From Rise to Fall: On the Foreign Policy of Nicholas I

10
From Rise to Fall: On the Foreign Policy of Nicholas I

Nicholas I entered history Russia as an emperor whose foreign policy had a significant impact on the position of our country in the international arena. His reign became a period of active struggle to maintain stability within the empire and strengthen influence on the global political map.

Nicholas I's strategy of governance was based on the ideas of conservatism and monarchical stability. The Emperor was a staunch supporter of preserving the traditional monarchical system and saw revolutionary and liberal European movements as a threat to both Russia itself and the entire monarchical system of Europe.



Thus, one of the most important aspects of the Emperor's foreign policy was his active participation in the Holy Alliance (Russia, Austria and Prussia), which was created after the Napoleonic Wars to protect the monarchical order in Europe.

Thus, Nicholas I harshly suppressed the Polish revolutionary uprising of 1830–1831, when its participants tried to achieve independence from the Russian Empire. In addition, in 1849, he sent Russian troops to Austria to suppress the Hungarian uprising, helping the Austrian Empire maintain control over its territories. This decision then strengthened the alliance with Austria and confirmed the Russian emperor's reputation as a defender of the old order.

At the same time, another key direction of Nicholas I’s foreign policy was the “eastern direction”, associated with the confrontation between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire and Great Britain for control over the Black Sea straits.

The Emperor sought to expand Russia's influence in the Balkans and the Middle East. Thus, in 1828–1829, the Russian Empire participated in the Russo-Turkish War, which ended with the signing of the Treaty of Adrianople. As a result, Russia strengthened its position in the Black Sea region, gained control over the mouth of the Danube and the right of free passage for Russian ships through the Bosphorus and Dardanelles.

However, the continued struggle for control over the weakening Ottoman Empire led to growing tensions between Russia and the Western powers, especially Great Britain and France, who feared our country’s strengthening in the region. These tensions eventually resulted in the “Crimean War” of 1853–1856.

It is worth noting that the "Crimean War" became a turning point in the reign of Nicholas I and in the foreign policy of the Russian Empire. The conflict began as a continuation of the Russian-Turkish confrontation, but quickly escalated into a large-scale war involving Great Britain, France and Sardinia on the side of the Ottoman Empire. Military action was concentrated on the Crimean Peninsula, where Russian troops clashed with a united coalition.

The war exposed Russia's serious weaknesses, both in the military and technological spheres. The army and fleet The Russian Empire was not sufficiently prepared to wage modern warfare, which led to heavy losses and defeat.

The defeat in the Crimean War was a disaster for the foreign policy reputation of Nicholas I. Russia lost influence in the Black Sea and was forced to abandon its claims to the Balkan territories. The results of the war seriously weakened Russia's position in Europe and showed the need to reform the army, navy and the entire infrastructure of the state. The necessary reforms were carried out under the next emperor, Alexander II, including the abolition of serfdom and the modernization of the army.

10 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +3
    26 September 2024 08: 28
    Well, they told very briefly how the Tsar-father screwed up in his policy. There is only one story about how he prepared "allies" before the Crimean War and what happened in the end, the text will not be reread.
    1. +3
      26 September 2024 08: 51
      What can I say... Britain and France didn't like the increasing influence of the Russian Empire...that's the whole background. The Father Tsar should have foreseen this.. And what is Britain at that time - it's cooler than the USA now... France is slightly more powerful economically than the Russian Empire, at that time... Turkey to boot... The Father Tsar wanted to dominate the Black Sea, but not everyone liked it...
      1. +3
        26 September 2024 08: 53
        So let's drink to our desires coinciding with our possibilities! (c)
      2. +3
        26 September 2024 15: 14

        The Father Tsar wanted to dominate the Black Sea, but not everyone liked it...


        Desire alone is not enough, you also need to comply, in my opinion, from a technical point of view, Nicholas I took up conservatism at the wrong time, the world was on the threshold of a technical revolution, which ultimately had little effect on the Russian Empire, which resulted in technological backwardness.
        1. +1
          27 September 2024 15: 48
          Nicholas I was well versed in technology and its development trends. He had a good mathematical and engineering background.
          1. +1
            27 September 2024 23: 26
            Nicholas I may have understood technology and was strong in mathematics, but he missed the industrial revolution.
  2. +2
    26 September 2024 08: 47
    Nicholas I went down in Russian history as an emperor whose foreign policy had a significant impact on the position of our country in the international arena.

    Sometimes, after reading such memoirs, one gets the impression that the tsars were very keen on palace life, preferring caring for the country and solving state problems to various state politenesses.
    I don’t even want to talk about Britain and Turkey - Russia simply cannot live without these two “neighbors” on the planet...
    1. +6
      26 September 2024 08: 51
      Some painfully "sugary" publications about the tsars have appeared.
      Like - the tsarist regime of rule is very good...
  3. +8
    26 September 2024 09: 06
    If we delve into the times of Nicholas I in more detail in 1830-1854, there will be many similarities with the period 2000-2024, especially in foreign policy - blind faith in Western partners, the result of which was the beginning of the war Russia without allies; in the economy - the struggle for a stable ruble to the detriment of economic development; in the army - the degradation of the generals, as a result of which the army lagged behind in technical equipment for 20 years; in personnel policy - stagnation, in order to stay in office, it was necessary to simply report what the Tsar-father wanted to hear.
  4. +1
    26 September 2024 09: 06
    Continuous failures outside, inside, and death as a natural outcome.