This dissertation examines the construction of new national borders in the former Russian Empire after the First World War, between Soviet and British imperial intervention. This forgotten process of border-making had enormous consequences for the shape of the Soviet Union and the 20th-century international order. Through an interdisciplinary approach combining diplomatic, intellectual, military, and material histories, incorporating government documents, memoirs, and personal papers, this work puts the formation of the Soviet Union in international context and connects it with the on-the-ground development of new ideas about the nation-state. The contingent decisions and everyday practices of local Soviet and British officials drew borders around national territories and imagined national spaces in ways that still shape Eastern Europe and Eurasia 100 years later.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The 900 day German blockade of Leningrad fostered an environment in which social relationships, which were pruned and altered during the 1930s, were reinvigorated and reinvented by Leningraders. By the outbreak of the war in the summer of 1941, Stalinist social engineering policies had eroded previously normalized social connections and networks. At the height of the Terror, it became beneficial and advantageous for Soviet citizens to cut off many of their social relationships that had been built up over years. The family became the site of the primary emphasis of social interaction. The strengthening of the family system under Stalin created family units that were remarkably elastic and durable. This familial elasticity allowed Leningraders to reknit social relationships during the siege which became primary as food became central to survival. Without intense monitoring and oversight from the state, Leningraders were forced to rekindle social ties and relationships to survive. / History

yes / P5. The evaluation was undertaken by Bradford University, Channel Research Ltd, the PARC & Associated Consultants. The GCPP Russia and Former Soviet Union (FSU) Case study was carried out by Dr Greg Austin with Mr Paul Bergne. Work was conducted in three phases. The first was London-based, and considered the Russia and FSU Strategy¿s activities in the context of UK approaches to conflict prevention in the region and the overall policy framework of the GCPP. The second phase involved fieldwork in Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, whilst the third phase involved consultations in London. P7. The Russia and FSU Case Study is one of six studies undertaken within the framework of the evaluation of the Conflict Prevention Pools. In accordance with the Terms of Reference (ToRs) and the Inception Report, the Evaluation placed maximum emphasis on the macro level: the policy processes in Whitehall by which decisions on allocations are made and implemented by the CPPs. Considerable attention has also been placed on the meso level: the degree to which CPP policies and activities in a given conflict form part of a coherent package of direct interventions by the international community and local actors to the problems of particular large scale deadly conflicts or potential conflicts. The microlevel of analysis (review of specific projects) confines itself largely to the way in which projects impact on the meso and macro levels. The Evaluation has not analysed systematically whether specific projects funded by the CPPs have been well managed and whether they have achieved their specific project goals. Single projects have been analysed to the extent that they reflect on the macro and meso levels. P8. The main findings of the evaluation, reflected in this Synthesis Report, are that the CPPs are doing significant work funding worthwhile activities that make positive contributions to effective conflict prevention, although it is far too early in the day to assess impact. The progress achieved through the CPP mechanisms is significant enough to justify their continuation.

Why do warring parties sometimes end up occupying territories they do not claim while not occupying territory they do? How do they explain this and how can we, from this explanation, understand the logic of occupation at work in these cases? This is the puzzle and the research questions at the center of this thesis. Using a case study of the Karabakh War (1991-94) it seeks to understand the rationale behind the Armenian occupation of previously undisputed Azerbaijani-populated territories around the contested entity of Nagorno Karabakh (NK). To achieve this objective the thesis considers one of these districts – Agdam – and contrasts its occupation to the lack of a concerted effort to return control over previously Armenian-populated district of Shaumyan, a territory Armenians view as under Azerbaijani occupation. The thesis presents the circumstances and rationales provided by the Armenian leaders for these counter-intuitive policies of occupation they pursued during the Karabakh war. This necessitates examining the prior meanings of these places, the contested and changed significance of Agdam and Shaumyan since the Karabakh war. There are five distinct explanatory accounts of logics of occupation. These are accounts based on 1) military/security needs; 2) political elite-driven decisions, 3) economic gain, 4) psychological and 5) identity-related factors. Process tracing and archival research points to primarily security and psychological rationales for the original actions, whereas economic gain played a secondary role. While these factors remain significant in justifying continued occupation, today they are also strongly augmented by newly-constructed identity markers and political elite-driven considerations. / Master of Public and International Affairs

A study of the family unit, men, women, children, and housing in Russia.