Везде
The Study of the History of US-Russia Relations in the 21st Century on Both Sides of the Atlantic: Research Approaches and Methods
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
The Study of the History of US-Russia Relations in the 21st Century on Both Sides of the Atlantic: Research Approaches and Methods
Annotation
PII
S013038640021033-4-1
DOI
10.31857/S013038640021033-4
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Victoriya Zhuravleva 
Affiliation:
Russian State University for Humanities
Institute of World History, RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Edition
Issue 4
Pages
29-54
Abstract

The article is devoted to the contemporary trends in studying the history of Russian-American relations from the 18th century until today. The author focuses her attention on the key books within this scholarly field as well as on a variety of genres and methodological frames represented in the U.S. and Russian historiographies in the 21st century. She also discusses prospects in studying and teaching the historical past of the bilateral relations in correlation with the different methods of engaging in dialogue with it. The author argues that in modern historical scholarship, these forms of dialogue along with new primary sources create a new kind of knowledge. It is author’s belief that American scholars made greater progress than their Russian counterparts in tackling the multiplicity of questions addressed to the past of bilateral relations, even though Russian researches did produce individual innovative works and can boast general achievements. This is why it is so important for the two countries’ scholars to continue the exchange of ideas and to keep on working on joint projects and collective monographs that could summarize the achievements of national historiographic schools found both in books and in articles and outline the prospects of further studies. This article can and should be seen as an invitation to such a dialogue.

Keywords
Russian-American relations, Soviet-American relations, historiography, methodology, imagology, Russian Studies in the US, American Studies in Russia
Acknowledgment
This article has been prepared with the financial support of The Russian Science Foundation (RNF), project No. 20-18-00482 “Transformations of the Supremacy Ideas in the West and in Russia in the Late 19th – Early 21st Centuries”.
Received
13.04.2022
Date of publication
01.09.2022
Number of purchasers
12
Views
508
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf
Additional services access
Additional services for the article
Services benefits
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Additional services for the issue
Services benefits
970 RUB / 16.0 SU
Additional services for all issues for 2022
Services benefits
4365 RUB / 87.0 SU
1

INTRODUCTION

2 American Studies specialists in Russia and Russian Studies specialists in the US continue to closely focus on the history of Russia-US relations due to, on the one hand, the realities of today's international developments and domestic political agendas in both states and, on the other hand, due to the rich historical past of these relations demonstrating both confrontation and cooperation, stereotypes and myths in mutual perceptions and sincere desire to get to know and understand each other better.
3 The use of new theoretical and methodological approaches, the development of an international academic dialogue, the emergence of many internet archives and digitized collections, as well as of many visual sources from various genres and eras allow researchers to not only expand their sources (this task is still relevant, too), but also to offer new interpretations of the historical past. The study of the history of bilateral relations has long gone beyond the traditional historical narrative, has become interdisciplinary, which produces a search for new thematic priorities and adjustment of research practices.
4 The author does not claim to be providing an exhaustive description of the entire body of works published on both sides of the Atlantic in the 21st century and dealing with different periods and aspects of the history of Russia-US relations. She sees her more modest task in, first, outlining the two countries’ principal historiographic trends as represented in specific monographs, both offering summary reviews of the two states’ relations and focusing on individual periods therein; second, in drawing attention to the variety of genres and theoretical and methodological approaches developed in Russian and American historiographies; and, third, in depicting the prospects of studying bilateral relations in the 21st century.
5

THE HISTORY OF RUSSIA-US RELATIONS IN LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES
6 In the few recent decades, authors offering summary reviews have abandoned the practice of merely tracing the course of historical events. They create either comprehensive studies presenting various dimensions of bilateral and, broadly, international relations, or follow certain overarching narratives. The ranks of professional historians have expanded to admit literary scholars and cultural studies specialists who infuse historiography their theoretical and methodological frameworks and thematic priorities and also with their own views of the past and present seen in their interconnections.
7 Such summary studies as the books of Norman Saul, David Engerman, and David Foglesong published in the 21st century had an important influence on the study of the history of bilateral relations. Like Nicolai N. Bolkhovitinov in Russia, Saul is justly considered to be the foremost American authority on the subject. The four volumes he authored span the period between 1763 and 1941; their importance is hard to overestimate given the number of his sources, his comprehensive approach, and his professionalism in detailing the historical narrative. He could be criticized for the mosaic-like structure of his works, for overabundance of events and facts, and for taking mostly the Russian context as his explanatory framework. However, today’s study of Russia-US relations cannot be imagined without this multi-volume “encyclopedia” brimming with citations and ideas and featuring a huge cast of historical characters, both famous and obscure. Saul’s books highlighted the multiplicity of stories in the historical past, focused attention on the problems in need of further exploration, and opened up enticing prospects for new interpretations1.
1. Saul N.E. Distant Friends. The United States and Russia, 1763–1867. Lawrence, 1991; Idem. Concord and Conflict. The United States and Russia, 1867–1914. Lawrence, 1996; Idem. War and Revolution: The United States and Russia, 1914–1921. Lawrence, 2001; Idem. E. Friends or Foes? The United States and Russia 1921–1941. Lawrence, 2006.
8 Engerman’s and Foglesong’s books, in their turn, aim to consider the evolution of Russia’s image in the US within an extensive time frame and with an emphasis on specific elements within this image, particularly after 1917. Engerman concentrates on three factors he believes to have primarily impacted the perception of Russia in the US starting in the 19th century: first, stereotypes around the Russian national character with led Americans to believe that Russia was different from the West and had limited ability to fit into the modern world; second, increasing enthusiasm over Russia’s modernization that was smoothing out the differences and contradictions between the two states; third, the growing professionalism of Russian Studies specialists in the US. Following his preferred methodology, Engerman does not try to consider the competing images of Russia, even though American intellectuals whose activities and writings he analyzed with brilliant insight had directly contributed to the emergence of those images. Such a shift in focus would allow Engerman to fine-tune some aspects of his narrative. Additionally, he claims that the concept of modernization as applied to the perceptions of Russia in the US was shaped in the 1920s, and this is a debatable idea. This concept appears to have emerged back at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries when American society was going through its first massive “infatuation with/disappointment in” Russia over another stage in its modernization2.
2. Engerman D.C. Modernization from the Other Shore. American Intellectuals and the Romance of Russian Development. Cambridge; London, 2003.
9 Foglesong has significantly expanded the knowledge of the mechanisms for creating and maintaining the images of the Romantic and demonic Russian Other that was part of constructing Americans’ image of their Self. He focuses on the political, economic, cultural, and religious dimensions of the “new messianic idea” in the US that was connected to the vision of the prospects of Russia’s renewal and served as a projection of the American domestic political situation. This is a study of Americans attempting for over a century to export their own symbols of political and religious faith, technological innovations and economic theories, pop culture achievements and in some instances even armed interventions as they take part in a “crusade” of sorts for the cause of Russia’s modernization; this is a study of Russia being seen as America’s “dark twin” serving to revitalize American nationalism. The book certainly presents only one facet of the perception process, which somewhat oversimplifies the overall picture. Yet the oppositions proposed by Foglesong (“Light-Darkness,” “Civilization-Barbarity,” “Modernity-Middle Ages,” “Democracy-Authoritarianism,” “Freedom-Slavery,” “West-Asia/Orient”) is a highly useful structure for conceptualizing the long-term trends of the American perception of Russia (be it Tsarist, Soviet, or post-Soviet period)3.
3. Foglesong D.S. The American Mission and the “Evil Empire.” The Crusade for a “Free Russia” since 1881. Cambridge, 2007.
10 One book by Alexander Etkind holds a special place among cultural studies as it takes us into the realm of imagology of Russia-US relations through analyzing the interactions between the two cultures. This book remains the best of its kind despite certain inaccuracies. By considering travelogues understood as journeys in space and time, Etkind shows the long-time role the American/Russian Other played in Russian/American cultures respectively. The book contains several valuable insights useful for understanding long-standing mutual myths. For instance, Etkind was the first to use Edward Said’s term “orientalism” to describe the kind of relations the US/the West had with Russia, even though his claim that the orientalist way of liking and understanding Russia has not changed for years needs to be adjusted somewhat. For instance, American Russophiles, both liberals and conservatives, have never been consummate orientalists. Additionally, orientalism played different roles in the three discourses (conservative, liberal universalist, and Russophile) set by the text about Russia. Therefore, unlike Etkind, we should not ignore the ideological preferences of American orientalists. Naturally, historians and literary scholars working on different problems and different periods in the history of Russia-US relations may propose several other criticisms of Etkind’s book and of any book that presents an interdisciplinary overview of its chosen topic. We should keep in mind, however, that Etkind did not intend to consider all the aspects of mutual perceptions as he focused instead on studying the temptation of such Other as is important for understanding one’s own culture. Etkind focused on texts produced by history, but not necessarily true to history, on books where one can glimpse all those “what ifs” that history does now know and where history was sometimes imagined as different from reality. Interpreting those “imaginings” was Etkind’s principal task, and it transformed his own text into a fascinating story of “cultural mirrors.” This study based on parallel readings of two cultures, biographies and texts of their representatives has already become a classic among the studies of the imagology of Russia-US relations in the breadth of its span, and in the skill Etkind manifests in combining his chosen framework with the narrative, facts, and theoretical propositions4.
4. Эткинд A. Толкование путешествий. Россия и Америка в травелогах и интертекстах. М., 2001.
11 Another prominent summary imagological study published in Russia in the 21st century was a book by Vladimir О. Rukavishnikov depicting the evolution of the image of Russia/post-Soviet Russia in the West. Rukavishnikov took mass media, opinion polls, films, fiction as his sources and cartoons as his illustrations. The book was intended to explicate the role public opinion played in shaping the US foreign policy, to analyze its dynamics with account for the global situation of the time, for the objectives of domestic political struggle, and for the conflict of values. Following an established historiographic pattern, he took the Soviet era as his starting point in tracking long-term perception trends, which lead him to ignore their continuous shaping over a longer time. It prevents Rukavishnikov from offering his readers a more in-depth analysis of Soviet imperialism of the Cold War era seen as a continuation of the traditional Tsarist imperialist policy or from going beyond the framework of “red fascism” discussions when interpreting Ronald Reagan’s rhetoric in his famous “Evil Empire” speech, or, ultimately, from identifying historical precedents of the American “crusade” for liberalizing Russia in the 1990s.5
5. Рукавишников В.О. Холодная война, холодный мир. Общественное мнение в США и Европе о СССР/России, внешней политике и безопасности Запада. М., 2005.
12 Victor L. Malkov’s and Edward A. Ivanian’s summary works evidenced the readiness of the older generation of American Studies experts in Russia to abandon old interpretative patterns and thematic priorities in order to expand the problematics and methodologies of their research. The former contextualized the history of inter-country relations and diplomacy within the civilizational approach; he was interested in the algorithm of Russia-US relations in the time of revolutions, wars, and bipolar confrontation with account for both countries’ peoples’ self-perception as cultural communities6. The latter undertook a pioneering historiographic attempt to create an overarching view of the history of the two states’ cultural connections in the 19th–20th centuries by presenting a general view of newspaper columns, memoirs, and researched the uncovering little-known pages in the history of the dialog of cultures7.
6. Мальков В.Л. Россия и США в XX веке: очерки истории межгосударственных отношений и дипломатии в социокультурном контексте. М., 2009.

7. Иванян Э.А. Когда говорят музы. История российско-американских культурных связей. М., 2007.
13 Ivanian also penned the first encyclopedia of Russian/Soviet-American relations8. In the US, Norman Saul took up the initiative of creating reference books and wrote two fundamental dictionaries of history based on his many years of archival and library research in both states9. The publication of encyclopedias and multi-volume collections of archival documents edited by Grigory N. Sevostianov10 was conducive to bringing forth new research into the history of the two countries’ relations, including the appearance of new summary studies.
8. Энциклопедия российско–американских отношений XVIII–XX века / авт. и сост. Э.А. Иванян. М., 2001.

9. Saul N.E. Historical Dictionary of United States-Russian/Soviet Relations. Lanham, 2009; Idem. Russian and Soviet Foreign Policy. Lanham, 2015.

