Conclusion trust between us. There was one other

Conclusion As Russian Empire, we never underestimated the power of any state and we were always respectful to the right of existence of all states. However, from any state who would like to be allied with Russian Empire, we would expect to have a reliable stance and a long-term commitment to given promises. We would like to construct our relations amicably with Ottoman Empire, not only because they are a historical power of the east but also they are our southern neighbor for long centuries. The very unfortunately distrustful attitude of Ottomans became one of the major reasons for us to start the war. With our very good intention and profound foresight of future possibilities, we requested Ottoman Empire to move their navy to southern seas to protect them from any potential attack from the southwest.Not only we could not get any reply to our messages but also Ottomans did not cooperate with our peaceful purposes and their navy kept staying in the Black Sea. Moreover, once we learned that Ottomans were collaborating secretly with Austria, we had no choice but launch the war via destroying Ottoman navy at the Black Sea.     If we would not to do this, Austria-Hungarian military components could march forward towards black sea which may cause loss of entire black sea region and most probably additional Russian territories.  One of the lessons that we learned from our history is, a relationship with an equivalent ally, who has a symmetric power capacity compared to Russian Empire, will produce more effective policies for both sides. Hence, in the beginning of the century, we have observed that we have overlapping interests with our neighbor country Germany. It was clearly possible to see the rise of Germany in Europe, but not only about the military capacity, also Germany’s apparent, consistent and predictable policy and constant communication towards us improved our alliance and strengthened the trust between us. There was one other very crucial factor that contributed our alliance with Germany; the snobbish imperial power of the queen; The United Kingdom.      In our introduction, we mentioned that we have to see Moscow in the center of a huge security circle, and radius of this circle reaches towards the edge of North Atlantic. No one should perceive us as an ambitious war machine. The legitimacy of our security circle policy was obvious when we’ve seen the United Kingdom in Sweden right next to our door.  Even so, starting a battle was not our first choice. With a very moderate and frank language; we have reminded UK the advantages of to stepping back and allocate a distance territory with Russian border. As we predicted before and expected from UK, of course, they did not take their “royal army” back from Nordic lands.   As we declared in the very beginning Russian Empire cannot forgive the abuse of our good intention and perception of our well-mannered messages as weakness. Very, unfortunately, United Kingdom had this mistake to not take our offer seriously. In this case, it was impossible for us to ignore the aggressive and reckless behavior of United Kingdom.  In our view, UK became the victim of its own violence circle and offensive enlargement policy. Not only us but also Germany had the same feeling of threat and thus UK prepared its end by their own wrong decisions. In our perspective, France was one of the most interesting and instructive stories during this period. Instead of responding messages of the alliance, France preferred to act by itself and moved its units towards south to gain more territory and military power. And as it may seem at the end this approach brought nothing to France, they could be in a much more beneficial position if they could manage in collaboration with us.  In comparison to France, Italy preferred the correct way and kept communicating with Russian Empire, responded our messages properly and stayed in coordination with us most of the times.  Even so, we did not ignore the anarchic structure of the continent and we did not allow Italy to enlarge avidly especially in Balkan region. Also, we used Italy as a part of our “balance of power” policy in the southern region against Austria and France. As it may seem obviously Russian Empire was always on the side of a compromising approach and thus any actor had to pay the cost of not coordinating with us. In the example of Austria-Hungary, in an anarchic structure, anyone must consider that this a multi-player environment and it is one of the biggest rookie mistakes to offer a state to attack a third party state without calculating the possibility that they might be already in an alliance. Moreover, it did not look well on Austria-Hungary to try to construct secret last second alliances with collapsing states like Ottomans.            In conclusion, there are things that we learned from these 25 years:Diplomacy First:  It is always better to use diplomatic channels before threatening any state or before launching any military action. Communication is actually the column of building a long-term reliable partnership. Also, diplomacy strengthens the legitimacy of your further moves, using diplomacy helps to show the deterrence of your power before wasting your military capacity for your ultimate purposes.       Cooperation: Cooperation and taking mutual actions with other states is always better than moving alone, gaining more territories and expanding your military components does not necessarily mean that you are more likely to win the total war. Being in a reciprocal or multilateral alliance provides several advantages.    The balance of Power: Balance of power is one of the most significant conceptualizations of the foreign policy. Especially in a multiplayer environment, considering the balance of power helps to prevent uncontrollable actions of stronger states.  The best example was our cooperation with Germany, it could be impossible to stop offensive and expansionist policy of United Kingdom The Anarchic Structure: As Russian Empire, we already knew that anarchy is in the very nature of foreign policy. In this anarchic structure, we know that alliances are not permanent, and hostilities may arise from anywhere. We have perceived the whole period as a multi-phase game and thus we have always calculated the possibility of being enemies with every state in every step.Risk of Chain Ganging:  Our positive and collaborationist attitude do not necessarily mean that Russian Empire will just have consent to any offer to launch a war. As we always repeated war is not a childish game and each step of a conflict has to be very well calculated. The cost of starting a battle may easily exceed the profit since there is always a potential to pull uninvited states into the state of warfare.          War is No Good: State of war is not a thing to appreciate and exaggerate, before being policymakers of Russian Empire, as we are the members of humankind, even in the beginning of 20th century, we would like to believe in a peaceful world and necessity of idealism. We still believe in that humanity has wisdom and tools to construct a peaceful and non-aggressive future.