The story behind the last coronation of Imperial Russia

In 1918, the Soviet revolutionary government repudiated the Tsarist regime's sovereign debt, triggering one of the biggest sovereign defaults ever. Yet the price of Russian bonds remained high for years. Combing French archival records, Kim Oosterlinck shows that, far from irrational, investors had legitimate reasons to hope for repayment. Soviet debt recognition, a change in government, a bailout by the French government, or French banks, or a seceding country would have guaranteed at least a partial reimbursement. As Greece and other European countries raise the possibility of sovereign default, Oosterlinck's superbly researched study is more urgent than ever.

In 2014, Russia illegally annexed Crimea, bolstered a separatist conflict in the Donbas region, and attacked Ukraine with its regular army and special forces. In each instance of Russian aggression, the U.S. response has often been criticized as inadequate, insufficient, or hesitant. The Moscow Factor: U.S. Policy toward Sovereign Ukraine and the Kremlin is a unique study that examines four key Ukraine-related policy decisions across two Republican and two Democratic U.S. administrations. Eugene M. Fishel asks whether, how, and under what circumstances Washington has considered Ukraine’s status as a sovereign nation in its decision-making regarding relations with Moscow. This study situates the stance of the United States toward Ukraine in the broader context of international relations. It fills an important lacuna in existing scholarship and policy discourse by focusing on the complex trilateral—rather than simply bilateral—dynamics between the United States, Ukraine, and Russia from 1991 to 2016. This book brings together for the first time documentary evidence and declassified materials dealing with policy deliberation, retrospective articles authored by former policymakers, and formal memoirs by erstwhile senior officials. The study is also supplemented by open-ended interviews with former and returning officials.

Russian monarchs have long been regarded as majestic and despotic, ruling over mute and servile subjects in a vast empire isolated from the rest of the European continent. Challenging this view, Cynthia H. Whittaker uncovers a political dialogue about the nature and limitations of monarchy in eighteenth-century Russia--an interchange that took place between rulers and writers under the influence of western and central European Enlightenment thinking. Roughly 250 authors participated in this public discourse on monarchical power, producing more than 500 publications and official pronouncements on monarchy. Beginning with Peter the Great, Russian rulers shifted the foundation for legitimacy from its religious underpinnings to a secular basis, as notions of a monarch's duty to reform began to replace divine right as the justification for absolute power. During the recurring crises of succession in the eighteenth century, monarchs sought further legitimacy and celebrated their "election" by the "people" (that is, key members of the elite). Writers, in turn, engaged rulers in public discussion via the printed word as they examined monarchical legitimacy and debated its feasibility with sophisticated arguments drawn from the arsenal of classical and current European ideas. Intended for the eyes of both the sovereign and the educated elite, publications in nearly every genre contained didactic passages explaining proper conduct for a monarch. Writers also warned of the dire consequences awaiting the ruler who did not abide by these accepted standards of behavior; and in the course of the century, three monarchs lost the throne. Russian Monarchy shows how this eighteenth-century dialogue between elites and their monarchs revolutionized the concept of rule and gave writers a role in shaping their political environment.