Abstract:

On February 9, 1918 the Ukrainian People’s Republic established in the tumultuous months following the February Revolution, signed a peace treaty with the Central Powers in Brest-Litovsk. Shortly thereafter, the parties exchanged diplomatic missions. Mykola Levits’kyi, a lawyer and member of the Ukrainian delegation in Brest-Litovsk assumed the position. His tenure did not last long though, as three other representatives succeeded him one after within three and a half years. This instability mirrored volatile political situation in Ukraine which had to deal with occupation by the Central Powers, the short-lived Hetmanate and the advance of the Red Army. The Ottoman Empire was experiencing massive political turmoil as well. Unofficial, after the Mudros Armistice of 1918, and then official occupation of Istanbul by the Entente powers proclaimed in March 1920 meant that the Ottoman government had to reconcile their (geo)political aspirations with the occupiers.

Based on the sources from the Ottoman, Russian, British and French archives and published materials on the diplomacy of the Ukrainian People’s Republic, this paper explores the Ukrainian and Ottoman projects of political and economic future for the postwar Black Sea region. Both of them to varying degrees aimed at leaving Russia under whichever rule out of the scheme. The Ukrainian diplomats saw the Black Sea trade as a crucial factor in sustaining the war effort against the Bolsheviks and, more importantly, dreamed of constructing a broader alliance to deny the Russia access to the Black Sea. Even though, some barter trade of fuels from the Ottomans in exchange of Ukrainian grain actually did take place, more ambitious longer-term plans did not materialize, primarily because the Entente occupation regime in Istanbul was betting on the prospect of unified Russia under the Whites. This paper contributes to decentering the historiography and mass culture portrayal of the Russian-Ottoman encounter which for the period in question has been overly preoccupied with the Whites’ exodus to Istanbul, and contributes to the growing body of literature that looks into the collapse of the Romanov and Ottoman empires from the perspective of non-dominant groups and within a broader international context.

Abstract:

Military conflicts in world, the "hybrid war" growth are serious challenges to the international system today.

In this regard, the Cold War history of the last century is attracting more attention of world’s scientific community. Communities, in favor of drawing lessons from that war, strengthen activities of the Cold War archives and centers, and finance researches projects.

Kazakhstan, which was a part of the Soviet military and industrial complex (MIC) during the Cold War does not have its historiography on the problem. The history of the USSR MIC was considered as one of the top secrets in the historical research. Only in the late 1980s-early 1990s, due to the opening of previously classified archival funds, and publishing soviet commanders memoirs, outcomes in Health studies, works of ecologists, political scientists, historical testimonies and some collections of documents it became possible the understanding its impact on the sociocultural development of the regions and residents.

Amongst many aspects of the problem we can note the following:

- were these giant lands really ownerless, unsuitable for grazing livestock and human habitation, as numerous commissions and representatives of the central authorities confirmed then?

- how differed placement, legal, domestic and material situation of the special settlers in the numbered defence enterprises from that of the "Labour Army workforce" engaged in the construction works of the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs and forced-labor camps;

- sociocultural influence of military-industrial complex facilities located on the territory of the republic on the daily life of the regions and local residents of Kazakhstan.

- the fate of the evacuated local population near the test sites, who became hostage to the authoritarian policies of the Soviet state;