10. The 1st volume in the “diplomatic” series was published in 1999 and devoted to the diplomatic relations of the Russian Empire and the USA from 1900 until 1917. The last one about the Soviet-American relations in 1949–1952 appeared in 2006. Two collections of primary sources on trade and economic relations between the two countries from 1900 until 1933 have been published under Grigory Sevostianov editorship in the late 1990s as well.
14 It would appear that the most fruitful approach in the latter case is joint publications by both states’ scholars with each party relying on the accumulated knowledge from its national historiography and peering into the historical past from its own sociocultural present. This approach creates a space for an academic discussion that produces new interpretations of the history of Russia-US relations and arrives at a more precise chronology of these relations. The book written by a team of scholars that includes David Foglesong, Ivan Kurilla, and Victoria Zhuravleva (forthcoming in the Cambridge University Press in 2022) promises to be just such a publication. It is a comprehensive study of the US relations with the Russian Empire/the USSR/post-Soviet Russia; it employs an inter-disciplinary approach and utilizes both primary sources and classical and most recent body of academic works, including its authors’ own authoritative research11.
11. Foglesong D.S., Kurilla I.I., Zhuravleva V.I. America and Russia: From Distant Friends to Intimate Enemies (forthcoming, Cambridge University Press, 2022).
15

STUDYING INDIVIDUAL PERIODS IN RUSSIAN/SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS: A VARIETY OF APPROACHES AND GENRES
16 WHEN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AND THE US WERE “DISTANT FRIENDS”
17 The history of Russian America, a place where Russians and Americans interacted with each other and with the indigenous population as they implemented their imperial projects, has long been the focus of fruitful research on both sides of the Atlantic. Russian scholars had been brought to this subject thanks to the research tradition established by the Academician Nikolai Bolkhovitinov. In the late 1990s, he edited a three-volume summary book on the historical past of Russian America and on the activities of the Russian-American company12.
12. История Русской Америки (1732–1867): в 3-х т. / под общ. ред. Н. Болховитинова. М., 1997–1999.
18 There are several recognized Russian experts in the area practicing the traditional descriptive approach. There is the renowned St. Petersburg scholar Andrey V. Grinev who produced a comprehensive study of the Russian colonization of Alaska in the 18th–19th century (until it was sold to the US) that was based on his long-standing research13. Grinev also published a special academic reference book14. There is the Moscow historian Alexander Yu. Petrov, a student of Bolkhovitinov’s, who authors both summary works15 and biographies of those people whose life had been closely connected with the history of the trans-ocean part of the Russian Empire16. There is the Kemerovo historian Alexey N. Ermolaev17 who has expanded the geography of studying the Russian-American Company and has published, jointly with Petrov and Ivan V. Savelyev, the first student’s book on the history of Russian America18.
13. Гринев А.В. Аляска под крылом двуглавого орла (российская колонизация Нового Света в контексте отечественной и мировой истории): 2-е изд., испр. и доп. М., 2018 (The 1-st edition was published in 2016); See also: Idem. Russian Colonization of Alaska. Preconditions, Discovery, and Initial Development, 1741–1799. Lincoln, 2018; Idem. Russian Colonization of Alaska: Baranov's Era, 1799–1818. Lincoln, 2020. These books represent the most detailed bibliography on the history of Russian America.

14. Гринев А.В. Кто есть кто в истории Русской Америки. М., 2009.

15. Петров А.Ю. Российско-американская компания: деятельность на отечественном и зарубежном рынках (1799–1867). М., 2006.

16. Его же. Наталия Шелихова у истоков Русской Америки. М., 2012.

17. Ермолаев А.Н. Российско-американская компания в Сибири и на Дальнем Востоке. Кемерово, 2013.

18. Петров А.Ю., Ермолаев А.Н., Савельев И.В. История Русской Америки: учебное пособие. Вологда, 2010.
19 Today’s North American scholars also study the history of Russia’s trans-ocean colonial empire and produce multi-disciplinary books in various genres. Kenneth Owens authored the first academic biography of Aleksandr Baranov, the first governor of Russian America, a merchant and an entrepreneur, an administrator and a diplomat. This biography is contextualized within environmental, ethnographic, sociocultural, economic, and geopolitical aspects of colonizing Russian America19. Lee Farrow published a book on the US purchasing Alaska. This work was based on a detailed analysis of both domestic political situation and changes in the international relations system20. Ilya Vinkovetsky offered an innovative view of the Russian Empire’s colonization experience in the New World. His work uses the colonial discourse and research practices developed within the New Imperial History. By considering Russia’s trans-ocean colonies in parallel with the process of empire-building, Vinkovetsky filled the history of Russian America with new meanings and interpretations21.
19. Owens K.N. (with Petrov A.Yu.). Empire Maker: Aleksandr Baranov and Russian Colonial Expansion into Alaska and Northern California. Seattle; London, 2015.

20. Farrow L.A. Seward’s Folly. A New Look at the Alaska Purchase. Fairbanks, 2016.

21. Vinkovetsky I. Russian America: An Overseas Colony of a Continental Empire, 1804–1867. New York, 2011 (Edition in Russian: Виньковецкий И. Русская Америка: заокеанская колония континентальной империи, 1804–1867. М., 2015).
20 Ivan I. Kurilla’s book on Russia-US relations in the first half of the 19th century remains the best study of this topic in the 21st century. Instead of focusing on the traditional history of diplomacy, it utilized the sociocultural approach in order to help its readers develop a multi-dimensional perspective on the two countries’ relations in the 1830s–1850s. Kurilla contextualized his “Russia and the US” subject within such meta-narratives as “Russia and the West,” “American and Europe.” It enabled him, on the one hand, to consider the significance of the American/Russian Other for the shaping of the respective national Selves and, on the other hand, to posit anew the issue of a search for the European identity. Both American and Russian Selves serve Kurilla as explanatory patterns for mutual representations, and his book ultimately lead us to the level of comparative imagology as it becomes an important step in studying the overall history of the two states’ bilateral relations22.
22. Курилла И.И. Заокеанские партнеры: Америка и Россия в 1830–1850-е годы. Волгоград, 2005.
21 New thematic priorities have emerged over the last decade in studying the 1860s–1870s, which enables historians to re-contextualize the historical past as they peer into its depths through the lens of micro-developments and collective biographies woven from the portrayals of several people working in a single occupation. The first trend was exemplified by the American historian Lee Farrow’s book. She provided a comprehensive view of the Konstantin Catacazy Affair, exploring one of the earliest significant complications in Russian-American relations23. And by studying Grand Duke Alexis’s journey to the US in 1871–1872, she, on the contrary, highlighted the impressive variety of bilateral relations at the time when the “Russian-American friendship equation” was operative24. The second thematic area was exemplified in a book by the renowned St. Petersburg historian Vladimir V. Noskov. The book, innovative in both its concept and execution, explored the everyday life of American diplomats in the capital of the Russian Empire. Working at the junction of the history of Russia-US relations, local history studies, and anthropology, and employing an impressive array of archival and published sources, Noskov created a picturesque portrait gallery of memorable members of the US diplomatic corps and at the same time, transformed St. Petersburg itself into one of the main “characters” of his narration25. This book had been intended to inaugurate a series of collective portrayals of American diplomats painted against the background of the changing St. Petersburg26. Sadly, an illness resulted in the author’s untimely death in January 2021.
23. Farrow L.A. The Catacazy Affair and the Uneasy Path of Russian-American Relations. London; New York, 2022.

24. Eadem. Alexis in America: A Russian Grand Duke’s Tour, 1871–1872. Baton Rouge, 2014.

25. Носков В.В. Американские дипломаты в Санкт-Петербурге в эпоху Великих реформ. СПб., 2018.

26. The memoirs of David Francis, the US Ambassador to Russia in 1916–1918, annotated by Vladimir Noskov, was published in 2019 by Slavica Publishers as part of the “Americans in Revolutionary Russia” series: Francis D.R. Russia from the American Embassy / ed. and annotated by V.V. Noskov. Bloomington, 2019.
22 Anna A. Arustamova’s book is a summary philological study dedicated to researching a dialog of cultures. Arustamova was interested in the representations of America in Russian historical and literary discourse. Her book analyzed fiction and newspaper columns and it was populated with both historical and fictional characters that provided the reader with an extensive range of images of the US in the Russian cultural continuum of the 19th century. Literature of the Russian-Jewish emigration and travelogues took the book into the transitory space of the turn of the 19th–20th centuries. The main flaw here was that Arustamova ignored literary scholarship published in the US, which is at the very least strange in the 21st century, a time of an active academic dialog between the two countries’ scholars27.
27. Арустамова А.А. Русско-американский диалог XIX века: историко-литературный аспект. Пермь, 2008.
23 RUSSIA AND THE US AT A WATERSHED ERA: TRANSITIONING FROM THE 19TH TO THE 20TH CENTURY
24 Victoria I. Zhuravleva’s pioneering monograph made an important contribution to studying a watershed era in the history of the two states’ bilateral relations. This crucial period started at the time of foreign political reaction in Russia during the reign of Alexander III and at the time of industrialization, mass immigration, and re-appraisal of values in the US. This period ends with World War I and the Russian revolutions of 1917. The interdisciplinary study employed the social constructivist approach to studying Russia-US relations and was intended to provide a comprehensive analysis of the range of American perspectives on the Russian Empire in the 1880s–1910s. Discourses set by the text about Russia served as patterns of meaning that helped find one’s bearings in the layers of historical narrative, verbal and visual sources, and collective and individual images. These discourses were determined by both domestic and foreign political agendas of American society, by the sociocultural traditions of its development, and by the climate of bilateral relations. Of particular interest was Zhuravleva’s argument that radical changes in the perception of Russia in the US were not prompted by the October revolution; they took place earlier, against the backdrop of the February revolution, the first crisis and the first war of images in the bilateral relations. That was the time when the Russian Empire turned into a constituent Other that plays an important role in the interplay of meanings in the American identity discourse28.
28. Журавлева В.И. Понимание России в США: образы и мифы. 1881–1914. М., 2012. The conclusion of the third part draws the reader’s attention to the First World War period, while the epilogue focuses on today’s reality, emphasizing the long-term trends in American images of Russia (be it the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union or post-Soviet Russia).
25 Viacheslav K. Shatsillo’ book, on the other hand, was a traditional history of diplomatic relations between the two states; it was largely derivative and paid a certain tribute to today’s anti-Americanism. Compared to the books by Normal Saul, to classical works by Soviet historians working on trade and economic relations and the Far Eastern problematics, and to Victoria Zhuravleva’s works, Shatsillo’s book added little to our knowledge of the nature, logic, and dynamics of the US relations with the Russian Empire in the early 20th century. Despite the list of archival and published sources used and despite certain insightful passages, this work was a product of old historiographical tradition in its explanatory patterns, methodology, contents, and the principle of structuring the material. In the US, such a tradition has long since become a thing of the past, while in post-Soviet Russia, it still retains its positions29.
29. Шацилло В.К. Россия и США: от Портсмутского мира до падения царизма (очерки истории отношений). М., 2019.
26 Dale Rielage’s recent study of Russia-US relations during World War I appeared to be of far greater interest. Rielage demonstrated the inability of the Russian Empire during the war to make full use of the American market for its military needs. He considerd the problem of military procurement with account for interactions between Tsarist bureaucracy and civil society and stressed the fact that both parties failed to become efficient when Russia was forced to respond to the challenges of the new century30.
30. Rielage D.C. Russian Supply Efforts in America during the First World War. Jefferson, 2002.
27 Two more books written in different genres start their narration in the 19th century and take us to the revolutionary era, the furnace that forged Soviet Russia. Not everyone in the US who had championed the renewal of the Russian Empire and welcomed the February revolution accepted this new Soviet country.
28 Using archival sources, Saul published a biography of Charles Crane, an American businessman, philanthropist, and Russophile who had made a special contribution to spreading the knowledge of Russia in the US and to the emergence of Russian Studies in America. This book offered its readers a professionally painted portrayal of an individual and of American society and its relations with Russia, China, the Ottoman Empire, and Austro-Hungary at a time when the US embarked on the path of becoming a global power31. In his turn, Dmitry M. Nechiporuk focused on the activities of the Society of American Friends of Russian Freedom. Given the “new messianic idea” typical of its repertoire of meanings and seeing the US as participating in Russia’s modernization, the Society made a special contribution to shaping the liberal universalist discourse of Russia32. Spikes in American “crusades” for the liberalization of Russia coincided with the times of revolutionary disruptions, be it the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, or the collapse of the Soviet Union.
31. Saul N.E. The Life and Times of Charles R. Crane, 1858–1939. American Businessman, Philanthropist, and a Founder of Russian Studies in America. Lanham, 2012.

