The European “Scramble for Africa”, which took place from 1880 to 1914, brought about profound changes in African societies, economies, and political frameworks. This research investigates the precolonial environment, the driving forces behind European colonisation, and the enduring consequences of this historical epoch. Africa was originally marked by a variety of civilisations that exhibited intricate sociopolitical structures and vibrant cultural practices. The incursion of European powers resulted in the imposition of artificial borders, which disrupted pre-existing ethnic and cultural affiliations. This disruption has contributed to persistent conflicts and instability in the region. The Scramble was fundamentally motivated by economic factors, with European nations pursuing raw materials and new markets to support their industrial economies. Technological advancements, including steam-powered vessels and medical innovations, enabled a more profound exploration of the continent. The Berlin Conference, held between 1884 and 1885, established the formal division of Africa, neglecting the existing indigenous governance structures and cultural contexts. This event has resulted in lasting implications for modern political environments. The economic exploitation characteristic of this period gave rise to extractive economies, resulting in pervasive poverty and underdevelopment across African nations. Colonial authorities emphasised the extraction of resources, often at the expense of local development, resulting in a reliance on European markets. The enduring impact of colonialism profoundly influences the socio-economic landscape of Africa, manifesting in persistent ethnic conflicts and governance challenges. This research emphasises the significance of comprehending the historical backdrop of colonialism in order to tackle Africa’s present developmental challenges and points to the necessity for additional investigation into the continent’s post-colonial path.

The article examines the assessment of the German Empire’s role in unleashing the First World War by the most influential German newspapers. The chronological framework of the study was 2014, which became the anniversary year for the First World War. In the course of the research, 7 most influential newspapers were selected according to the Deutschland.de portal: Bild, die Zeit, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurter Rundschau, Süddeutsche Zeitung, die tageszeitung (taz), die Welt. All newspapers were reviewed except Frankfurter Rundschau, which is due to the lack of articles on this topic online. These publishers were further divided by ideological orientation into notional “right-wing” and “left-wing” newspapers. Before examining the newspaper articles, the author briefly characterizes German historiography on the topic of World War I in order to identify key historical works that influenced the course of scholarly discourse and the historical memory of Germans regarding German culpability in the outbreak of the war. Special attention is paid to the concept of the Australian historian Christopher Clark, who had a significant influence on the development of modern European historiography on the history of the First World War. After analysing the articles, the main tendencies observed in the newspapers of both political camps as well as separately in each of them were identified. “Right-wing” newspapers seek to absolve Germany of responsibility for the escalation of the conflict by declaring all participating countries guilty. “Left-wing” newspapers in turn seek to demonstrate Germany’s responsibility for starting the war. The newspapers of both political camps tend to appeal to scientific and historical research, as well as use opinion pieces that, in total, broadcast the narratives that each newspaper needs.

The article is devoted to the nuclear cooperation between the United States, Great Britain, and Australia. The topic is of high relevance due to the growing number of threats to the international non-proliferation regime coming from both official nuclear-armed states and unofficial ones. Special attention is paid to the evolution of interaction forms between states since the beginning of the Cold War, when the basic principles of interstate nuclear cooperation were shaped. The article determines the role of AUKUS in the Western security architecture and describes the threats posed by the agreement to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Consideration of both topics—British-American nuclear cooperation in the 20th century and modern cooperation within AUKUS—helps to determine the transformation of the Anglo-Saxon countries’ approaches to transferring nuclear technology to other countries. The methodology of the research relies on the historical and genetic approach.

The author notes that in the second half of the 20th century, the US created a mechanism for transferring nuclear materials and information to another nuclear power, the UK. Since then, the British nuclear deterrent forces have been dependent on this partnership. Currently, communication in this area is strengthening, as evidenced by the decision to indefinitely extend the 1958 Mutual Defense Treaty. In the 2020s, with the creation of the AUKUS alliance, Australia has become a more prominent participant in Anglo-Saxon nuclear cooperation. A new legal mechanism is being designed for transferring nuclear submarines (which do not carry nuclear explosive devices) from a nuclear-armed state to a non-nuclear-weapon country. The article concludes that the present-day cooperation between Anglo-Saxon countries in the nuclear field creates a dangerous precedent that threatens the nuclear non-proliferation regime and engenders risks of spreading this practice worldwide, thereby undermining existing international institutions, primarily the IAEA.

The round table held by the NSO MGIMO Italian Club named after Tatiana V. Zonova discussed the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and both European and non-European powers, as well as the official recognition of the Soviet Union—known in Russian research tradition as “the period of recognition.” The event provided a platform for students to present their research findings and for MGIMO professors to share their expertise on the topic.

In the 1920s, the Soviet Union struggled to broaden its influence and further its ideological as well as national interests. Diplomatic recognition by small states, such as Albania and Greece, was crucial for strengthening Soviet influence in the politically divided Balkan region. Establishing diplomatic relations with great powers, namely Great Britain, was essential for enhancing Soviet international prestige and defining its role in world politics. The importance of official relations with both European states (including France and Italy) and non-European countries (such as Mexico) is underscored by the variety of diplomatic tools and strategies employed by the USSR.

Although the Soviet Union prioritized its relations with European powers, establishing ties with transatlantic states was also crucial to overcome ideological differences and bolster its status as a global power, not merely a regional one. Studying this Soviet experience provides valuable insights into the priorities and principles of contemporary Russian policy and diplomacy, highlights both successful and unsuccessful diplomatic initiatives, and identifies the factors that influence international relations among states with diverging national interests and socio-political and economic systems.

The round table contributed to raising students’ interest in the history of Russian foreign policy and facilitated the exchange of knowledge between young researchers from various universities and experienced scholars.

Review of monography “Britain – the European Union – NATO: Reorganization of the ‘Transatlantic Security Space’” by A.A. Aleshin (Aspect Press, 2023)