<i>A Natural Community of Interests and Sympathies</i>: Russia and America in the 19<sup>th</sup> Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This brief review of the first century of Russian-American relations seeks to explain why the profound conflict between the ideological foundations of the two states — an autocratic empire and a democratic republic — did not hamper the relations between them for a long time. Focusing on such events as the American War of Independence, Napoleonic Wars, the Crimean War, and the American Civil War, the study, informed by neoclassical realism and philosophy of culture, discusses the logic of political and sociocultural interactions between the two states over a period shaped by great historical upheavals and social transformations. Autocratic Russia despite its ideological basis welcomed the birth of the American republic, helped it to survive, grow, overcome its internal divisions, and rise to a world power status. This seeming paradox is explained primarily by the historical-specific configuration of the national interests of Russia and the USA. The geographical distance between the two countries precluded geopolitical conflicts between them, while Russia’s role in the rivalries between the great powers of Europe corresponded to the geopolitical interests of the USA. Unlike West European powers, Russia did not object to the US drive for hegemony on the American continent, and neither did the US obstruct Russia’s territorial expansion in Eurasia. Geopolitical cooperation was reinforced by the mutual interest in trade. The congruence between the two countries' national interests was discovered during the American War of Independence and continued to exist until the early 20th century. The ruling elites on both sides kept the inherent ideological conflict between Russia and America from undermining the two nations’ cooperation. In times of liberal reforms in Russia, regarded in the US as proof of the universality of American ideas, the ideological conflict seemed to wane, but Russian- American cooperation continued even under more repressive Russian regimes. The situation changed when a combination of international and domestic factors caused frictions between their national interests and spurred their ideological conflict. The two countries’ expansionist drives in the North Pacific region made them rivals in the struggle for regional influence. Meanwhile, turbulent changes in American society in the late 19th – early 20th centuries generated an intensive reaffirmation of the American national creed. The new ideologization of America targeted Russian crisis-stricken tsarism as a system opposed to democratic values. American public opinion shifted from friendship with Russian tsars to advocacy of Russian freedom. This case study contributes insights into the historical evolution of Russian-American relations and the general problem of the role of ideology in international relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".