32. Нечипорук Д.М. Во имя нигилизма. Американское общество друзей русской свободы и русская революционная эмиграция (1890–1930 гг.). СПб., 2018.
29 In today’s Russian scholarship on the US relations with revolutionary Russia, Sergey V. Listikov’s book stands out as the supreme authority on the subject. He produced a multi-factor analysis of President Woodrow Wilson and his team’s “Russian policy” with account for the contemporary alternatives and options of the time. He based his interpretative patterns both on an impressive array of archival materials and on a dialog with other scholars on both sides of the Atlantic researching this particular period33.
33. Листиков С.В. США и революционная Россия в 1917 году: к вопросу об альтернативах американской политики от Февраля к Октябрю. М., 2006.
30 As regards American historiography, scholars have recently been concentrating on researching the stance of the Woodrow Wilson Administration during the Russian civil war of 1918–1921 and the American intervention in Siberia and in the Far East34. Those historians who confine their studies to the Siberian expedition miss the true meaning of the US intervention in the Civil War in revolutionary Russia35. Generally, however, post-Cold war US historiography has been dominated by the view of the Washington Administration’s policy at that momentous era as anti-Bolshevik in nature. Such, for instance, was the conclusion reached by two eminent American historians Donald Davis and Eugene Trani, although their general claim that Woodrow Wilson’s policy represented a kind of a “first cold war” appears to be debatable36.
34. See for example: Melton C.W. Between War and Peace: Woodrow Wilson and the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia, 1918–1921. Macon, 2001; Willett R.L. Russian Sideshow: America’s Undeclared War, 1918–1920. Washington (DC), 2003.

35. Tooze A. The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916–1931. New York, 2014.

36. Davis D.E., Trani E.P. The First Cold War: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S.-Soviet Relations. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002 (edition in Russian: Дэвис Д., Трани Ю. Первая холодная война. Вудро Вильсон и Россия. М., 2002). Multi-aspectual analysis of the Russian Policy of Woodrow Wilson’s Administration also see in: Richard C.J. When the United States Invaded Russia: Woodrow Wilson’s Siberian Disaster. Lanham, 2012.
31 Slavica Publishers’ Americans in Revolutionary Russia series edited by William Whisenhunt and Norman Saul is an important contribution to studying the imagology of bilateral relations at the time of wars and revolutions. This series reprints travelogues written by Americans who had journeyed to the Russian Empire and Soviet Russia in 1914–1921; with eminent historians from both states provide introductions and annotations for the series37. These books form part of the body of American works on the Russian revolution. Observing it both directly and indirectly, Americans “invented” its Demonic and Romantic images and experienced cycles of hopes and disappointments influenced by their own ideology of progress and expansion, their own vision of an ideal political and social system, a true revolution, the US place in the world, and its role in democratizing the world. The Russian revolutionary Other was fitted into various discourses determined by the text of Russia. This Other served as a constituent element in shaping Americans’ own collective and individual identities. Chronologically, this series goes up to the end of the Civil War and, via the revolutionary era, brings together the history of the US relations with pre-Soviet and Soviet Russia.
37. Americans in Revolutionary Russia // URL: >>>> (access date: 15.02. 2022).
32 SOVIET-US INTERBELLUM RELATIONS
33 Grigory Sevostianov’s book published at the start of the 21st century holds a special place among the works on the traditional history of diplomacy between the end of World War I and the start of World War II. Spanning the years 1918–1933, it employed the traditional approach to studying inter-country relations, based on Russian archival materials and different published sources, and focused on the problem of the US diplomatic recognition of Soviet Russia38.
38. Севостьянов Г.Н. Москва-Вашингтон. На пути к признанию. 1918–1933. М., 2004.
34 Vladimir V. Poznaykov authored a pioneering book in Russian historiography that contained the first comprehensive study of Soviet Russia’s intelligence activities across the Atlantic. Of particular value wad the unique biographical dictionary of spies, agents, and their sources in the US, Canada, and Latin America that took up half the book. The author tackled the previously classified subject with gusto and consummate professionalism as he introduced his readers to the secret, yet no less important, element of the interbellum Soviet-American relations39.
39. Позняков В.В. Советская разведка в Америке. 1919–1941: 2-е изд. М., 2015.
35 Yet it is primarily American historians who publish methodologically and thematically trailblazing works. One exception to this rule was a book by the prominent Russian historian Boris M. Shpotov, a specialist in American Studies and an acknowledged expert on the history of American entrepreneurship, including in the context of bilateral relations40. The book described the “American vector” of Stalin’s modernization and argued that Soviet Russia was not at all economically, scientifically, and technologically isolated. Shpotov demonstrated how the Dnieper Hydroelectric Power Plant, the Magnitogorsk Metallurgy Works, the Nizhny Novgorod Automotive plant were built within a few years with American firms participating, how aviation, chemical, electrical engineering industries were created. Shpotov alloted a special place in his book to the issue of Americans’ perception of the Soviet experiment depending on their gender, race, and social standing, although in this particular respect, he did not move beyond narrative analysis41.
40. Шпотов Б.М. Генри Форд. Жизнь и бизнес. М., 2003.

41. Его же. Американский бизнес и Советский Союз в 1920–1930-е годы: лабиринты экономического сотрудничества. М., 2013.
36 American scholars in the 21st century, on the other hand, are particularly attracted by these very imagological aspects. They study the attitude to Soviet Russia among American feminists and left-wing female pacifists inspired by gender equality established by the Bolsheviks, or, on the contrary, the attitudes of conservative American women who used Soviet family and marriage policies to criticize feminist reformers in the US itself and to attack women participation in the pacifist movement42.
42. Delegard K.M. Battling Miss Bolsheviki: The Origins of Female Conservatism in the United States. Philadelphia, 2012; Mickenberg J.L. American Girls in Red Russia: Chasing the Soviet Dream. Chicago, 2017.
37 There also emerged an independent area in historiography researching the race factor and its role in shaping representations of Soviet Russia in the US. Scholars study African Americans’ attitudes to the Soviet experiment and communist ideas depending in their religious views, ideological persuasions, and social status,43 or else they research the importance of Black activists’ work in shaping the stable opposition of Soviet internationalism vs. American racism in bilateral relations44. That was the Self–Other opposition at work in the ideological context. In that sense, African Americans used the Romantic Soviet Other before and after World War II in their struggle for racial equality, while Soviet internationalism hampered Washington administrations in their effort to use civil rhetoric in their relations with the USSR, since the US itself continued its racial discrimination policies.
43. Makalani M. In the Cause of Freedom: Radical Black Internationalism from Harlem to London, 1917–1939. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2011; McDuffie E.S. Sojourning for Freedom: Black Women, American Communism, and the making of Black Left Feminism. Durham, 2011.

44. Carew J.G. Blacks, Reds, and Russians: Sojourners in Search of the Soviet Promise. New Brunswick, 2010; Roman M.L. Opposing Jim Crow. African Americans and the Soviet Indictment of U.S. Racism, 1928–1937. Lincoln, 2012.
38 Philological studies investigate the imagology of Russia-US relations through the lens of literary receptions. Thus, Milla Fedorova in her book drew her readers’ attention to the images of America and Americans in literary and non-literary works of Russian/Soviet writers and poets. Progressing from the pre-revolutionary era to the 1930s, she demonstrated the shaping of a negative image of America through criticism of racism, soulless materialism, and economic exploitation in the US, and showed how this negative image played an important role in the interplay of meanings in the Soviet identity discourse. At the same time, she stresses that regular people continued to enjoy American adventure novels and were fans of American popular culture, be it movies or jazz45.
45. Fedorova M. Yankees in Petrograd, Bolsheviks in New York: America and Americans in Russian Literary Perception. DeKalb, 2013.
39 Studying the religious and humanitarian dimensions of bilateral relations both in the given period and outside remains a promising research direction. So far, there are very few books on the subject. The American historian Matthew Miller, known for his works on the topic, wrote a book on the religious and educational activities of the Young Men’s Christian Association showcased the role it played in establishing a religious dialog between the East and the West in Russia before the revolution and in assisting the Russian émigré community after the revolution. The central narrative line in this book based on little-studied sources was the contribution the American Protestant organization made to developing Orthodox culture in Tsarist Russia and then among Russians who fled to Europe escaping Bolshevism. YMCA thereby helped integrate the Orthodoxy in the European cultural landscape. Miller drew particular attention to the Young Men’s Christian Association’s philanthropic activities during World War I when it assisted POWs in Europe and in the Russian Empire46. At the same time, there has been virtually no research into the activities of democratic churches in the US striving to transform Russians into the object of the missionary work spreading Protestantism, and into the religious factor in bilateral relations in general47.
46. Miller M.L. The American YMCA and Russian Culture. The Preservation and Expansion of Orthodox Christianity, 1900–1940. Lanham, 2013.

47. David Foglesong dwelled specifically on this topic in his latest book: Foglesong D.S. Op. cit. P. 23–25, 35–38, 45–47, 66–72, 83–93, 149–152, 191–194, 210–213.
40 Additionally, the humanitarian component in the bilateral relations is of particular importance in its close connection with political and ideological contexts. These elements are equally important for understanding the humanitarian vector of the US foreign policy since the turn of the 19th–20th century when during the 1891–1892 famine in the Russian Empire Americans organized the first philanthropic movement for aiding Russian peasants, and for the mindset of American society in its evolution. Each time Americans gave the world an inexhaustible “helping hand,” they became more entrenched in their faith in their own advantages, in their right to carry out the democratizing mission throughout the world, and as they were getting ready to feed Russians and other peoples, they never let out of sight their ideological and commercial benefits. As the American writer Herman Melville aptly noted, for the first time in history, Americans demonstrated a fruitful combination of altruism and national egoism. The American scholar Bertrand Patenaude’s fundamental book on the activities of The American Relief Administration remains the best study of the subject; it is a must for every person engaged in researching the humanitarian dimension of Russia–US relations48.
48. Patenaude B.M. The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921. Stanford, 2002.
41 In conclusion of our discussion of the interbellum, we need to turn to biographies that remain an appealing genre for scholars of all periods of Russian/Soviet-American relations, yet the end results differ depending on the approaches selected and on respective thematic priorities.
42 For instance, Alexander Etkind has recently published a provocative book about William Bullitt, a connoisseur of American politics and the first US ambassador to Soviet Russia. Etkind wrote an intellectual biography and, unlike his predecessors49, presented Bullitt as an intellectual enamored of the ideas of his time and overcoming their temptations, a person whose views combined the legacy of American liberalism and European cosmopolitanism, a critical observer who could predict the course of events, but also a person of whose potential both his country and its leaders failed to make a full use. Contextualized within its time period and primarily within Soviet-American relations, this biography grips its readers. Yet Etkind tended to overemphasize alternative versions of history and constructed speculative explanatory patterns, which prompted deserved criticism from professional historians50.
49. See, for example: Сasella-Blackburn M. The Donkey, the Carrot, and the Club: William C. Bullitt and Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1948. Westport, 2004.

50. Etkind A. Roads not Taken. An Intellectual Biography of William C. Bullitt. Pittsburgh, 2017. This edition became an expanded version of Russian language book published in 2015.
43 Dennis Dunn, in his turn, chose to present Bullit among the five US ambassadors to the USSR in the 1930s–1940s; he fitted the evolution of their views into the complicated intertwinings of the relationship between Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin, and into the Soviet-American relations progressing from non-recognition to an alliance during World War II. At the same time he appears to have exaggerated Roosevelt’s naïveté in his relationship with Stalin and underestimated the complicated situation before the beginning of World War II51.
51. Данн Д. Между Рузвельтом и Сталиным. Американские послы в Москве. М., 2004. See English edition: Dunn D. Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin. America’s Ambassadors to Moscow. Lexington, 1998.
44 WHEN THE USSR AND THE US WERE COMRADES-IN-ARMS
45 The history of Soviet-American relations during World War II has been and still is one of the central topics in both academic and political public discourse on both sides of the Atlantic. Every anniversary of the end of the war once again foregrounds discussions of the nature of interactions between the USSR and the US within the Anti-Hitler coalition, about the role of American aid under the lend lease program, about opening the second front, and finally, about each country’s contribution to the ultimate victory over Germany and its allies. The Russian discourse is dominated by the idea that the USSR shouldered the main hardships of the war, suffered the greatest losses, and played the decisive role in the victory of the Anti-Hitler coalition, while the American discourse is dominated by the idea of Russia refusing to acknowledge the scale of America’s contribution to achieving this goal52. Historians and politicians continue to argue about the degree of the USSR’s responsibility for the start of World War II given the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the subsequent division of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet-Finnish war.53 Generally, the interpretation of this period in both states is highly sensitive to the changing climate of Russia-US relations as it is directly linked to the pedagogy of patriotism and to national myth-making.
52. See for example, O’Brien P.P. How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II. Cambridge, 2015.

