Gaining international recognition for the White Movement was the most important foreign policy task of Russian non-Bolshevik diplomacy. This article traces the evolving discourse of career diplomats, considering this issue at different stages of the Russian Civil War. It shows their deep patriotism, professionalism, and persistency in carrying out the task. However, when the Allies did not share the slogans of the White Movement, the possibility of finding common ground were very limited. At the first stage (summer–autumn 1918), diplomats were cautious about the claims for recognition of numerous Russian non-Bolshevik governments. During the second stage (1918–1919), the issue of recognition played a unique role – the participation of Russian representatives in the peace conference, and therefore in determining the configuration of the post-war world, depended on its success. The resolve of the diplomats to defend Russia’s national interests did not suit foreign powers, who did not share the White Movement’s slogan about restoring a united and indivisible Russia, its power, and its position in the world. At the third stage (spring–summer 1920), diplomats, losing hope that the White Movement would emerge victorious in the Civil War, withdrew from direct involvement in seeking international recognition for the White Movement. However, they provided all possible technical support to the Head of the Department of External Relations of the Wrangel Government, Peter B. Struve, who assumed this mission. France’s recognition of the Sevastopol authorities in the summer of 1920 was limited, did not involve active military assistance, and caused justified scepticism in diplomatic circles.

This paper examines the development of trade in Crimea and Novorossiya following their incorporation into Russia. In the early 19th century, the grain trade in these new regions had yet to gain momentum due to their limited development. However, the ports of Feodosia, Taganrog, and Odessa regularly received ships from Constantinople and the Greek islands, while the port of Sevastopol primarily served military purposes. In 1821, under the decree of Alexander I, a port was established in Kerch to serve as an outpost at the entrance to the Sea of Azov and establish trade ties with the mountain peoples along the Caucasus coast of the Black Sea. To this end, the Russian government established a Circassian and Abaza Trade Administration to manage merchant shipping to the Caucasus coast and oversee trading at barter markets in Kerch and Bugaz. Relations with the highland communities proved difficult, as they frequently captured Russian ship crews and demanded ransoms. Even after the Treaty of Adrianople in 1829, when these territories became part of the Russian Empire, the local populations resisted submission to the new government, just as they had previously resisted the authority of the Turkish Sultan.

The 16th–first half of the 17th century was a vital period for the emergence of international law, sovereignty, and the modern international system. European sovereigns also started considering at that time what today would be termed humanitarian issues in foreign policy. They relied in this mostly on the contemporary theological thought and the nascent “Law of Nations,” which fostered a discourse opposing the extremes of government (tyranny). The article analyzes one of the most vivid examples of such humanitarian foreign policy – foreign intervention by the Lord Protector of the English Republic, Oliver Cromwell, in the Duchy of Savoy in 1655 to protect the Waldensian Protestants, who suffered persecution there. Contrary to the modern historiography, the article argues that Cromwell did not abandon all other state considerations in questioning the conclusion of the Anglo-French alliance against Spain to stop the repression against the Waldensians. Cromwell’s humanitarian policy was carried out in line with Realpolitik. Aware of the complicated domestic political situation in France and of the goals of French foreign policy, he was sure that Prime Minister Cardinal Mazarin was unlikely to give up the alliance with London in response to the London’s support of the Protestant subjects of the Duke of Savoy. Cromwellian Foreign Policy in Savoy-Piedmont demonstrates one of the most significant cases of implementing the humanitarian principles in international relations. At the same time, Oliver Cromwell did not infringe upon the interests of his own country. On the contrary, despite the financial costs of maintaining special embassies and a fleet in the Mediterranean and creating the Waldensian Relief Fund, the support of the persecuted in Piedmont demonstrated the strength and authority of the English state.

Detente in Soviet–American relations throughout the 1970s was a complex and multifaceted process. The interaction of the two states in foreign trade, technology transfer and scientific exchanges was an important part of it. On the one hand, according to some detente ideologists, a critical mass of commercial ties along with scientific and technological projects established in accordance with the tenets of equality and mutual benefit could have created conditions for overcoming the Cold War and maintaining peaceful coexistence in the foreseeable future. At the same time, it was in the sphere of foreign trade that sharp disagreements first manifested themselves, indicating a clear-cut rift between the external political goals of the superpowers and the ability of their internal legislative systems to address these challenges. This article is devoted to reviewing the processes of transforming U.S. foreign trade legislation during the detente period. It aims to insert this track into the pattern of forming Washington’s course towards the Soviet state from the late 1960s to 1979. The research draws on the documents of both chambers of Congress, revealing the content of the debate on the adoption of export regulation laws and reflecting the views on this issue that existed at that time. The digital documents of the United States Department of State and presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter are used to reflect their attitude vis-a-vis trade matters. It is shown how the executive and legislative branches interacted when updating the regulatory framework of foreign trade. The conclusion holds that while maintaining the general liberal vector in drafting foreign trade laws, they have always contained control standards for the export of high-tech products to socialist countries, aimed at curbing scientific and technological progress in the USSR. As a result, the economic, scientific and technical foundation of detente in Soviet–American relations remained feeble and proved inadequate for preventing the confrontational recession in the early 1980s.

This article studies the evolution of the United States’ post-colonial Hong Kong (HK) policy from liberalism to realism. The author considers factors influencing this policy and differences between the White House/ Department of State and Congress in their assessment of and reaction to developments in HK. In 1992, Congress passed the United States–Hong Kong Policy Act, which treated HK as a non-sovereign entity distinct from China, made the United States a quasi-guarantor of HK’s autonomy and provided a framework for the advancement of grand liberal strategy of the United States towards HK in pursuit of the promotion of Western-style democracy in this special administrative region of China. During the first 17 years following HK’s handover to China, the U.S. government paid little attention to the region, avoiding public criticism of the Chinese authorities over the slow pace of territory’s democratization, while some prominent anti-China hawks in Congress were unrestrained in such criticism. The 2014 protests in HK did not alter the U.S. government’s cautious approach to HK. The Obama administration probably hoped for gradual democratic reforms in HK. Washington’s policy towards HK made a dramatic turn in 2018 on the back of rapidly deteriorating U.S.–China relations after Donald Trump came to power. The Trump administration was disillusioned with the liberal agenda and was very eager to actively play the HK card against Beijing. The large-scale protests/riots in HK in 2019 challenging China’s sovereignty over the territory were publicly supported, and in fact encouraged by top officials in the Trump administration and prominent Congressmen. After Beijing imposed the National Security Law (NSL) on HK in June 2020, the anti-government movement was squashed. This prompted Trump to strip HK of certain privileges under the HK Policy Act. The NSL caused Washington to lose many of its allies in HK, its influence in the territory diminished and its ability to promote American democracy agenda was hampered. NSL signifies a final transition from American liberal strategy to realism vis-a-vis HK, which is now fully covered by the U.S. policy to contain China. Washington will likely reduce its economic exposure to HK and use deep-seated anti-Beijing attitudes of some Hongkongers to undermine stability of this vulnerable territory of China.