russia's foreign and defense policy in the Black Sea direction are allegedly due to its desire for "expansion", "imperial policy" and the desire to "restore the Soviet Union." They perceive the reunification of Crimea with Russia as an event that led to a cardinal transformation of the geopolitical space of the Black Sea region that contradicts Ukrainian national interests. At the same time, on rational grounds, the institute is actively searching for conceptual approaches to organizing a new regional security system and creating a long-term, broad and durable alliance of anti-Russian forces, which could act as a NATO parallel structure in the Black Sea region in the future. Moreover, Ukrainian experts do not have any own geopolitical project or idea on this. They are considering several options for regional coalitions at once, paying special attention to the Polish concept of "Intermarium", which consists in creating a block of Baltic-Black Sea states.


2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (2 (4)) ◽  
pp. 162-173
Author(s):  
Lusine Sahakyan

The article examines the language used by the present-day generation of the people of Islamized Hamshenians of Armenian origin as a memory and expression of their identity. As a result of the merging linguistic policy of the Ottoman Empire the vast majority of the generations of the Hamshen Armenians who were forced to convert to Muslim have become Turkish speaking in the course of time. Only the Hamshen Armenians in the state of Ardvin still preserve the dialect of Hamshen. The linguistic evidence presented in the article indicates that the dialect of the Hamshen Armenians in the state of Khopa is still viable today and that they keep speaking, telling stories and singing songs in that language. These written facts are valuable materials for Armenian philology and lexicology. These examples can help discover phonetic, grammatical and lexical similarities, differences between the Islamized Hamshen Armenians and Christian Hamshenians living on the northern coasts of the Black Sea.


Author(s):  
Vodotyka S. ◽  
Robak I.

The article is devoted to reviewing the book by the well-known Turkish historian İlber Ortaylı "Ottomans on Three Continents". The authors consistently analyze the main postulates of the work in the history of Ottoman possessions in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region, focusing on the role of the Ottoman Empire in the interaction of Black Sea civilizations in the late Middle Ages and early modern times.The authors prove that the history of the Ottoman Empire is essential for understanding the history of Ukraine. Ottoman influences significantly impacted the history of the Ukrainian people and other indigenous peoples of Ukraine – Crimean Tatars, Karaites and Krymchaks, Crimean Greeks.The authors agree with the thesis of the Turkish researcher about the significant and sometimes decisive influence of the Ottomans on the situation in the Black Sea region in the XV–XVIII centuries. Furthermore, the authors express their views on certain statements of the book. In particular, İlber Ortaylı proves that the Ottoman Empire was a "state of the Middle Eastern Islamic type". Its presence in the Black Sea resulted in the interaction of Islamic Mediterranean civilization with Eastern European Orthodoxy and Ukraine were at the centre of this interaction. However, the authors cannot agree with the historian's statement about the primary basis of the empire – the system of the state, especially military, slavery (devshirme). It allowed to creation of a vast empire, The Sublime or Ottoman Porte. However, slavery could not create social mechanisms of progress. The civilizational basis of the Ottoman Empire was its steppe, Turkic-steppe, essence.In the Ottoman Empire, Western modernization borrowings were superficial, served utilitarian-pragmatic purposes, and did not change the foundations of civilization. Such selectable reforms were the reason why the Omans lost their possessions in the Crimea and the Northern Black Sea region to the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century. Significantly, both empires claim the imperial, not civilizational, heritage of the Roman Empire. The intelligence emphasizes that these claims are not sufficiently substantiated.Key words: İlber Ortaylı, Ottoman Empire, heritage, history of Ukraine, Northern Black Sea Coast, Crimea. Стаття присвячена огляду-рецензії книги відомого турецького історика Ільбера Ортайли «Османи на трьох континентах». Автори послідовно проаналізували основні постулати праці в координатах історії османських володінь в Криму і Північному Причорномор’ї, приділивши головну увагу ролі Османської імперії у взаємодії цивілізацій Чорномор’я у періоди пізнього середньовіччя і раннього модерного часу.Доведено, що історія Османської імперії має важливе значення для розуміння історії України. Османські впливи відіграли значну роль в історії українського народу та інших корінних народів України – кримських татар, караїмів і кримчаків, кримських греків.Автори погоджуються з тезою турецького дослідника про значний, а часом визначальний, вплив Османів на ситуацію у Чорномор’ї у ХV–ХVІІІ ст. та висловлюють свої міркування щодо окремих положень праці. Зокрема, І. Ортайли кваліфіковано доводить, що Османська імперія була «державою близькосхідно-ісламського типу» і її присутність у Чорномор’ї мала наслідком взаємодію ісламської середземноморської цивілізації зі східноєвропейською православною, причому Україна знаходилась у центрі цієї взаємодії. Однак, не можна погодитись з твердженням історика щодо головної основи імперії – системи державного, передусім військового, рабства (девшірме). Вона дозволило створити величезну імперію, Сяючу Порту, але рабство не може створити суспільних механізмів поступу. Цивілізаційною основою Османської імперії стала її степова, тюрксько-степова, сутність. В Османській імперії західні модернізаційні запозичення були поверховими, служили утилітарно-прагматичним цілям і не змінювали цивілізаційних основ. Власне це і стало основною причиною того, що у ХVІІІ ст. Омани втратили свої володіння в Криму і Північному Причорномор’ї, які дістались Російській імперії. Показово, що обидві імперії висувають претензії на імперську, а не цивілізаційну, спадщину Римської імперії. У розвідці наголошується, що ці претензії не є достатньо обґрунтованими. Ключові слова: І. Ортайли, Османська імперія, спадщина, історія України, Північне Причорномор’я, Крим.


2019 ◽  
pp. 24-58
Author(s):  
Peter McMurray

McMurray’s chapter argues that law is a profoundly sonic medium, acting in, through, against, and modeled on sound—and more particularly, voice. Legal and cultural reforms in Islamicate societies in the Black Sea region during and around the time of the Crimean War illustrate these dynamics especially well. The first part of the chapter compares the legal reforms of the Caucasian Imamate (in North Daghestan and Chechnya) and the Ottoman Empire, showing how sound played a central role in negotiating new meanings of Islamic shari‘a law within those societies. Law thus becomes a critical archive for histories of sound, vocality, and listening. The latter part then reflects on the ontologies of law as a medium, considering both its sonic qualities—a recurring motif in both Anglo-American and Islamic jurisprudence—and its relation to the telegraph in particular, as a communications technology that simultaneously facilitated and challenged extant legal regimes.


2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 466-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lerna K. Yanık

This article traces the emergence of references to the Ottoman Empire in the discourse and practice of Turkish foreign policy since the late 1940s. It argues that present-day emphasis on the Ottoman Empire and its legacy in Turkey has not happened in a vacuum, but rather has been a gradual process that has taken place over decades, helping to justify Turkey’s foreign policy. The article also shows that politicians from different sections of the political spectrum were crucial in reclaiming the Ottoman past in foreign policy. The consequences of this reclamation have been twofold. First, foreign policy, both in terms of practice and discourse, has become yet another venue, among many, for the continuous framing and reframing of Turkey’s past, paving the way for further Ottomanisation of the Turkish identity. Second, this Ottomanisation, or reclaiming of aspects that characterised the Ottoman Empire, has helped Turkey’s political actors justify and legitimise Turkey’s policies not only externally but, at times, also internally – as was the case in the 1990s, when some of these political actors tried to deal with Kurdish separatism by using the legacy of the Ottoman Empire.



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document