53. Among the latest American publications about Stalin’s responsibility for the beginning of WWII as well as his plan to establish world hegemony see: McMeekin S. Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II. New York, 2021.
46 It is consequently all the more important to publish documents54 and produce expert books with based on representative primary and secondary sources, the kind of books that expand the problem field of studying the subject and present history with account for both parties’ stances and from various angles.
54. See for example: Советско-американские отношения. 1939–1945 / под ред. Г.Н. Севостьянова. М., 2004; «Аляска – Сибирь – фронт». История легендарной авиатрассы. Документы, комментарии, воспоминания. 1942–1945. М., 2004.
47 Such was the book authored by Vladimir O. Pechatnov55, a prominent Russian expert in American Studies, that presented the history of Soviet-American relations through the lens of the cooperation and confrontation between Joseph Stalin, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman. This book was based on an impressive corpus of sources; it employed microanalysis and accounted for the human factor. This multi-contextual study is noticeable for considering the Soviet-American relations throughout the 1940s, which enabled Pechatnov to demonstrate the dynamics and logic of relations moving from cooperation during World War II to the confrontation of the Cold War.
55. Печатнов В.О. Сталин, Рузвельт, Трумэн: СССР и США в 1940-х гг.: документальные очерки. М., 2006.
48 Two books by Irina V. Bystrova, an eminent expert on Soviet history, became noticeable events in the Russian historiography of the 21st century. The first one took its readers into the space of personal contacts both at the very top and at the level of people immediately involved in the military action: soldiers, sailors, and pilots from the USSR, the US, and Great Britain, the people that interacted on the lend lease routes and came into contacts with the local population, which resulted in the three nations’ mutual discoveries of each other. By integrating many personal history sources into her text, Bystrova successfully transformed it into a thrilling read that enriches our knowledge of various aspects of the allied cooperation in the anti-Hitler coalition56. Bystrova’s second book exemplified state-of-the-art research into the lend lease program; using recently declassified documents, she demonstrated the process of organizing and implementing the American program of delivering supplies to the USSR with a special emphasis on the activities of the Soviet Government Procurement Commission in the United States. Bystrova showed the huge part the lend lease program played in defeating the Axis powers and stressed this program’s particular importance in 1941–1942, the hardest time for the USSR when the situation on the front lines and in the manufacturing area was critical; Bystrova, therefore, demonstrated an allied nature of victory over Nazism57.
56. Быстрова И.В. Поцелуй через океан: «Большая тройка» в свете личных контактов (1941–1945). М., 2011.

57. Ее же. Ленд-лиз для СССР: экономика, техника, люди (1941–1945). М., 2019. There is a serious disagreement in data that can be explained by the different calculation technique of the supply volume.
49 The lend lease problem remains relevant in both Russian and American historiographies58, just like Hollywood’s special contribution to the allied cooperation during World War II. The latter topic is still mostly the focus of American historians. M. Todd Bennett in his book rethought the diplomatic history of World War II and transformed Hollywood into a real power promoting the idea of allied nations and the concept of internationalism. And the “dream factory” thereby created another illusion, that of a harmonious post-war world united under the protectorate of victor powers with the US playing the lead role therein. Bennett presented a vivid picture of the US, Great Britain, the USSR, and China deliberately using Hollywood to position the anti-Hitler coalition as standing firmly united despite ideological and political differences59.
58. Among the latest publications see: Weeks A.L. Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. Lanham, 2004; Walling M.G. Forgotten Sacrifice. The Arctic Convoys of World War II. New York, 2012.

59. Bennett M.T. One World, Big Screen: Hollywood, the Allies, and World War II. Chapel Hill, 2012.
50 Frank Costigliola’s book on Franklin Roosevelt’s policies during World War II demonstrated another approach to studying the anti-Hitler alliance. Written in the emotional studies vein, this work emphasized the huge part personal factor played in the relationships between the USSR, the US, and Great Britain both during World War II and when transitioning from war to peace. Costigliola concluded that the Cold War was not inevitable. He believes that had Roosevelt lived longer, had Churchill not lost the elections, there could have been a transition to a world led by The Big Three. Costigliola laid the principal blame for unleashing the Cold War at the door of US and British officials, since after Roosevelt’s death both countries came to be dominated by policies intended to exclude the USSR from the ranks of equal partners, which complicated post-war cooperation. At the same time, Costigliola recognized certain blunders made by Joseph Stalin (isolating foreign diplomats, journalists, and military mission officers)60. Costigliola, however, appeared, first, to exaggerate Roosevelt’s exclusive role in the three powers’ alliance and, second, does not account for the totality of objective factors that contributed to the start of the Cold War.
60. Costigliola F. Roosevelt’s Lost Alliances. How Personal Politics Provoked the Cold War. Princeton; Oxford, 2012.
51 THE HISTORY OF SOVIET-AMERICAN RELATIONS DURING THE COLD WAR: OUTCOMES AND RESEARCH PROSPECTS
52 The current international crisis has created favorable conditions for new bipolarities and division lines emerging both regionally and globally. Old metaphors and cold war images are once again in demand today, and they shape the meanings repertoires of new public and political discourses. In such a situation, turning to the Cold War experiences is interesting both academically and politically, whether we are talking the importance of inter-country dialog for diffusing the confrontation, or whether we are discussing the role of civic diplomacy in building cooperation bridges, or whether we are pondering the issue of recognizing the dangers inherent in ramping up the hysteria and the “war of images” in the media.
53 Archival collections are being declassified, published, and digitized61, new international projects are launched, sites collecting visual sources are created to be used for academic and educational purposes62, scholars write books on teaching the history of the Cold War employing new methodologies and approaches with account for national interpretations and new generations of students coming into classrooms63.
61. See for example: At Cold War’s End: United States Intelligence on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, 1989–1991 / ed. B.В. Fisher. Central Intelligence Agency, 1999; End of the Cold War // Wilson Center. Digital Archive. International History Declassified. URL: >>>> (access date: 15.02.2022).

62. See for example: A Visual Guide to the Cold War // URL: >>>> (access date: 15.02.2022).

63. See for example: Understanding and Teaching the Cold War / ed. M. Masur. Madison, 2017.
54 Both the origins of the Cold War64 and its concluding stage with its characteristically diverse trends present at different levels, as well as the foreign policies of the USSR, the US, and the powers within their respective orbits prompt particular scholarly interest today.65 Works written by those people who had been directly involved in the process of ending the Cold War become an important contribution to understanding the complex intertwining of domestic and international factors. These works combine “insider” experiences with other sources, and Soviet-American relations are presented in various contexts with account for opportunities both sides had missed.66
64. Levering R.B., Pechatnov O.V., Botzenhart-Viehe V., Edmondson C.E. Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives. Lanham, 2002.

65. Among the most authoritative books devoted to the end of the Cold War see: English R. Russia and the Idea of the West. Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End of the Cold War. New York, 2000; Grachev A. Gorbachev’s Gamble: Soviet Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War. Cambridge, 2008; Wilson J.G. The Triumph of Improvisation: Gorbachev’s Adaptability, Reagan’s Engagement, and the End of the Cold War. New York, 2014; Zubok V. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev. Chapel Hill, 2008; Idem. Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union. New Haven, 2021.

66. See for example: Matlock J.F. Reagan and Gorbachev. How the Cold War Ended. New York, 2004; Sell L. From Washington to Moscow. US-Soviet Relations and the Collapse of the USSR. Durham; London, 2016; Черняев А.С. Совместный исход: дневник двух эпох, 1972–1991 годы. М., 2008.
55 The most recent historiography of Soviet-American relations during the Cold War is truly boundless. Therefore, given the size restrictions for this article and an impressive corpus of historiographic publications,67 the existence of a specialized academic outlet Journal of Cold War Studies published since 1999 in Harvard that regularly includes reviews,68 given that recently published books contain detailed historiographic sections, and since multiple reviews are regularly published in American and Russian academic journals, it makes sense to outline the main trends in studying the history of Soviet-American relations in 1945–1991 in both the US and Russia and to map out further research prospects.
67. See for example: Westad O.A. Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory. London, 2000; Palgrave Advances in Cold War History / eds S.R. Dockrill, G. Hughes. New York, 2006.

68. The Journal of Cold War Studies. Home page // URL: >>>> (access date: 15.02.2022).
56 In recent decades, many influential American historians recognized the fact that political decision-making during the Cold War was determined precisely by ideologies as agglomerations of ideas, values, and myths defining people’s mindsets. These historians called upon their colleagues to study more carefully the ideological dimension of the Cold War, the course of the global war for people’s minds and souls, and the ultimate victors and causes of their victory. In his short history of the Cold War written in the spirit of post-revisionism, John Gaddis, one of the top scholars of America’s foreign policy and Russia-US relations, presented the course of the bipolar confrontation through the lens of interactions between politics and ideology with account for changes in both political and social areas, i.e. in society’s perceptions of itself and of the world beyond the national borders. This book offered an overview of complex historical development, a fresh take on the Cold War as a confrontation that sprang from fear and ideological differences and ended in the victory of one system of values and ideas over the other69.
69. Gaddis J.L. The Cold War. A New History. New York, 2005.
57 At the same time, even though the ideological conflict conceived of in the oppositions of capitalism vs. socialism, liberalism vs. communism, Protestantism and Catholicism vs. atheism was born much earlier than 1945, most scholars take this year as its starting point, when both parties on both sides of the Atlantic formed a sufficiently monolithic image of their respective Enemy Number One that could be easily used in propaganda efforts promoting each party’s own social and value system70.
70. See for example: Leffler M.P. For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War. New York, 2007.
58 Gaddis continued to share his thoughts on the Cold War with the academic community in his biography of George Frost Kennan, a person intrinsically linked with the history of the Cold War. This book has formed part of massive research into the life of an expert on Russia whose ideas inspired the U.S. foreign policy of “containing” the Soviet Union. In his “Long Telegram” and in his article “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Kennan described both the conflict itself and the US political strategy therein. And he also began to consistently abolish his own claims even before he fully formulated his concept, since he was dissatisfied with the way other people implemented his ideas in the US foreign policy. Gaddis’s monumental work provided a masterful description of Kennan’s life full of ironies, contradictions, and paradoxes, all those features that attract the biographers of the diplomat turned historian who unshakably believed in his own historical significance. The book appeared pursuant to an agreement between Gaddis and Kennan about the former writing the latter’s biography after his death. This agreement granted Gaddis exclusive access to Kennan’s huge personal archive and his unpublished diaries and correspondence. Gaddis generously quoted these sources in his book, and readers felt as if they hear Kennan’s own voice guiding the narration. This biography rendered Kennan’s views of himself, the US, and the world, the outstanding man’s doubts and self-criticism in such minute and true details that in this sense, this is a biography created by Kennan himself, by the man who played a special role in the history of international relations during the Cold War, by the man who, as the time went by, changed his views of the present and future relations of the two superpowers71.
71. Gaddis J.L. George F. Кеnnan. An American Life. New York, 2011.
59 Generally, Gaddis’s extensive work appears to be opening a new stage in studying Kennan’s life and career rather than drawing a conclusive line under the endeavor, especially given that Princeton University has opened access to hundreds of boxes with archival materials and launched a project led by Frank Costigliola, another influential scholar of the US foreign policy. This project produced a publication of Kennan’s diaries72 that constitute, in Gaddis’s words, today’s most extensive description of America’s life in the 20th century.
72. Kennan G.F. The Kennan’s Diaries / ed. F. Costigliola. New York, 2014.
60 Two prominent experts on the history of the Cold War, Vladimir O. Pechatnov and Vladislav M. Zubok73, summarized the results of Cold War research in Russia after the collapse of the USSR; as has been mentioned before, each published his own influential works on the subject74. Another book by Irina V. Bystrova stands out among the relevant publications that appeared in Russia; this study presents the history of the Cold War through the lens of confrontation between the Soviet and American military industrial complexes. Using declassified documents from Russian and American archives, Bystrova researched both traditional aspects of the military doctrine and economics and technologies and also introduced an innovative exploration of the social and imagological contexts of the two superpowers’ military and technological rivalry75. Mikhail N. Suprun continues to study the Cold War in the Arctic; he regularly organizes international conferences and edits collections of articles produced by Russian and foreign scholars76.
73. Зубок В.М., Печатнов В.О. Отечественная историография холодной войны. Некоторые итоги десятилетия // Отечественная история. 2003. № 4. С. 143–150; № 5. С. 139–148.

74. In addition to the book mentioned above see: Печатнов В.О. От союза к холодной войне. Советско-американские отношения в 1945–1947 гг. М., 2006.

75. Быстрова И.В. Холодная война 1945–1960 гг. Токио – Москва – Вашингтон. М., 2009.

