Black Sea Straits Research Articles

Znaczenie Morza Czarnego dla relacji turecko-sowieckich w latach 1939-1946

The Black Sea and the Black Sea Straits during World War II and immediately after its end had a huge impact on the formation of Turkish-Soviet relations. Already at the beginning of the war, Moscow tried to force Ankara to revise the Montreux Treaty. Soviet pressure depended on the war situation and resurfaced as the Allies began winning the war. In 1945, Turkey, fearing a lack of support in the event of a conflict with the Soviet Union, was ready to make concessions, and in the following year Moscow began to boldly demand a revision of the Montreux Treaty in its notes in such a way that the straits would be decided by the Black Sea states, and the security guards Turkey and the Soviet Union were to become the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles. Ankara could only have been saved by Western support during this period - and in the longer context by the outbreak of the Cold War.

Russia/USSR – Türkiye/Turkey: Legacy of “Friendly Neutrality”.Goals of Soviet Policy towards Turkey

The article is dedicated to the analysis of the Soviet leadership’s approaches to the implementation of the goals of the Soviet foreign policy towards Turkey, legacy of which remains until nowadays. The Soviet-Turkish relations in the 1920-s were built up on the basis of common political interests shared between two neighboring states existing in a similar geopolitical environment. The common goal for the Republic of Turkey and the USSR was to overcome international isolation and ensure national security. The Soviet government’s approach to determining the role and place of Turkey in the security system near the borders of the USSR was outlined by People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs G.V. Chicherin, who saw the Soviet-Turkish cooperation as one of the tools for ensuring the security of the Soviet borders in the south and southwest. One of the key issues in the Soviet-Turkish relations was the issue of the Black Sea straits. Considering the straits a "gateway" for an attack on the southern borders of the USSR, the Soviet government tried to revise the regime of the straits in a more favorable way for the country. the resolution of which in 1936 at the conference in Montreux did not suit the Soviet government completely. It was assumed that strong economic ties with the USSR and mutually beneficial security cooperation would become an effective instrument for deterring the Turkish leaders. During the Great Patriotic War, the goals of the USSR’s policy towards Turkey were to prevent it from being drawn into the war on the side of the antagonistic alliance, as well as to further revise the Montreux Convention in a more favorable direction for the Soviet leaders. The 1939–1946 attempts to put pressure on Turkey on the straits issue caused Turkey to withdraw from the orbit of the Soviet influence and led to almost two decades of hostile and tense relations between the two countries. After the death of I.V. Stalin, particularly in Khruschev’s era, the Soviet approach was characterized by a search for ways to improve Soviet-Turkish relations. The main instrument of this was expansion of the Soviet-Turkish trade and economic cooperation, due to which the foundations of today's highly developed bilateral Russian-Turkish relations were laid.

Control of the Black Sea Straits: The Kerch Incident

This article addresses regional security in the EU’s South-Eastern neighbourhood. The current Russia–Ukraine relations represent a critical point within the historical power competition over the Black Sea straits between Russia–Türkiye and Russia–NATO. The Black Sea has three geopolitically significant straits. Two are controlled by Türkiye – the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea. One is currently controlled by Russia – the Kerch Strait, connecting the Black Sea and the Azov Sea. The unresolved regional security crises include the Kerch Strait incident from 2018, in which Russian vessels implemented military action against Ukrainian vessels.This study is inductive. It addresses the Kerch Strait incident as a security crisis of two contrasting perspectives – first, that of maritime security and international law, and second, the psychological drama triangle – a model of interpersonal dependency, which I apply to international relations. These two approaches lead to a better understanding of ongoing processes. First, the maritime law perspective shows the inapplicability of international maritime law due to opposing vital security interests of the participants. Second, the psychological perspective suggests an alternative explanation of recurring crises in international relations. The findings suggest two solutions. First, based on international maritime law, the Kerch incident could be resolved only if Russia and Ukraine agree on the ownership of Crimea and its territorial waters. However, their differing perception of security threats is an obstacle to such resolution. Second, the drama triangle of human interaction examines interpersonal conflict in which the victim has to interrupt the cycle of victimisation. Applying this psychological model to IR suggests that Ukraine, if in the victim role, should aim self-empowerment to minimise dependencies on dominant international actors.

