Anglo-Russian Alliance

Depends entirely on the time period and the context. It is also a difficult ask. Russia was a severe autocracy and that is going to be difficult to chime with Britain's liberal public opinion.

The best time for a British-Russian alliance is post Seven Year's War. Britain had burned bridges with Austria and Prussia due to poor treatment of them as allies, and France is a natural enemy. Britain tried to get an alliance with Russia but Russia insisted on one of two conditions: either peacetime subsidies or support in any war against the Ottomans. Britain was looking at fiscal entrenchment at the time, so didn't want subsidies, and would only support Russia in a defensive war vs Constantinople. Plus, they were hubristic after the previous victory and thought they didn't need to offer much. The Tories in power believed Britain could go it alone. If the Whigs had been in power, who believed strongly in always having a continental ally, it could work.

How long it lasts is another matter.
 
Depends entirely on the time period and the context. It is also a difficult ask. Russia was a severe autocracy and that is going to be difficult to chime with Britain's liberal public opinion.

The best time for a British-Russian alliance is post Seven Year's War. Britain had burned bridges with Austria and Prussia due to poor treatment of them as allies, and France is a natural enemy. Britain tried to get an alliance with Russia but Russia insisted on one of two conditions: either peacetime subsidies or support in any war against the Ottomans. Britain was looking at fiscal entrenchment at the time, so didn't want subsidies, and would only support Russia in a defensive war vs Constantinople. Plus, they were hubristic after the previous victory and thought they didn't need to offer much. The Tories in power believed Britain could go it alone. If the Whigs had been in power, who believed strongly in always having a continental ally, it could work.

How long it lasts is another matter.

Too complicated. After the 7YW Russia and Britain had been allied and whatever was passing for the British liberalism at that time had been more than balanced by the British need in the Russian goods (Russia had a positive trade balance with Britain at that time). As a “compensation” Britain helped with the 1st Archipelago Expedition by letting Russian ships to repair and resupply in the British ports and permitting the British seamen to enter the Russian service. Scenario was repeated during the War of the 2nd coalition and Lisbon Incident was a clear demonstration that the relations were not completely broken even with a formal declaration of war. Then, of course, they were allies in 1812 - 1814. Following cooling down had little to do with the British liberalism and everything to do with the British and Russian expansionism.
 
Too complicated. After the 7YW Russia and Britain had been allied and whatever was passing for the British liberalism at that time had been more than balanced by the British need in the Russian goods (Russia had a positive trade balance with Britain at that time). As a “compensation” Britain helped with the 1st Archipelago Expedition by letting Russian ships to repair and resupply in the British ports and permitting the British seamen to enter the Russian service. Scenario was repeated during the War of the 2nd coalition and Lisbon Incident was a clear demonstration that the relations were not completely broken even with a formal declaration of war. Then, of course, they were allies in 1812 - 1814. Following cooling down had little to do with the British liberalism and everything to do with the British and Russian expansionism.

Britain and Russia were on opposing sides of 7YW.

But I agree with you in terms of the resulting cooling down. However my point was that had an alliance survived those things, British public opinion gets increasingly liberal during 1800s, so the sort of permanent alliance requested is difficult. Perhaps if Russia is always better than the Ottomans, UK propaganda could focus on that.
 
Britain and Russia were on opposing sides of 7YW.

But I agree with you in terms of the resulting cooling down. However my point was that had an alliance survived those things, British public opinion gets increasingly liberal during 1800s, so the sort of permanent alliance requested is difficult. Perhaps if Russia is always better than the Ottomans, UK propaganda could focus on that.

They were on opposing sides but not directly at war. British ambassador, Williams, remained in St-Petersburg (and actively communicated with the Grand Duchess Catherine), existing treaties did not demand direct confrontation and the trade relations also had been maintained.

As for the British liberal public opinion, it was OK with the colonialism and with the things as obnoxious as Opium Wars so it could easily digest Russian absolutism (Catherine II, Paul I and Alexander I were OK as long as alliances suited British interests). But not Russian expansionism that was considered a competitor to the British one. So the main issue would be a meaningful arrangement regarding spheres of interest in the CA and Middle East to which both sides would stick. If paranoia regarding Russian invasion of India and dominance on the Med is gone, then both sides could live happily ever after because, all the way to the reign of AIII Russia was, as Witte put it, a semi-colonial state selling its natural resources (mostly to the Brits) and buying the manufactured products (mostly from the Brits). So basically all that confrontational time Britain was choosing to act against its economic interests.
 
Top