76. Холодная война в Арктике / под ред. М.Н. Супруна. Архангельск, 2009.
61 In recent decades, Russian scholars have been publishing academic works and books for students used extensively in courses on the history of international relations in the 20th century and on the US’ foreign policy. For instance, Natalia I. Egorova, who has long headed the Cold War Sector at the Institute of World History at the Russian Academy of Sciences,77 authored a student’s book, and Viktor A. Kremenyuk, one of the Russian leading specialists in American Studies, produced a summary book based on official sources and the author’s own experiences. He attempted to answer three principal questions: Why didn’t the Cold War become a hot war? How did it end? What were its ultimate consequences78?
77. Егорова Н.И. История холодной войны, 1945–1991. Владимир, 2011.

78. Кременюк В.А. Уроки холодной войны. М., 2015.
62 Nonetheless, when it comes to interdisciplinary studies of the Cold War seen through the lens of its various contextualizations, the achievements of the most recent Western historiography appear to be more impressive both in the area of summary studies and in research into individual periods. I would like to add a few more recent publications to the ones that had already been mentioned, since they reflect new thematic priorities and methodological approaches.
63 Historians in the West in general and in the US in particular continue to focus on imagology of Soviet-American relations and on the cultural and academic diplomacy. A joint comparative study authored by Tony Shaw and Denise Youngblood79 investigated the ways American and Soviet film became a Cold War front. This work, along with the scholars’ other publications, has become classics for everyone engaged in researching the cultural history of the bipolar confrontation80.
79. Shaw T., Youngblood D. Cinematic Cold War. The American and Soviet Struggle for Hearts and Minds. Lawrence, 2010.

80. Shaw T. Hollywood’s Cold War. Amherst, 2007.
64 Two other recent books constitute an important contribution to studying the sociocultural dimension of the Cold War through the lens of the ideological Other. Using materials from Russian archives, personal sources, and visual texts, Rósa Magnúsdóttir convincingly demonstrated that in the early stages of the Cold War, Soviet propaganda constructed Enemy Number One as the “dark twin” of the USSR, as what in English is called a “frenemy,” i.e. the opposite of one’s own Self needed to construct the Self-concept. She presented a masterful analysis of the political and ideological landscapes where the Soviet propaganda “factory” operated. Her explanatory patterns, however, became far less convincing when she transitioned from manufacturing propaganda to disseminating it. The recipient audience as such remained outside her scope of interests; she did not go into perceptions of propaganda, into resistance to anti-Americanism both within Soviet society itself and among Soviet intellectuals. Being an important contribution to the Cold War historiography, this book at the same time clearly shew that studying propaganda requires a multifaceted approach that is irreducible to the characteristics of propaganda itself and the environment that generates it. What is required is research into who, how, and why responded to propagandistic messages.81
81. Magnusdottir R. Enemy Number One. The United States of America in Soviet Ideology and Propaganda. 1945–1959. New York, 2019.
65 Dina Fainberg dedicated her work to studying the role American and Soviet journalists, as people who could travel beyond their respective side of the “iron curtain,” played in disseminating the values and ideals of the Cold War. Fainberg produced a gripping book based on interviews and other primary sources and presenting a history of the images of Soviet/American Other being shaped up as a result of a clash between two truths, two systems, and professional approaches in the era of bipolar confrontation, which transformed newspaper correspondents into active participants in the process of identity construction.82
82. Fainberg D. Cold War Correspondents: Soviet and American Reporters on the Ideological Frontlines. Baltimore, 2021.
66 An ambitiously conceived book by the young scholar Jennifer Hudson is a recent and successful attempt to paint a summarizing picture of the history of the cold war. She used journalistic writings of the time, newspaper articles and editorials, feature films and documentaries, official documents and memoirs to demonstrate how the USSR and the US interacted diplomatically and intellectually at every stage of the Cold War, how cultural and civic diplomacy was functioning, expanding the knowledge and understanding of the respective Other, and creating additional opportunities for cooperation even despite the bipolar confrontation. This book is geared toward a more nuanced understanding of political, cultural, and geopolitical Soviet/American relations described through the lens of dichotomic interpretations. As such, it will certainly be in demand in classrooms83.
83. Hudson J.M. Iron Curtain Twitchers. Russo-American Cold War Relations. Lanham, 2019.
67 Civic diplomacy is among the promising subjects in studying the Cold War in general and its end in particular. American historians researching this thematic area concentrate on the non-governmental level of interactions and are interested primarily in the matter of the influence academics and civil activists had on state leaders’ ways of thinking and policies84.
84. See for example: Evangelista M. Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War. Ithaca, 1999; Snyder S.B. Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History of the Helsinki Network. New York, 2011.
68 This is why works exploring civil, scientific, scholarly, cultural, and academic exchanges in the full variety of their forms and participants are of particular interest. Among the most recent such publications is a book by Gerson Sher who for the last twenty years has been coordinating Soviet/American academic exchanges based at the National Science Foundation. As a person who has for half a century contributed to developing bilateral academic cooperation, he had first-hand knowledge of the causes of malfunctions in the exchange programs that were affected by spikes in the confrontation, propaganda wars, and red tape. He shared with his readers his own experiences and used information from insiders (academics, program managers, government officials) given voice in Sher’s book85. Such works take Cold War studies to a new level giving its overall picture more dimensions and highlighting those trends that do not fit into the simplified schemes of bilateral confrontation. The same applied to Ross Mackenzie’s book dedicated to the series of Soviet-American meetings held since 1985 together with the Chautauqua Institution and the Soviet Friendship Society86, and to publications about the Dartmouth Soviet-American Conferences that, along with the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, had a real influence on establishing a dialog between the USSR and the US87. All these books dwelt on civic diplomats creating Cold War history together with career diplomats and politicians.
85. Sher G.S. From Pugwash to Putin. A Сritical History of US-Soviet Scientific Cooperation. Bloomington, 2019.

86. Mackenzie R. When Stars and Stripes Met Hammer and Sickle: The Chautauqua Conferences on U.S.-Soviet Relations, 1985–1989. Columbia, 2006.

87. Voorhees J. Dialogue Sustained: The Multilevel Peace Process and the Dartmouth Conference. Washington (DC), 2002; When Citizens Deliberate: Russian and American Сitizens Сonsider Their Relationship / eds D.V. Makarov, I. Nagdasev, B. Cobb, P.D. Steward. Dayton, 2006.
69 Preparing collective monographs by joint teams of Russian and American scholars appears to be the most fruitful approach to creating comprehensive studies of the Cold War history offering both summarizing takes on the issue and detailing its specific stages. For instance, in December 2021, the Russian State University for the Humanities published a monograph that described the turning points in the ending of the bipolar confrontation contextualized within national and global, imagological and emotional settings. The book concentrated primarily on issues that prompt intense discussions in the academic community and on matters that were linked to the logic and dynamics of Soviet-American relations in the late 1980s and to the end of the Cold War in Europe. At the same time, its authors payed special attention to such little-researched subjects as the emotional factor in negotiations, containment culture in its various aspects and manifestations, the role of civic diplomats in the bipolar confrontation coming to an end, changes in the imagination, minds, and hearts of people on both sides of the rising “iron curtain”88.
88. Окончание холодной войны в восприятии современников и историков / под ред. В.И. Журавлевой, О.В. Павленко. М., 2021.
70 There is need for collective effort that would produce a book on another priority topic in studying the Cold War in particular and Russia-US relations in general. The topic is the genesis and development of Russian/Soviet Studies in the US and American Studies in the Russian Empire/the USSR/post-Soviet Russia.
71 The first experience in pooling the efforts of experts from both states was the project spearheaded by Victoria I. Zhuravleva and Ivan I. Kurilla; chronologically, this project spaned the time from the mid-19th century until today. This project produced two collective monographs edited by Zhuravleva and Kurilla where Russian and American scholars presented various aspects of studying and teaching long stretches in the history of the other country, concentrated on institutional and personal dimensions in the development Russian/Soviet Studies and American Studies, and portray scholars as civic diplomats and promoters of knowledge among the public at large. Both books guided their readers toward understanding the ways in which journalistic, public and political discourses penetrated the academe and transformed the studies of the other state and its people into a realm of identity construction89.
89. Россия и США на страницах учебников: опыт взаимных репрезентаций / под ред. В.И. Журавлевой, И.И. Куриллы. Волгоград, 2009; Russian/Soviet Studies in the United States, Amerikanistika in Russia. Mutual Representations in Academic Projects / eds I.I. Kurilla, V.I. Zhuravleva. Lanham, 2016.
72 This inter-disciplinary subject located at the junction of Russian/Soviet-American relations, sociology of science, and cultural anthropology finally attracted close attention of scholars in the 21st century. A prime example was a book by David Engerman based on over 100 archival collections and interviews with American scholars. Engerman was interested in finding an answer to the question of how the US concern with the bipolarization of the world at the early stages of the Cold War affected the development of Soviet Studies in the largest US universities and resulted in interactions between the government and academic learning aimed at training experts with sound notions of the realities and prospects of the Soviet Union’s development. By concentrating his reflections on the process of the emergence and development of Soviet Studies as an academic and expert field and detailing its rises and falls, Engerman shew that Soviet Studies has never boiled down to a single interpretation of the USSR and has not turned into a simple ideological weapon in the hands of American foreign policy makers. This statement holds true even for those periods when scholars had the closest ties with the diplomatic and military realms. The history of people, ideas, and institutions written by Engerman has become a standard for further works on this issue as he combined sound use of sources, clear arguments supporting his outlook, and impartiality of a scholar whose stance was not subject to the political concerns of the day90.
90. Engerman D.С. Know Your Enemy. The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts. New York, 2009.
73 The same cannot be said about the books authored by Sergey I. Zhuk, an émigré historian of Ukrainian origins, who pioneered publication of books in the US on American Studies in the USSR. On the one hand, Zhuk’s books constituted an important contribution to studying this matter; they contained interesting materials from archives in Russia and Ukraine, and they offered an interdisciplinary academic perspective placed within a multiplicity of diplomatic, sociocultural, academic, and expert contexts that served as settings for personal histories of Soviet and Ukrainian specialists in American Studies. On the other hand, his books prompted major criticisms. First, Zhuk improperly handled both his primary and secondary sources, be it his interpretations of archival materials, or treating Nikolai N. Bolkhovitinov’s fragmentary notes and memoirs at Zhuk’s disposal as completed texts, or be it interviews with late scholars that effectively verbatim prove Zhuk’s claims; or be it references to other works allegedly confirming his ideas but in fact dealing with different matters. Second, Zhuk attempted, frequently without grounds, to claim that some Soviet American Studies experts worked for the KGB, which was one of the central ideas of his works in general. Third, his attempt to stress alleged disdain American Studies experts from Moscow demonstrated toward their Ukrainian colleagues appeared to be equally politically charged and it was also at variance with the facts.
74

As Bolkhovitinov’s student, Zhuk wrote the first detailed scholarly biography of this outstanding researcher and portrayed him against the backdrop of changing eras in Soviet-American relations. He created a somewhat idealized image of a scholarly westernizer, an impartial historian and specialist in American Studies, a person with the greatest authority among his peers. At the same time, Zhuk constantly, strived to oppose Bolkhovitinov as the target of the KGB’s persecutions, an admired of the American development model, and the first critic of the Marxist orthodoxy to the overall mass of Soviet scholars studying the US from the premises of the Marxist-Leninist ideology and cooperating with the Soviet security service. As a person who has known Bolkhovitinov and his wife Ludmila, I have no doubts that Academician Bolkhovitinov himself would object against such classifications91. In his second book, Zhuk directly or indirectly continued to ply his favorite ideas. He wrote biographies of the most prominent scholars from three generations and fitted these portrayals into the history of American Studies as an academic and expert field, into the history of academic and cultural exchanges between countries, and in the history of the changing climate of bilateral relations, which is a highly praiseworthy undertaking. This is precisely the way of studying these essentially interdisciplinary issues92.

91. Zhuk S.I.Nikolai Bolkhovitinov and American Studies in the USSR: People’s Diplomacy in the Cold War. Lanham, 2017.

92. Zhuk S.I. Soviet Americana. The Cultural History of Russian and Ukranian Americanists. New York, 2018.
75 These two books had certainly become historiographical landmarks due to the facts collected therein, to Zhuk’s proposed methodology and his ambitious design, even if they simultaneously earned well-deserved criticisms of his peers for their political bias, improper citations of other scholars’ works and improper handling of his sources, and for Zhuk’s not always convincing explanatory models93.
93. See for example: David Foglesong’s review // The Russian Review. 2018. Vol. 77. № 2. P. 334.
76 In their book on the US relations with Russia and China in the 20th century, Donald Davis and Eugene Trani offered an overarching vision of the emergence of Russia/Soviet Studies. They were primarily interested in studying other countries and peoples in the US in connection with shaping the images of the outside world. They payed special attention to the contribution of Russian émigré scholars to the development and Russian and Soviet Studies in American universities94 and demonstrated the way refugees from Soviet Russia took their anti-Tsarist and anti-Bolshevik message to American university classrooms thus helping foster among their students a certain vision of the events in Soviet Russia. Comparative analysis of the development of Chinese Studies and Russian Studies in the US also appears fruitful as it draws special attention to the existing differences since the former area had been created by professional experts in the Far East, such as William Rockhill, while the second had been established by journalists such as George Kennan95.
94. About this also see Nikolai N. Bolkhovitinov’s book in Russian: Болховитинов Н.Н. Русские ученые-эмигранты (Г.В. Вернадский, М.М. Карпович, М.Т. Флоринский) и становление русистики в США. М., 2005.