The Eastern Question in the Views of the Russian Liberals of the Early 20th Century

The study deals with the attitude of Russian liberals of the early 20th century to the Eastern question, which occupied a special place in international politics and whose aggravation became one of the factors leading to the World War I. Various political forces in Russia developed their own variants of its solution, realizing that the fate not only of the country, but of the whole world largely depended on the projects they proposed. The analysis of the liberals’ ambiguous perception of the Russian government’s actions in the Balkans, their attitude to the South Slavs, to the problem of the Black Sea Straits, and to the confrontation between the great powers united in alliances, i.e. all aspects of the Eastern question, will allow us to reconstruct and understand the liberals’ understanding of the connection between foreign policy and Russia’s internal development, national interests, and ideological values. Looking at the views of the liberals of the early 20th century on the Eastern question reveals not only the peculiarities of its perception by the ruling elite and representatives of the legal opposition, but also the roots of the growing alienation of the country’s elite from the people. It was this alienation, which intensified during the war years and manifested itself, among other things, in the different perceptions of the importance of the Eastern question by the authorities, the liberals, and the people, that led to the fall of the first liberal Provisional Government in the spring of 1917. As a result, the people tired of the war and unable to understand the meaning of Russia’s struggle for foreign lands, came to support the Bolsheviks, who exposed the “imperialist plans” of the Provisional Government and advocated peace without annexations and contributions. The paper touches upon the problem of the liberals’ attitude not only to the government’s foreign policy, but also to Russian statehood, the conceptual reasons for their transition from a restrained peace-loving position and the desire to prevent war to its unconditional support. The authors identify the ideological and foreign policy factors that influenced this liberal transit. The main attention is paid to the understanding of representatives of various liberal movements of the Eastern question, which, without exaggeration, took a central place not only in their foreign policy program, but also in the project of internal transformations, which envisaged the creation of Great Russia as a result of its solution. The study identifies and analyzes the innovations introduced by the liberals in the interpretation of the Eastern question under the influence not only of the changing international situation, political and economic modernization of Russia, which was becoming a “Duma monarchy,” but also of the development of the ideology itself; the peculiarities of its perception by representatives of various liberal currents in the country are examined.

The Rebirth of Empires: Contest and Cooperation of Russia and Türkiye in the Black Sea Region(Political and Historical Analysis)

Introduction. Modern Russia and Türkiye are dynamically developing geopolitical centers actively participating in the formation of a new model of international relations. The purpose of the research is to determine how historical models and patterns of interaction of the two states have influenced on current cooperation and their possible clash in the near future and compare their main resource opportunities for obtaining the status of a power in the new world order. Materials and Methods. The study is carried out within the framework of the paradigms of classical geopolitics using system, geopolitical, civilizational and historical approaches. The authors consider the historical experience of Russian-Turkish relations in the form of the interaction of imperial systems. Results. It’s seen that although Russia and Türkiye can be seen as historical antagonists, their imperial nature is based on Eurasian spatial projects that influence their contemporary foreign policy. Despite the12 Russian-Turkish wars, the powers have never posed an existential threat to each other and have had unprecedented periods of political rapprochement, while at the same time they have faced the existential challenges from the united West. Now, having a significant space for cooperation in the economic and geopolitical sphere, Russia and Türkiye clash in three key regions: the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa, the Black Sea region, the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The central issue of interaction is the problem of the functioning of the Black Sea straits. The issue was updated after the start of the Special Military Operation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine, when Ankara, on the basis of the Montreux Convention, blocked the straits for all warships that benefits Russia. Discussion and Conclusion. The sovereign revival of Russia and Türkiye is a reason for an extremely unstable climate of bilateral relations, within which a positive agenda is currently being formed due to the personal factor of the two presidents: painful issues to be postponed for future. This state of affairs requires a qualitative scientific examination of the historical and political experience of the interaction of the two powers and modeling of future bilateral relations.

