Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest literary masterpieces, continually captivating readers worldwide through ongoing discussions, translations, and adaptations since its original publication in 1865–1869. This article explores the novel from an economic perspective, aiming to determine whether it encapsulates a coherent and comprehensive economic worldview capable of implicitly shaping contemporary economic thinking and decision-making. Such embedded economic ideas and values have largely remained unnoticed and unexplored by scholars, thus limiting their potential integration into modern economic discourse. Recognizing and articulating these implicit economic insights could significantly broaden contemporary economic research, harmonizing established concepts such as rationality, self-interest, and market equilibrium with emerging considerations of sustainability, social norms, reciprocity, and morality.

The study systematically identifies episodes within the novel that carry distinct economic significance, organizing them logically into thematic clusters. Each identified scenario is analyzed through the lens of contemporary economic theories, supplemented by relevant interpretations from existing scholarly literature.

The analysis demonstrates that the economic content within War and Peace constitutes a coherent and logically consistent thematic framework without contradictions or narrative disruptions. The novel’s economic storylines reflect realistic economic developments and illustrate the evolution of economic consciousness among its main characters. Tolstoy’s underlying economic philosophy aligns closely with classical political economy, emphasizing individual freedom and personal responsibility. Furthermore, the text implicitly promotes principles of sustainable consumption and production, advocating disciplined budgeting and long-term financial planning. Finally, the study highlights how economic interactions within the novel are influenced or shaped by broader social, political, cultural, and ethical contexts.

This article traces the evolution of Iceland’s strategic culture from 1945 to 2024 by examining how Icelandic media visually construct the “Other.” Political cartoons serve as the primary evidence base: their recurring motifs and metaphors reveal the values that underpin national security thinking.

The analysis yields three core findings. First, Icelandic strategic culture is founded on a normative aversion to force: military power is portrayed as legitimate only when exercised in self-defence. Second, this pacific norm produces a consistently defensive—rather than offensive—posture toward external threats. Third, Icelandic identity is forged relationally, through shifting depictions of major international actors.

These relational patterns unfold as follows. Between 1945 and 2024 the United States and the United Kingdom transition from suspicious “Others” to trusted allies, adding a distinct transAtlantic layer to Icelandic self-conception. By contrast, the Soviet Union (1945–1991) and its successor, Russia (1991–2024), remain durable cultural antagonists: Cold-War tropes such as the Russian bear continue to symbolize an assertive, menacing foreign policy. After 1991 the European Union emerges as an ambivalent figure, blending attractive and repulsive traits that mirror Reykjavík’s own indecision over deeper European integration.

The cartoons also project a reflexive self-image: Icelanders emphasise their small size and material weakness while acknowledging reliance on external security guarantors—above all, the United States. Finally, the broader international environment is depicted as anarchic and inherently hazardous, reinforcing Iceland’s defensive orientation and its search for reliable partners.

Drawing upon extensive archival sources, this article examines a critical and challenging period in the history of the Foreign Diplomatic Corps of the White Movement. Despite the successive defeats experienced by the White armies within Russia, the diplomatic arm of the movement persisted in its operations abroad. Recognizing that subordination to Soviet authorities or the transfer of diplomatic responsibilities to representatives appointed by Moscow was unacceptable, the Corps' leadership opted to maintain organizational autonomy in the event of an unfavorable outcome to the Civil War. To achieve this goal, efforts were made to restore internal hierarchy and discipline, streamline the diplomatic staff, and preserve the representational functions of Corps institutions worldwide. Securing sustainable financial support for ongoing diplomatic activities also emerged as a priority.

Amid these organizational transformations, the Corps expanded its responsibilities by actively addressing the pressing needs of the rapidly growing Russian émigré community and protecting Russian assets overseas. The diplomatic leadership initiated discussions regarding legal safeguards for Russian citizens abroad, anticipating a potential defeat of the White Movement within Russia.

The rise of General Baron Wrangel to power in Sevastopol provoked mixed reactions among Russian émigré circles. Despite Foreign Minister S.D. Sazonov's demonstrated loyalty to Wrangel's government, the general chose to replace him, entrusting foreign policy management to P.B. Struve. Nevertheless, Sazonov successfully positioned Ambassador M.N. Girs, the Corps' most senior diplomat based in Rome, as the head of the Diplomatic Corps. Consequently, Struve and Girs jointly shared leadership and responsibility. Under this new arrangement, the Diplomatic Corps significantly reinforced its autonomous standing, effectively transforming itself from a subordinate agency into a fully recognized partner of the central authorities. This enhanced status provided the Corps with greater prospects for continuing its diplomatic activities following the conclusion of the Civil War in Russia.

This article explores the international context surrounding the emergence and intensification of anti-nuclear movements in Western Europe during the late 1970s and early 1980s, focusing particularly on the responses of U.S. governmental agencies. It analyzes how these movements were perceived and managed by the United States within the broader framework of U.S.-Soviet negotiations on arms control. The research draws upon a comprehensive range of primary sources, including archival records from the Carter and Reagan administrations, materials from the U.S. Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency (including digitally accessible collections), previously unpublished documents from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union held at the Russian State Archive of Contemporary History, as well as contemporary press materials and memoir literature.
Based on a detailed examination of archival and supplementary sources, the study highlights three primary findings. Firstly, NATO’s decision to deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe served as the critical catalyst for the rapid growth of anti-nuclear activism in the region. Secondly, U.S. governmental bodies perceived the proliferation of anti-nuclear protests not as isolated incidents, but rather as closely interlinked with ongoing strategic arms-reduction negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Thirdly, U.S. policy sought actively to reassure Western European public opinion regarding the reliability of American security guarantees and to reinforce the indispensability of the transatlantic alliance. Such efforts aimed strategically at minimizing Soviet influence over anti-nuclear movements in Western Europe. The article concludes that the U.S. approach was instrumental not only in mitigating anti-American sentiment, but also in establishing conditions conducive to productive arms-control negotiations with the USSR.

Book review: Butorina O.V., Nichikov A.V., Yunovidov A.S. 2024. An Ordinary Division of the Great War. 385th Rifle Krichevskaya Division. 1941–1945. Moscow: Publishing House «The Whole World».

Book review: Karvounis A. M. City Diplomacy. An Introduction. London and New York: Routledge, 2025, 121 p. ISBN: 978-1-032-71633-6, DOI: 10.4324/9781003470908