95. Davis D.E., Trani E.P. Distorted Mirrors. Americans and Their Relations with Russia and China in the 20th Century. Columbia, 2009 (Russian edition: Дэвис Д.Э, Трани Ю.П. Кривые зеркала. США и их отношения с Россией и Китаем в XX веке. М., 2009).
77 Another overarching subject is emigration into the US from the Russian Empire/the USSR/post-Soviet Russia, i.e. the topic broadly connected with the history of the Russian Emigration. 21st century scholars continue to publish summary works describing various emigration waves96, to produce biographical dictionaries97, scholarly and popular biographies of outstanding dancers and choreographers, engineers and scientists, writers and poets, books that tell the stories of Russian and Soviet culture, inventions, and scientific and scholarly achievements being exported to the US98. These are stories of Russians and Americans’ common past, the process and causes of brain and talent, science and technologies, enterprising and motivated workers draining from Russia, while the US gained this wealth.
96. See for example: Нитобург Э.Л. Русские в США. История и судьбы, 1870–1970. М., 2005; Kishinevsky V. Russian Immigrants in the United States. Adapting to American Culture. New York, 2004; Puffer Sh., McCarthy D., Satinsky D.M. Hammer and Silicon. The Soviet Diaspora in the US Innovation Economy. Immigration, Innovation, Institutions, Imprinting, and Identity. Cambridge, 2018.

97. See for example: Александров Е.А. Русские в Северной Америке: биографический словарь. Хэмден; Сан-Франциско; СПб., 2005.

98. See for example: Hohman V.J. Russian Culture and Theatrical Performance in America, 1891–1933. New York, 2011; Libbey J.K. Alexander P. de Seversky and the Quest for Air Power. Washington (DC), 2013; Beahm G. The Google Boys: Sergey Brin and Larry Page in Their Own Words. Chicago, 2014; Lobenthal J. Wilde Times: Patricia Wilde, George Balanchine, and the Rise of New York City Ballet. Lebanon, 2016; Zelensky N. Performing Tsarist Russia in New York: Music, Emigres, and the American Imagination. Bloomington, 2019.
78 FACETS OF STUDYING THE US RELATIONS WITH POST-SOVIET RUSSIA: AT THE JUNCTURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND HISTORY
79 Traditionally, this period attracts political scientists applying their own methodologies. Here, however, historians also have a lot to contribute as they zoom in on stable trends in foreign policy and imagology stemming from the changing climate in bilateral relations and from the domestic agendas in both Russia and the US.
80 I shall confine myself to a few general remarks without staking any claims to a comprehensive analysis, since this area has not yet become the subject of purely academic reflections due to its direct links with politics.
81 First, many Russian and American experts and political scientists, columnists and journalists, state and public figures represent the other state as a threat to national interests and at the same time as a convenient point of comparison that could be used to emphasize the advantages of their own development model and global standing; thus is a foundation for applied Russophobia and anti-Americanism respectively is laid down. Some of these persons appeal to universal liberal values contrasting democracy and freedom in the US with autocracy and police state in post-Soviet Russia, while others appeal to national conservative values and contrast the US international all-permissibility and its hypocritical liberalism with the idea of protecting national interests, state sovereignty, and realism. Both the former and the latter cases manifest a value-based approach, even if its contents are different for the two sides, and the texts of Russia and the US are consistently fitted into the discourses that had emerged long before the Cold War. Historians using explanatory models rooted in social constructivism know these discourses well.
82 This is why in order to better understand today’s Russia-US relations we need works that emphasize the difference in approaches explainable by using the Self-Other conceptual pairing, that stress understanding why a game of domestic policies both in the US and in Russia still requires the Russian or American card respectively99.
99. Among the best books are: Баталов Э.Я., Журавлева В.Ю., Хозинская К.В. «Рычащий медведь» на «диком Востоке» (образы современной России в работах американских авторов: 1992–2007). М., 2009 (прежде всего, разделы, написанные Э.Я. Баталовым); Tsygankov A. The Dark Double: US Media, Russia, and the Politics of Values. New York, 2019.
83 Second, both the value-based approach and the legacy of the 1990s with their typical asymmetry in bilateral relations, a tragic gap between expectations and outcomes, and intoxication with triumphalism in the US and the collapse of another American “crusade” for the liberalization of Russia (be it through introducing market economy or implementing democratic reforms) stand in the way of constructive dialog and become a subject to be reconsidered and reevaluated amid changing domestic and international agendas.
84 Political scientists and experts propose different explanations of the outcomes of Russian-American relations in the 1990s. In the US, these explanations turn out to be directly connected with America’s desire to support its Republican or Democratic administration100, while prominent American post-revisionist Russophiles tend to accuse both of flawed policies in regard to post-Soviet Russia, which, in their opinion, prevented the US from providing efficient assistance to Russia and took away the possibility of gradually implementing reforms.101 Many Russian experts and political scientists, journalists and columnists, in their turn, tend to accuse the US of inducing the collapse of the USSR, and to blame Boris N. Yeltsin for betraying national interests in favor of pro-western policies.
100. Two different points of view see in U.S. Congress, Speaker’s Advisory Group on Russia. Russia’s Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People. Washington (DC), 2000; Talbott S. The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy. New York, 2002.

101. Cohen S.F. Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia. New York, 2000; Reddaway P., Glinski D. The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolshevism against Democracy Washington (DC), 2001.
85 It happens because the outcome of the “honeymoon” in the two countries’ relations in the 1990s proved truly tragic and discouraging: ten years of extremely close cooperation, billions of American dollars and resulting economic and social chaos, a sharp drop in people’s quality of life, rampant crime, colossal social stratification, political oligarchy.
86 However, in order to explain the reasons for the real failure of the American economic aid program in the 1990s (it has been analyzed in a balanced and multidimensional manner by Sergey Yu. Shenin102) we need to abandon the conspiracy theory of the US attempting to weaken Russia as much as possible (and, with luck, to destroy) as America’s potential geopolitical rival. In fact, the Russian strategy adopted by the administration in Washington appears to have been intended not to weaken as much as possible, and certainly not to disintegrate America’s former rival still in possession of nuclear weapons but to achieve controlled and managed integration. The US behaved as if it knew answers to every question about global development after the Cold War, and the government, experts, and mass media formed a consensus concerning post-Soviet Russia having to embark of the route toward democracy and a free market modeled on the American example. No one seriously considered any other option. Therefore, the real state of affairs in Russia that was plunging into economic and social chaos did not much interest the people providing assistance from across the Atlantic. What they cared about was sharing certain knowledge with Russians, including knowledge of the neoclassical “shock therapy” model that would make the inevitable transition to market economy easier and faster. The US desire to write Russia off as an active global player should be added to this principal miscalculation. The specific features of the political regime that emerged during Yeltsin’s tenure certainly played their negative part, too, as did the areas where America provided its assistance, the forms this assistance took, and its timeliness.
102. Шенин С.Ю. Возвращение в Россию: стратегия и политика американской помощи (1990-е гг.). СПб., 2008.
87 Given the above and with account for today’s crisis in bilateral relations, it is highly useful to conduct political science studies based on political realism, accounting for both sides’ motivations, and not shying away from critical evaluation of both sides’ miscalculations, as, for instance, did Angela Stent in her two summary studies based on the many years of her academic and practical work103.
103. Stent A.E. The Limits of Partnership. U.S.-Russia Relations in the 21st Century. Princeton; Oxford, 2014 (Russian edition of this book with additional chapter about the Ukrainian Crisis was published in 2015 under the title “Почему Америка и Россия не слышат друг друга? Взгляд Вашингтона на новейшую историю российско-американских отношений”); Stent A.E. Putin’s World. Russia against the West and with the Rest. New York, 2019 (Russian edition of this book was published in 2020).
88 Additionally, conceptualizing and teaching international relations in general and courses on Russia’s and the US’ foreign policies in particular requires short summary books on Russia-US relations after the Cold War, even if the critical focus in these books is skewed either way. It is then all the more interesting to engage students in comparing their authors’ stances104.
104. See for example: Шаклеина Т.А. Россия и США в мировой политике. М., 2012 (updated edition was published in 2018); Peterson J.W. Russian-American Relations in the Post-Cold War World. Manchester, 2017.
89 Conclusion
90 Researchers ask different questions of the historical past of the bilateral relations, and obtaining new knowledge depends as much on the manner of asking these questions as it depends on putting new sources into academic circulation.
91 American scholars made greater progress than their Russian counterparts in tackling this multiplicity of questions addressed to the past, even though Russian researches did produce individual innovative works and can boast general achievements. This is why it is so important for the two countries’ scholars to continuously engage in an open dialog and to keep on working on joint projects and collective monographs that could summarize the achievements of national historiographic schools found both in books and in articles and outline the prospects of further studies. This article can and should be seen as an invitation to such a dialog.
92 Finally, it is important to remember that the history of Russia-US relations should be told to the public at large by professional historians and not by columnists, journalists, and bloggers dabbling in amateur historiography. It can be done through books written in the spirit of “pedagogy for everyone,” books that would be interesting to students, faculty, and everyone who wants to understand the many forms of a dialog between the two countries’ governments and peoples, a dialog held despite ideological contradictions, different political systems, and sociocultural differences in development traditions105.
105. For instance, see: Курилла И.И. Заклятые друзья. История мнений, фантазий, контактов, взаимо(не)понимания России и США. М., 2018; Журавлева В.И. Общее прошлое русских и американцев -The Common Past of Russians and Americans. М., 2021.
93 Studying the history of Russia-US relations and sharing the results of this research with the public at large is necessary not merely in order to learn from the lessons of the historical past, but in order to understand how the present has guided and continues to guide the past, sometimes standing in the way of this past becoming a subject of academic reflection and sometimes using this past for its current situational purposes. In this century, as in the past one, such developments hinder better mutual understanding that is so much needed by both Russians and Americans amid the current international crisis.

References

1. Аляска – Сибирь – фронт». История легендарной авиатрассы. Документы, комментарии, воспоминания. 1942–1945. М., 2004.

2. Александров Е.А. Русские в Северной Америке: биографический словарь. Хэмден; Сан-Франциско; СПб., 2005.

3. Арустамова А.А. Русско-американский диалог XIX века: историко-литературный аспект. Пермь, 2008.

4. Баталов Э.Я., Журавлева В.Ю., Хозинская К.В. «Рычащий медведь» на «диком Востоке» (образы современной России в работах американских авторов: 1992–2007). М., 2009.

5. Быстрова И.В. Ленд-лиз для СССР: экономика, техника, люди (1941–1945). М., 2019.

6. Быстрова И.В. Поцелуй через океан: «Большая тройка» в свете личных контактов (1941–1945). М., 2011.

7. Быстрова И.В. Холодная война 1945–1960 гг. Токио – Москва – Вашингтон. М., 2009.

8. Гринев А.В. Аляска под крылом двуглавого орла (российская колонизация Нового Света в контексте отечественной и мировой истории): 2-е изд., испр. и доп. М., 2018

9. Гринев А.В. Кто есть кто в истории Русской Америки. М., 2009.

10. Данн Д. Между Рузвельтом и Сталиным. Американские послы в Москве. М., 2004.

11. Дэвис Д., Трани Ю. Первая холодная война. Вудро Вильсон и Россия. М., 2002.

12. Дэвис Д.Э, Трани Ю.П. Кривые зеркала. США и их отношения с Россией и Китаем в XX веке. М., 2009.

13. Егорова Н.И. История холодной войны, 1945–1991. Владимир, 2011.

14. Ермолаев А.Н. Российско-американская компания в Сибири и на Дальнем Востоке. Кемерово, 2013.

15. Журавлева В.И. Общее прошлое русских и американцев -The Common Past of Russians and Americans. М., 2021.

16. Журавлева В.И. Понимание России в США: образы и мифы. 1881–1914. М., 2012.

17. Зубок В.М., Печатнов В.О. Отечественная историография холодной войны. Некоторые итоги десятилетия // Отечественная история. 2003. № 4. С. 143–150; № 5. С. 139–148.