Fathoming the warm waters: The Russian Mediterranean adventure in the age of Napoleonic wars, 1798-1807

The French advances in Europe during the age of the Napoleonic wars, as well as Napoleon Bonaparte’s Egyptian expedition, paved the way for a previously unthinkable alliance between the Russian and Ottoman empires. Both militarily and ideologically, France had become a threat to both monarchies, so in late 1798, for different reasons, the interests of both monarchies coincided. As a result of the defensive alliance between St. Petersburg and the Sublime Porte, the Russian fleet was granted passage through the Black Sea Straits, and the joint Russian-Ottoman naval fleet launched a military expedition against the French in the Mediterranean. The Ottoman-Russian forces subsequently ousted the French from the Ionian Archipelago off the west coast of continental Greece, and Russia gained de facto control over the Ionian Islands and established a naval base in the Adriatic Sea, where it stayed until 1807. The present article draws from a variety of published and unpublished primary sources to analyse and briefly outline the circumstances behind the creation of the Septinsular Republic on the Ionian Islands and the short-lived Russian residency in the Central Mediterranean during the discussed period.

Османсько-російське дипломатичне протистояння в період Другої Балканської війни 1913 р.

On the basis of British, German, French, and Russian documents, the origins, course, and consequences of the diplomatic struggle between the Russian and Ottoman empires caused by St. Petersburg’s gross interference in international relations in the Balkans have been studied. It is shown that Russia actively, though unsuccessfully, made enormous diplomatic efforts during the First Balkan War of 1912–1913 to persuade the Bulgarian army to relinquish control of Adrianople, which was under Ottoman control at the time because it viewed Bulgaria as its immediate competitor in the potential struggle for control of Constantinople and the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. After all, the capture of these strategically located Ottoman territories was one of the main directions of Russian policy for several centuries. The article considers how the Russian autocracy, on the contrary, already tried to prevent the return of Adrianople to Ottoman control during the Second Balkan War by seeking allies among European powers, no longer wanting to strengthen the sultan’s position near the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, considering these territories as its potential prey. All the tools of St. Petersburg’s pressure on the Ottoman government were analyzed, including threats to carry out a naval operation in the Black Sea Straits or seize part of Turkey’s Asian possessions, and to urge Russia’s ally France to abandon further lending to the Ottoman Empire. It has been proven that such an inconsistent and rather aggressive Russian policy in the Balkans led to the fact that the Ottoman Empire, like Bulgaria, actively sought allies to resist this encroachment, quickly became closer to Germany, and later entered the First World War on its side. It is noted that looking for partners to resist this Russian expansion, the Ottoman government later cooperated quite successfully with the Ukrainian liberation movement, especially the Union for the Liberation of Ukraine, which was represented in Constantinople, and officially declared support for the liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people against tsarist autocracy. Furthermore, it is emphasized that both Russia’s partners in the Entente (France and Great Britain) and its potential rivals in the Triple Alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy) categorically did not accept Russia’s attempts to expand to Ottoman Constantinople, the Bosporus, the Dardanelles and beyond to the Eastern Mediterranean, as it would radically upset the balance of power in Europe and the Middle East and, in general, destabilize international relations to which the great powers were not yet ready.

Historical background and consequences of the kanal Istanbul construction

The security and stability of the Black Sea Region is vital for the interests of Russia. The current status of the Black Sea Straits, which is regulated by the 1936 Montreux Convention, generally ensures this security. A destabilizing factor for the region may become Turkey’s desire to strengthen control over the Straits and the construction of an alternative channel, which will be under Turkish jurisdiction and which will not be subject to the Montreux Convention. The construction of the Kanal Istanbul in the context of global instability and the existence of serious contradictions between Western countries and Russia can lead to an imbalance of forces in the Black Sea region. In this regard, this article provides a brief historical overview of how Russia has defended its vital interests in this region over the centuries, as well as how the control over the passage from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean by the different actors was influencing the balance of power in the region. In addition, for a better understanding of the military, political, economic, and ecological consequences of the construction of the Kanal Istanbul the article analyzes the current situation around this project using a matrix of interests. Consequently, by studying the historical and modern processes taking place in the Black Sea region, and also considering the importance of this region for the security and economic well-being of Russia, the author came to the conclusion that the future status of the Kanal Istanbul should be included in the Russian-Turkish agenda.