18. Иванян Э.А. Когда говорят музы. История российско-американских культурных связей. М., 2007.

19. История Русской Америки (1732–1867): в 3-х т. / под общ. ред. Н. Болховитинова. М., 1997–1999.

20. Кременюк В.А. Уроки холодной войны. М., 2015.

21. Курилла И.И. Заклятые друзья. История мнений, фантазий, контактов, взаимо(не)понимания России и США. М., 2018.

22. Курилла И.И. Заокеанские партнеры: Америка и Россия в 1830–1850-е годы. Волгоград, 2005.

23. Листиков С.В. США и революционная Россия в 1917 году: к вопросу об альтернативах американской политики от Февраля к Октябрю. М., 2006.

24. Мальков В.Л. Россия и США в XX веке: очерки истории межгосударственных отношений и дипломатии в социокультурном контексте. М., 2009.

25. Нечипорук Д.М. Во имя нигилизма. Американское общество друзей русской свободы и русская революционная эмиграция (1890–1930 гг.). СПб., 2018.

26. Нитобург Э.Л. Русские в США. История и судьбы, 1870–1970. М., 2005.

27. Носков В.В. Американские дипломаты в Санкт-Петербурге в эпоху Великих реформ. СПб., 2018.

28. Окончание холодной войны в восприятии современников и историков / под ред. В.И. Журавлевой, О.В. Павленко. М., 2021.

29. Петров А.Ю. Наталия Шелихова у истоков Русской Америки. М., 2012.

30. Петров А.Ю. Российско-американская компания: деятельность на отечественном и зарубежном рынках (1799–1867). М., 2006.

31. Петров А.Ю., Ермолаев А.Н., Савельев И.В. История Русской Америки: учебное пособие. Вологда, 2010.

32. Печатнов В.О. Сталин, Рузвельт, Трумэн: СССР и США в 1940-х гг.: документальные очерки. М., 2006.

33. Позняков В.В. Советская разведка в Америке. 1919–1941: 2-е изд. М., 2015.

34. Россия и США на страницах учебников: опыт взаимных репрезентаций / под ред. В.И. Журавлевой, И.И. Куриллы. Волгоград, 2009.

35. Рукавишников В.О. Холодная война, холодный мир. Общественное мнение в США и Европе о СССР/России, внешней политике и безопасности Запада. М., 2005.

36. Севостьянов Г.Н. Москва–Вашингтон. На пути к признанию. 1918–1933. М., 2004.

37. Советско-американские отношения. 1939–1945 / под ред. Г.Н. Севостьянова. М., 2004.

38. Холодная война в Арктике / под ред. М.Н. Супруна. Архангельск, 2009.

39. Черняев А.С. Совместный исход: дневник двух эпох, 1972–1991 годы. Москва, 2008.

40. Шаклеина Т.А. Россия и США в мировой политике. Москва, 2012.

41. Шацилло В.К. Россия и США: от Портсмутского мира до падения царизма (очерки истории отношений). М., 2019.

42. Шенин С.Ю. Возвращение в Россию: стратегия и политика американской помощи (1990-е гг.). СПб., 2008.

43. Шпотов Б.М. Американский бизнес и Советский Союз в 1920–1930-е годы: лабиринты экономического сотрудничества. М., 2013.

44. Шпотов Б.М. Генри Форд. Жизнь и бизнес. М., 2003.

45. Энциклопедия российско-американских отношений XVIII–XX века / авт. и сост. Э.А. Иванян. М., 2001.

46. Эткинд A. Толкование путешествий. Россия и Америка в травелогах и интертекстах. М., 2001.

47. “Alyaska – Sibir’ – front”. Istoriia legendarnoi aviatrassy. Dokumenty, kommentarii, vospominaniia. 1942–1945 [“Alaska – Siberia – Front”. A History of the Legendary Air Route. Documents, Comments, Memories. 1942–1945]. Moskva, 2004. (In Russ.)

48. Aleksandrov E.A. Russkie v Severnoi Amerike: biograficheskii slovar’ [Russians in North America: Dictionary of Biographies]. San-Francisco; Sankt-Peterburg, 2005. (In Russ.)

49. Arustamova A.A. Russko-amerikanskii dialog XIX veka: istoriko-literaturnyi aspect [Russian-American Dialogue in the 19th Century: Historical and Literary Aspect]. Perm, 2008. (In Russ.)

50. Batalov E.Ya., Zhuravleva V.Yu., Khozinskaya K.V. “Rychashhii medved’” na “dikom Vostoke” (obrazy sovremennoi Rossii v rabotah amerikanskih avtorov: 1992–2007) [“Roaring Bear” in the “Wild East” (Images of Post-Soviet Russia in the Works of American Authors: 1992–2007)]. Moskva, 2009. (In Russ.)

51. Bystrova I.V. Holodnaya voina 1945–1960 gg. Tokio – Moskva – Vashington [The Cold War in 1945–1960. Tokyo – Moscow – Washington]. Moskva, 2009. (In Russ.)

52. Bystrova I.V. Lend-liz dlia SSSR: ekonomika, tekhnika, ludi (1941–1945) [Lend-Lease for the USSR: Economics, Equipment, and People (1941–1945)]. Moskva, 2019. (In Russ.)

53. Bystrova I.V. Potselui cherez okean: “Bol’shaya troika” v svete lichnyh kontaktov (1941–1945) [A Kiss across the Ocean: The Big Three through the Prism of Personal Contacts (1941–1945)]. Moskva, 2011. (In Russ.)

54. Chernyaev A.S. Sovmestnyi ishod: dnevnik dvuh epoh, 1972–1991 gody [The Joint Exodus: A Dairy of Two Epochs, 1972–1991]. Moskva, 2008. (In Russ.)

55. Egorova N.I. Istoriya holodnoi voiny, 1945–1991 [History of the Cold War, 1945–1991]. Vladimir, 2011. (In Russ.)

56. Enciklopedija rossiisko-amerikanskih otnoshenij XVIII-XX veka / avt. i sost. E.A. Ivanian [Encyclopaedia of Russian-American Relations / ed. E.A. Ivanian]. Moskva, 2001. (In Russ.)

57. Ermolaev A.N. Rossiisko-amerikanskaya kompaniia v Sibiri i na Dal'nem Vostoke [The Russian-American Company in Siberia and in the Far East]. Kemerovo, 2013. (In Russ.)

58. Etkind A. Tolkovanie puteshestvij. Rossiia i Amerika v travelogah i intertekstah [Interpretations of Travels: Russia and America in Travel Books and Inter-texts]. Moskva, 2001. (In Russ.)

59. Grinev A.V. Aliaska pod krylom dvuglavogo orla (rossiiskaia kolonizatsiia Novogo Sveta v kontekste otechestvennoi i mirovoi istorii) [Under the Wing of the Russian Eagle (Russian Colonization of the New World in the context of Russian and World History)]. Moskva, 2018. (In Russ.)

60. Grinev A.V. Kto est' kto v istorii Russkoi Ameriki [Who is Who in the History of Russian America]. Moskva, 2009. (In Russ.)

61. Holodnaya voina v Arktike / pod red. M.N. Supruna [The Cold War in the Arctic / ed. M.N. Suprun]. Arkhangelsk, 2009. (In Russ.)

62. Istoriia Russkoi Ameriki (1732–1867): v 3-h tt. / pod obsh. red. N.N. Bolkhovitinova. [History of Russian America: in 3 vol. / ed. N.N. Bolkhovitinov]. Moskva, 1997–1999. (In Russ.)

63. Ivanian E.A. Kogda govoriat muzy. Istorija rossijsko-amerikanskih kul'turnyh svjazej [When Muses Speak. History of Russian-American Cultural Connections]. Мoskva, 2007. (In Russ.)

64. Kremenyuk V.A. Uroki holodnoi voiny [Lessons of the Cold War]. Moskva, 2015. (In Russ.)

65. Kurilla I.I. Zakljatye druz'yay. Istoriia mnenii, fantazii, kontaktov, vzaimo(ne)ponimaniya Rossii i SShA [Frenemies. History of Opinions, Fantasies, Contacts, [Mis]understandinds of Russia and the USA]. Moskva, 2018. (In Russ.)

66. Kurilla I.I. Zaokeanskie partnery: Amerika i Rossiia v 1830–1850-e gody [Partners across the Ocean: the United States and Russia in the 1830s–1850s]. Volgograd, 2005. (In Russ.)

67. Listikov S.V. SShA i revolutsionnaya Rossiia v 1917 godu: K voprosu ob al'ternativah amerikanskoi politiki ot Fevralya k Oktyabru [The USA and Revolutionary Russia in 1917. Alternatives in American policy from February to October]. Мoskva, 2006. (In Russ.)

68. Malkov V.L. Rossiia i SShA v XX veke: ocherki istorii mezhgosudarstvennykh otnoshenij i diplomatii v sociokul'turnom kontekste [Russia and the United States in the 20th Century. Sketches in the History of Their Inter-country Relationship and Diplomacy in a Sociocultural Context]. Moskva, 2009. (In Russ.)

69. Nechiporuk D.M. Vo imya nigilizma. Amerikanskoe obshchestvo druzei russkoi svobody i russkaya revolutsionnaya emigratsiya (1890–1930 gg.) [In the Name of Nihilism. The Society of American Friends of Russian Freedom and Russian Revolutionary Emigration (1890–1930)]. Sankt-Peterburg, 2018. (In Russ.)

70. Nitoburg E.L. Russkie v SShA. Istoriya i sud’by, 1870–1970 [Russians in the USA. History and Lives. 1870–1970]. Мoskva, 2005. (In Russ.)

71. Noskov V.V. Amerikanskie diplomaty v Sankt-Peterburge v epohu Velikih reform [American Diplomats in St. Petersburg in the Epoch of the Great Reforms] Sankt-Peterburg, 2018. (In Russ.)

72. Okonchanie holodnoi voiny v vospriyatii sovremennikov i istorikov / pod red. O.V. Pavlenko and V.I. Zhuravlevoi [The End of the Cold War in Representations of Its Contemporaries and Historians / eds O.V. Pavlenko, V.I. Zhuravleva]. Moskva, 2021. (In Russ. and English)

73. Pechatnov V.O. Ot souza k holodnoi voine. Sovetsko-amerikanskie otnosheniya v 1945-1947 gg. [From an Alliance to the Cold War. Soviet-American Relations in 1945–1947]. Moskva, 2006. (In Russ.)

74. Pechatnov V.O. Stalin, Ruzvel’t, Trumen: SSSR i SShA v 1940-h gg.: dokumental’nye ocherki [Stalin, Roosevelt, Truman: the USSR and the USA in the 1940s. Moskva, 2006. (In Russ.)

75. Petrov A.Yu. Nataliya Shelikhova u istokov Russkoi Ameriki [Nataliya Shelikhova at the Beginning of Russian America]. Moskva, 2012. (In Russ.)

76. Petrov A.Yu. Rossiisko-amerikanskaia kompaniia: deyatel'nost' na otechestvennom i zarubezhnom rynkah (1799–1867) [The Russian-American Company: Activity on Russian and Foreign Markets (1799–1867)]. Moskva, 2006. (In Russ.)

77. Petrov A.Yu., Ermolaev A.N., Savelyev E.V. Istoriia RusskoiAmeriki: Uchebnoe posobie [History of Russian America. Textbook]. Vologda, 2010. (In Russ.)

78. Poznaykov V.V. Sovetskaya razvedka v Amerike. 1919–1941 [Soviet Intelligence Service in America. 1919–1941]. Moskva, 2015. (In Russ.)

79. Rossiia i SShA na stranitsah uchebnikov: opyt vzaimnyh reprezentacii / pod red. V.I. Zhuravlevoi, I.I. Kurilly [Russia and the United States: Mutual Representations in Textbooks / eds V.I. Zhuravleva, I.I. Kurilla]. Volgograd, 2009.

80. Rukavishnikov V.O. Holodnaia voina, holodnyi mir. Obshhestvennoe mnenie v SShA i Evrope o SSSR/Rossii, vneshnei politike i bezopasnosti Zapada [The Cold War, the Cold Peace. The Public Opinion in the USA and Europe about the USSR/Russia, Foreign Policy, and the Security of the West]. Moskva, 2005. (In Russ.)

81. Sevostianov G.N. Moskva–Vashington. Na puti k priznaniiu [Moscow–Washington. The Road to Recognition. 1918–1933]. Moskva, 2004. (In Russ.)