Evolution of the perception of the eastern question by Russian liberals in the second half of the 19th century

The article examines the attitude of Russian liberals of the second half of the XIX century to the Eastern question, that occupied an important place in the foreign policy of Russia and for more than half a century from the Crimean to the First World War, served as an object of reflection and debate, the causative agent of public opinion of the country. The authors reveal the liberals’ understanding of the content of the Eastern question and the evolution of its perception, the main vector of which was the transition from contemplative reflection and publicistic discussion to attempts to understand the internal development of the country through its prism and influence on government policy. The Eastern question itself in the views of some liberals gradually turned from an object of abstract reasoning into an urgent problem, where the practical solution on which the fate of the country largely depended. The article analyzes the liberal understanding of the essence and main components of the Eastern question. It is emphasized that the liberal view, without claiming to be a scientific and a comprehensive coverage of it, tried to clarify for itself and for society these main elements of the eastern question, which in various epochs was reduced either to Russia’s support of the national liberation movement of the Slavs in the Balkans, which created opportunities for asserting its influence in the region; or to ensuring control over the Black sea Straits; or to reaching agreements with leading European States on the division of the "Turkish inheritance." Attention is drawn to the fact that in contrast to the majority of Russian conservatives, liberals closely linked the solution to the Eastern question with the implementation of reforms in the country, and, at least until the beginning of the twentieth century, with the rejection of the use of force in the Balkans. The article is intended to determine the factors that influenced the evolution of the attitude of liberal publicists to the Eastern question, to consider the historical context: changes in the international situation and the political situation which were reflected in their foreign policy views.

Reconciling Conflicting Interests of Coastal and Riparian States: The Hard Case of Black Sea Straits

There are two basic understandings of the regime of the Black Sea straits: the Black Sea straits as a legal regime and the Black Sea straits as a political regime [1]. The legal assessment of the Black Sea Straits regime requires determining what the existing regulation of the Straits is, how open the Straits are to international navigation, and if closed, whether there are real legal grounds for closing straits while the reference to the Black Sea Straits as a political regime allows for the possibility that straits may be closed for ensuring the security of Turkey and the Black Sea riparian states [1]. It is worth noting that arguments advanced by international legal scientists on the Black Sea straits as legal regime fundamentally differ from each other. Some scientists consider the Montreux Convention to be a major problem in the legal regulation of the Black Sea straits. They consider it necessary for Turkey to recognise the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea as a legally binding treaty [2]. Others argue that the main problem in regulating the Black Sea straits is the unilateral regulations adopted by Turkey (1994, 1998 and 2003 Regulations), which, in their view, violate the basic norms of the Montreux Convention, especially the regime of free passage through the straits established by this Convention [3; 4]. Another group of scientists believes that although the regime of the Black Sea straits is significantly restricted by Turkish unilateral regulations, these acts are aimed at protecting the marine environment and safety, and, therefore, the Turkish policy of regulating the Black Sea Straits is legally justified [1; 5]. This article is dedicated to the international legal regulation of navigation in the Black Sea Straits. The aim of the paper is to evaluate the current regime of the Black Sea Straits, the relationship and differences between the regime established by the Montreux Convention and the unilateral acts adopted by Turkey on the regulation of traffic in the Black Sea Straits, and to answer the question whether the urgent need to protect the natural environment and maritime safety entitles Turkey to restrict the regime established by the Montreux Convention. Thus, special attention will be drawn to the Montreux Convention, the rules and recommendations adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and the case law of international courts. In the view of the authors, the environmental and safety arguments put forward by Turkey for restricting navigation through the Black Sea Straits have two conceptual dimensions. First, these arguments are acceptable when it comes either to introducing norms related to the movement of ships to ensure safety of navigation or providing an obligation of notification to the Turkish authorities [6]. Another important thesis advanced by this article is that in each particular case, the regulations adopted by Turkey should be interpreted in the light of the recommendations made by the International Maritime Organisation. The main rationale of this argument is that under the existing regulations, Turkish authorities can still suspend the movement of ships in the straits for various reasons, some of which are quite vague. However, the article showcases that Turkey can, in case of pressing environmental need, when there is an urgent interest in the protection of the natural environment, act with the motive of protecting the natural environment, regardless of whether this action derives from a particular international treaty.

RELATIONS BETWEEN TURKEY AND RUSSIA IN THE CONTEXT OF ENERGY PARTNERSHIP

This article discusses issues of modern cooperation between Turkey and Russia in the context of energy diplomacy. The article deals with the issues of formation, development of key moments and important aspects of changing the energy strategy of Turkey and Russia. The main factors contributing to the rapprochement of bilateral relations, including relations on several topical issues of international relations, are identified. The question of the interdependence of the two economies is the main point of this study. As a methodological basis of the study, the authors used the methods of comparative-political and system-functional analysis of international relations and the world economy. The issues of the influence of the interdependence of the economies of Russia and Turkey on the political dialogue between the two countries are considered. The key points in bilateral relations, the main risks, and threats are analyzed. The prospects for the further development of relations are also considered. As threats, the points related to the bloc unity of Turkey and NATO, the status of the Crimea, and questions about the Black Sea straits were highlighted. The current state of relations between Ankara and Moscow are mutually beneficial, but repeated asymmetry is not excluded.Keywords: Russia, Turkey, energy diplomacy, gas pipeline, Black Sea, security, foreign policy, cooperationJEL Classifications: F5, O3DOI: https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.8448

Закавказский регион во внешней политике США 1917–1920 гг.

The author reveals the connection between the desire of the US government to implement a new concept of foreign policy and the development of the self-determination movement in Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, as well as the US attitude to the national issue in the former Russian Empire and the problem of the status of nation-states in 1918–1920. The role of an external factor in the struggle for independence is considered in the paper. Some aspects related to the USA government decision not to recognize new states independence are studied. The factors that had an influence on changes in American policy on this issue, the controversial and inconsistent nature of the policy towards Armenia are explored by the author. The author focuses on inconsistent character of W. Wilson’s government policy to Armenia, and the connection between Transcaucasian policy of the United States and the efforts of the Wilson government to internationalize the Black Sea Straits.

Перспективы создания в Турции межрегионального энергетического хаба

The article examines the energy policy of Turkey in connection with the country’s desire to become an international energy hub concentrating supplies from neighboring energy resources exporting countries, due to its unique geographical location. Its key position between Asia and Europe facilitates the passage through its territory of transport routes, allowing diversification of exports and imports for neighboring countries. Turkish economic policy, conducted in recent decades, allowed the country to make a leap in its development. To maintain the existing growth rates of the economy, it is necessary to have sufficient energy consumption. The dependence of the country on external energy sources leads to a multi-vector geopolitics, conducted by the country’s government. Turkey is surrounded by countries with which there are economic and geopolitical disagreements. Orientation on Russia with its large and diverse energy resources and a capacious domestic market will support the existing growth rates of the economy, occupy the unemployed population and stabilize energy supplies. Energy diplomacy has become an important factor in ensuring the energy security of both Turkey and its partners. Energy security is influenced by such factors as disruptions in energy supply and price volatility in the global energy market. The development of energy is currently taking place in the mainstream of energy programs, the main components of which are economics, politics, scientific and technical progress, social and environmental problems. The uniqueness of EGP between the zones of energy production and consumption increased the importance of the country as an transiter of energy, that controling the Black Sea straits and having ports on the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

Russia, Turkey, and the Problem of the Black Sea Straits in 1898–1908

The article deals with the main geopolitical problem in Russian—Ottoman relations at the turn of the twentieth century. Using ample archive sources the author shows the course of Russia’s struggle for influence in the straits. He concludes that the Ottoman policy was more flexible and the Turks proved able to assert their interests in the region. At the same time the straits question did not become the cause of any serious escalation between the two powers.

АЗОВО-ЧЕРНОМОРСКИЙ РЕГИОН: НОВЫЕ ПОЛИТИКО-ПРАВОВЫЕ РЕАЛИИ

The Black Sea is a unique maritime region of great strategic importance not only for regional states, but also for non-regional players – especially for the NATO countries. For the Russian Federation it is the maritime area of its Black Sea Fleet location, the exit of which into the Mediterranean Sea and further to the Atlantic Ocean lies through the Black Sea straits of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. For NATO members which are constantly strengthening their naval presence here, it is not only a region of interaction with allies (Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey), but also a region for direct access to potential partners – Georgia and Ukraine, as well as a place for naval exercises, gathering intelligence information, and, in general, – the area of direct contact with Russia’s naval potential under conditions of a new Cold War. This existing level of conflict in the region is aggravated by a number of other circumstances. Firstly, these are unresolved issues with the delimitation of maritime spaces: between Russia and Ukraine, the problem of which has only intensified after the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation; between Russia and other Black Sea countries (Romania, Turkey, Abkhazia), also emerged after the Crimea’s accession. Secondly, this is the non-recognition of Russian zones of sovereignty and jurisdiction around the peninsula on the part of Kiev, and the filing of relevant lawsuits in international courts and arbitrations, which is hypothetically fraught with a growth of provocations in the waters adjacent to Crimea. Thirdly, this is a gradual aspiration of Turkey to strengthen the national level of regulation for navigation through the straits – the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. Finally, unrealized projects of the NATO’s Black Sea flotilla only exacerbate the tension here. Whether Russia will fully ensure the protection of its national interests in the Black Sea region, will determine its status of the largest and the most powerful Black Sea state.&nbsp

The operational planning and preparation of soviet landing in the Black Sea Straits

The operational planning and preparation of soviet landing in the Black Sea Straits

Yalta 1945: the Black Sea Straits and the War in the Far East

In the scientific literature on the Yalta conference of leaders of the three powers of the coalition there are no studies that reveal its naval aspects. Meanwhile, among the issues that had significance for the Soviet delegation, they held even if not the first priority, but were quite prominent. In the Russian historiography attention to these matters appeared only in the early 1990s, most likely because the Soviet side in negotiations had a negative impact on the formation of the post-war world order. Contemporary Russian historians are in line with the tradition, a feature of which was a lack of attention to the maritime policy of the Soviet Union, especially in the 1921 - 1955. It is clear, however, that projects of this scale, which required the mobilization of all resources of the Soviet state, creation of the most advanced shipbuilding and entirely new industries for the country and high-tech industries, could not arise in a vacuum. Behind this processes were certain political goals, and when the war began Stalin stopped work on the first "big shipbuilding program" though it did not mean that he refused them. This hypothesis is based and presented in this article.

The Development of the Black Sea Straits Regulation of International Navigation

The Black sea straits as part of significant sea root were long time targets of the international politics and law.Regime constructed by Montreux Convention of 1936 was stable during decades but since 90-s Turkeyunilaterally changed the rules. Objectively the new Turkish Regulations were a big step to prevent pollution, toimprove the safety of vessel traffic and to ensure the safety of navigation through the mentioned straits. But itstill has problematic provisions that breach the Montreux convention and modern principles of the law of theinternational navigation. Author tries to find limits established by the international law in this area becauseenvironmental reasons should not justify unjust actions. The Black sea straits case shows us how it is difficult tofind balance between claims of user states and littoral states.

Political, Socio-Cultural, Economic and Trade Relations between the USSR and Turkey in 1945-1960

Relevance of the research problem is due to the fact that Russia’s relations with one of its nearest neighbors—Turkey is an important element of Russian foreign policy strategy, and the basis for cooperation between the two countries was the coincidence of their common goals, namely the providing of security zone of the Black sea Straits which were essential for the interests of both the USSR and Turkey. The purpose of the article is to identify the political, socio-cultural, trade and economic relations between USSR and Turkey in the period from 1945 till1960, which are based on the analysis of the sources and literature. In this regard, the paper investigates the background of the Soviet-Turkish cooperation, studies political relations between the USSR and Turkey in the years 1945-1960; analyzes the Soviet-Turkish trade and economic relations, as well as takes into consideration the cultural relations between the Soviet Union and Turkey in the period from 1945 till 1960 years. The results of this paper can be used in general works on the history of Turkey preparation, as well as in the preparation of courses for historical faculties of higher educational institutions of professional education.

American Statecraft and the 1946 Black Sea Straits Controversy

In a late Thursday afternoon meeting in White House on August 15, 1946, Truman administration concluded that renewed Russian demands for joint control of Black Sea Straits reflected a desire control and dominate Turkey; that if allowed control of Turkey, it would be difficult, if not impossible, stop Russia from controlling Greece, Turkey, and the whole Near and Middle East. Dean Acheson, acting secretary of state and spokesman for representatives of State, War and Navy departments at meeting, told Truman that it was essential resist firmly this Russian trial balloon . . . with full realization that if Russia did not back down and we maintained our attitude it might lead armed conflict. The president was prepared, Acheson cabled James Byrnes in Paris, see matter to end.1