82. Shakleina T.A. Rossiia i SShA v mirovoi politike [Russia and the USA in World Politics]. Moskva, 2012. (In Russ.)

83. Shatsillo V.K. Rossiia i SShA: ot Portsmutskogo mira do padeniia carizma (ocherki istorii otnoshenii) [Russia and the USA: from the Portsmouth Treaty to the Fall of Tsarism. Essays in the History of Russian-American Relations]. Moskva, 2019. (In Russ.)

84. Shenin S.Yu. Vozvrashhenie v Rossiiu: strategiia i politika amerikanskoi pomoshhi (1990-e gg.) [The Return to Russia: Strategy and Politics of American Aid (the1990s)]. Sankt-Peterburg, 2008. (In Russ.)

85. Shpotov B.M. Amerikanskii biznes i Sovetskii Souz v 1920–1930-e gody: labirinty ekonomicheskogo sotrudnichestva [American Business in the Soviet Union. The Labyrinths of Economic Cooperation in the 1920s–1930s]. Moskva, 2013. (In Russ.)

86. Shpotov B.M. Genri Ford. Zhizn' i biznes [Henry Ford. His Life and Business]. Moskva, 2003. (In Russ.)

87. Sovetsko-amerikanskie otnosheniia. 1939–1945 / pod red. G.N. Sevostianova [Soviet-American Relations. 1939–1945 / ed. G.N. Sevostianov]. Moskva, 2004. (In Russ.)

88. Zhuravleva V.I. Obshhee proshloe russkih i amerikantsev -The Common Past of Russians and Americans. Moskva/Moscow, 2021. (In Russ. and English)

89. Zhuravleva V.I. Ponimanie Rossii v SShA: obrazy i mify. 1881–1914 [Understanding Russia in the United States: Images and Myths. 1881–1914]. Мoskva, 2012. (In Russ.)

90. Zubok V.M., Pechatnov V.O. Otechestvennaya istoriografiya holodnoi voiny. Nekotorye itogi desyatiletiya [Russian Historiography of the Cold War. Some Results of the Decade] // Otechestvennaya istoriya [Russian History]. 2003. № 4. S. 143–150; № 5. S. 139–148. (In Russ.)

91. Beahm G. The Google Boys: Sergey Brin and Larry Page in Their Own Words. Chicago, 2014.

92. Bennett M.T. One World, Big Screen: Hollywood, the Allies, and World War II. Chapel Hill, 2012.

93. Carew J.G. Blacks, Reds, and Russians: Sojourners in Search of the Soviet Promise. New Brunswick, 2010.

94. Сasella-Blackburn M. The Donkey, the Carrot, and the Club: William C. Bullitt and Soviet-American Relations, 1917–1948. Westport, 2004.

95. Cohen S.F. Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia. New York, 2000.

96. Costigliola F. Roosevelt’s Lost Alliances. How Personal Politics Provoked the Cold War. Princeton; Oxford, 2012.

97. Davis D.E., Trani E.P. Distorted Mirrors. Americans and Their Relations with Russia and China in the 20th Century. Columbia, 2009.

98. Davis D.E., Trani E.P. The First Cold War: The Legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S.-Soviet Relations. Columbia, 2002.

99. Delegard K.M. Battling Miss Bolsheviki: The Origins of Female Conservatism in the United States. Philadelphia, 2012.

100. Dunn D. Caught Between Roosevelt & Stalin. America’s Ambassadors to Moscow. Lexington, 1998.

101. Engerman D.C. Modernization from the Other Shore. American Intellectuals and the Romance of Russian Development. Cambridge; London, 2003.

102. Engerman D.С. Know Your Enemy. The Rise and Fall of America’s Soviet Experts. New York, 2009.

103. English R. Russia and the Idea of the West. Gorbachev, Intellectuals and the End of the Cold War. New York, 2000.

104. Etkind A. Roads not Taken. An Intellectual Biography of William C. Bullitt. Pittsburgh, 2017.

105. Evangelista M. Unarmed Forces: The Transnational Movement to End the Cold War. Ithaca, 1999.

106. Fainberg D. Cold War Correspondents: Soviet and American Reporters on the Ideological Frontlines. Baltimore, 2021.

107. Farrow L.A. Alexis in America: A Russian Grand Duke’s Tour, 1871–1872. Baton Rouge, 2014.

108. Farrow L.A. The Catacazy Affair and the Uneasy Path of Russian-American Relations. London; New York, 2022.

109. Farrow L.A. Seward’s Folly. A New Look at the Alaska Purchase. Fairbanks, 2016.

110. Fedorova M. Yankees in Petrograd, Bolsheviks in New York: America and Americans in Russian Literary Perception. DeKalb, 2013.

111. Foglesong D.S. The American Mission and the “Evil Empire.” The Crusade for a “Free Russia” since 1881. Cambridge, 2007.

112. Francis D.R. Russia from the American Embassy / ed. and annotated by V.V. Noskov. Bloomington, 2019.

113. Gaddis J.L. The Cold War. A New History. New York, 2005.

114. Gaddis J.L. George F. Кеnnan. An American Life. New York, 2011.

115. Grachev A. Gorbachev’s Gamble: Soviet Foreign Policy and the End of the Cold War. Cambridge, 2008.

116. Grinev A.V. Russian Colonization of Alaska: Baranov's Era, 1799–1818. Lincoln, 2020.

117. Grinev A.V. Russian Colonization of Alaska. Preconditions, Discovery, and Initial Development, 1741–1799. Lincoln, 2018.

118. Hohman V.J. Russian Culture and Theatrical Performance in America, 1891–1933. New York, 2011.

119. Hudson J.M. Iron Curtain Twitchers. Russo-American Cold War Relations. Lanham, 2019.

120. Kennan G.F. The Kennan’s Diaries / ed. F. Costigliola. New York, 2014.

121. Kishinevsky V. Russian Immigrants in the United States. Adapting to American Culture. New York, 2004.

122. Leffler M.P. For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, the Soviet Union, and the Cold War. New York, 2007.

123. Levering R.B., Pechatnov O.V., Botzenhart-Viehe V., Edmondson C.E. Debating the Origins of the Cold War: American and Russian Perspectives. Lanham, 2002.

124. Libbey J.K. Alexander P. de Seversky and the Quest for Air Power. Washington (DC), 2013.

125. Lobenthal J. Wilde Times: Patricia Wilde, George Balanchine, and the Rise of New York City Ballet. Lebanon, 2016.

126. Mackenzie R. When Stars and Stripes Met Hammer and Sickle: The Chautauqua Conferences on U.S.-Soviet Relations, 1985–1989. Columbia, 2006.

127. Magnusdottir R. Enemy Number One. The United States of America in Soviet Ideology and Propaganda. 1945–1959. New York, 2019.

128. Makalani M. In the Cause of Freedom: Radical Black Internationalism from Harlem to London, 1917–1939. Chapel Hill, 2011.

129. When Citizens Deliberate: Russian and American Сitizens Сonsider Their Relationship / eds D.V. Makarov, I. Nagdasev, B. Cobb, P.D. Steward. Dayton, 2006.

130. Matlock J.F. Reagan and Gorbachev. How the Cold War Ended. New York, 2004.

131. McDuffie E.S. Sojourning for Freedom: Black Women, American Communism, and the making of Black Left Feminism. Durham, 2011.

132. McMeekin S. Stalin’s War: A New History of World War II. New York, 2021.

133. Melton C.W. Between War and Peace: Woodrow Wilson and the American Expeditionary Force in Siberia, 1918–1921. Macon, 2001.

134. Mickenberg J.L. American Girls in Red Russia: Chasing the Soviet Dream. Chicago, 2017.

135. Miller M.L. The American YMCA and Russian Culture. The Preservation and Expansion of Orthodox Christianity, 1900–1940. Lanham, 2013.

136. O’Brien P.P. How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II. Cambridge, 2015.

137. Owens K.N. (with Petrov A.Yu.). Empire Maker: Aleksandr Baranov and Russian Colonial Expansion into Alaska and Northern California. Seattle and London, 2015.

138. Patenaude B.M. The Big Show in Bololand: The American Relief Expedition to Soviet Russia in the Famine of 1921. Stanford, 2002.

139. Peterson J.W. Russian-American Relations in the Post-Cold War World. Manchester, 2017.

140. Puffer Sh., McCarthy D., Satinsky D.M. Hammer and Silicon. The Soviet Diaspora in the US Innovation Economy. Immigration, Innovation, Institutions, Imprinting, and Identity. Cambridge, 2018.

141. Reddaway P., Glinski D. The Tragedy of Russia’s Reforms: Market Bolshevism against Democracy Washington (DC), 2001.

142. Richard C.J. When the United States Invaded Russia: Woodrow Wilson’s Siberian Disaster. Lanham, 2012.

143. Rielage D.C. Russian Supply Efforts in America during the First World War. Jefferson, 2002.

144. Roman M.L. Opposing Jim Crow. African Americans and the Soviet Indictment of U.S. Racism, 1928–1937. Lincoln, 2012.

145. Russian/Soviet Studies in the United States, Amerikanistika in Russia. Mutual Representations in Academic Projects / eds I.I. Kurilla, V.I. Zhuravleva. Lanham, 2016.

146. Saul N.E. Concord and Conflict. The United States and Russia, 1867–1914. Lawrence, 1996.

147. Saul N.E. Distant Friends. The United States and Russia, 1763–1867. Lawrence, 1991.

148. Saul N.E. Friends or Foes? The United States and Russia 1921–1941. Lawrence, 2006.

149. Saul N.E. Historical Dictionary of United States-Russian/Soviet Relations. Lanham, 2009.

150. Saul N.E. The Life and Times of Charles R. Crane, 1858–1939. American Businessman, Philanthropist, and a Founder of Russian Studies in America. Lanham, 2012.

151. Saul N.E. Russian and Soviet Foreign Policy. Lanham, 2015.

152. Saul N.E. War and Revolution: The United States and Russia, 1914–1921. Lawrence, 2001.

153. Sell L. From Washington to Moscow. US-Soviet Relations and the Collapse of the USSR. Durham; London, 2016.

154. Shaw T. Hollywood’s Cold War. Amherst, 2007.

155. Shaw T., Youngblood D. Cinematic Cold War. The American and Soviet Struggle for Hearts and Minds. Lawrence, 2010.

156. Sher G.S. From Pugwash to Putin. A Сritical History of US-Soviet Scientific Cooperation. Bloomington, 2019.

157. Snyder S.B. Human Rights Activism and the End of the Cold War: A Transnational History of the Helsinki Network. New York, 2011.

158. Stent A.E. The Limits of Partnership. U.S.-Russia Relations in the 21st Century. Princeton; Oxford, 2014.

159. Stent A.E. Putin’s World. Russia against the West and with the Rest. New York, 2019.

160. Talbott S. The Russia Hand: A Memoir of Presidential Diplomacy. New York, 2002.

161. Tooze A. The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916–1931. New York, 2014.

162. Tsygankov A. The Dark Double: US Media, Russia, and the Politics of Values. New York, 2019.

163. Understanding and Teaching the Cold War / ed. M. Masur. Madison, 2017.

164. U.S. Congress, Speaker’s Advisory Group on Russia. Russia’s Road to Corruption: How the Clinton Administration Exported Government Instead of Free Enterprise and Failed the Russian People. Washington (DC), 2000.

165. Vinkovetsky I. Russian America: An Overseas Colony of a Continental Empire, 1804–1867. New York, 2011.

166. Voorhees J. Dialogue Sustained: The Multilevel Peace Process and the Dartmouth Conference. Washington (DC), 2002.

167. Walling M.G. Forgotten Sacrifice. The Arctic Convoys of World War II. New York, 2012.

168. Weeks A.L. Russia’s Life-Saver: Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II. Lanham, 2004.

169. Westad O.A. Reviewing the Cold War: Approaches, Interpretations, Theory. London, 2000.

170. Palgrave Advances in Cold War History / eds S.R. Dockrill, G. Hughes. New York, 2006.

171. Willett R.L. Russian Sideshow: America’s Undeclared War, 1918–1920. Washington (DC), 2003.

172. Wilson J.G. The Triumph of Improvisation: Gorbachev’s Adaptability, Reagan’s Engagement, and the End of the Cold War. New York, 2014.

173. Zelensky N. Performing Tsarist Russia in New York: Music, Emigres, and the American Imagination. Bloomington, 2019.

174. Zhuk S.I. Nikolai Bolkhovitinov and American Studies in the USSR: People’s Diplomacy in the Cold War. Lanham, 2017.

175. Zhuk S.I. Soviet Americana. The Cultural History of Russian and Ukranian Americanists. New York, 2018.

176. Zubok V. Collapse: The Fall of the Soviet Union. New Haven, 2021.

177. Zubok V. A Failed Empire: The Soviet Union in the Cold War from Stalin to Gorbachev. Chapel Hill, 2008.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate