II. Meşrutiyet'in ilanıyla birlikte Büyük Güçlerin dikkatlerinin toplandığı İstanbul'da büyükelçiler üzerinden yürütülen diplomatik faaliyetler yoğunlaşmıştı. Alman nüfuzunun bir hayli artmış olduğu önceki dönem, İngiliz ve Fransız fikirlerinden esinlenen Jön Türkler tarafından son verilmişti. Bu da diğer büyük devletlerin tekrar Osmanlı sahnesinde öne çıkmaları için bir fırsat doğurdu. Tam bu sırada, Rusya ve Fransa beraber hareket etmek amacıyla aynı zamanda İstanbul büyükelçilerini atadılar. Bunlardan biri olan Nikolay Çarıkov, Rus büyükelçisi, bu yoğun ve hararetli diplomasi trafiğinin ortasında 19091912 yılları arasındaki görevi sırasında meydana gelen olayların bizatihi tarafı ve tanığı olarak Glimpses of High Politics: Through War & Peace (Yüksek Politikaya Kısa bir Bakış: Savaş ve Barış Üzerinden) adlı otobiyografisini İstanbul'daki sürgün yıllarında kaleme almıştır. Zayıflayan Alman nüfuzundan doğan fırsatın İtilaf Devletleri tarafından nasıl değerlendirilemediğinin, Rusya'nın I. Dünya Savaşı arifesinde Osmanlı toprakları üzerindeki çıkarlarını gerçekleştirmeye çalışırken diğer güçlerle olan münasebetleri ve çatışan çıkarların ne suretle aşılmaya çalışıldığının takibi açısından eser önemli bir kaynak olmayı hak eder. Bu dönemde Rus Dışişlerinin en önemli gündem maddesini Boğazlardan Karadeniz'e askeri gemilerin geçişinin sağlanması oluşturmaktadır. Konuyla ilgili daha önce eski Dışişleri Bakanı Aleksandr İzvolski'nin Viyana nezdindeki başarısız girişiminin ardından Çarıkov problemi kendi inisiyatifiyle İstanbul hükümeti nezdinde çözmeye çalışmış fakat çabası akim kalarak görevinden alınmıştı. Bu makalenin konularından birini bu planın nasıl uygulanmaya çalışıldığı ve hangi saiklerin etkisiyle başarısız olduğu oluşturmaktadır. Bir diğer değinilecek konu, aristokrat bir ailenin mensubu olarak Çarıkov'un serfliğin ilgası ve Bolşevik Devriminin sürgündeki mağdurlarından biri olarak devrim hakkındaki düşünceleridir. Bu ikisi arasında organik bir bağ kuran Çarıkov, Rusya'nın en büyük problemlerinden biri olan serflerin özgürleştirilmesi sürecinin iyi idare edilememesinin devrimci fikirleri desteklediğine ve nihayetinde imparatorluğun sonunu getirecek süreci başlattığına inanır. Dolayısıyla, Rus tarihinin bu iki önemli olayının tanığı olarak içinde barındırdığı öznelliğe rağmen fikirleri dönemin daha iyi anlaşılması açısından önemlidir

After the declaration of Second Constitutional Era, diplomatic activities via ambassadors intensified in İstanbul where attention of the Great Powers focused. The former period that the German influence considerably increased over the Ottoman Empire was ceased by Young Turks effected by the British and French ideas. This situation gave an opportunity to the Great Powers to regain their position. Meanwhile, Russia and France simultaneously appointed their ambassadors to Istanbul in order to move in coordination in the Ottoman affairs. One of them, Nikolai Charykov, the Russian ambassador, as a witness and part of intense and vehement diplomacy traffic wrote his memoirs taken place during his mission in Istanbul between 1909-1912 in his autobiography Glimpses of High Politics: Through War & Peace. It is a noteworthy resource in terms of understanding how Entente Powers could not make use of the opportunity occurred by weakening of German influence, relationships of Russia with the rest of the Great Powers while Russia was trying to success her interests over the Ottoman territories on the eve of the I. World War and in what manner the crossing interests were tried to be overcome. In this period, the most important topic of the Russian Foreign Affairs’ agenda was to maintain a secure passage of their battleships to the Black Sea through the Straits. After a fail attempt of Alexander Izvolski, the former Foreign Minister, on the issue in the presence of Vienna, Charykov tried to solve the problem with his own initiative in the presence of Istanbul. However, his efforts also failed and he was recalled. One of the subjects of this paper is how this plan is tried to implemented and what kind of impetuses cause its abortion. Another point to be mentioned here is his ideas about the abolition of serfdom as a member of aristocracy and about the Bolshevik Revolution as a banished victim of the revolution. Charykov, who forged an organic link between two of them, believed that mismanagement of the process of the liberation of serfs promoted revolutionist ideas and eventually led the collapse of the empire. In spite of its subjectivity, as a witness to these very important events of the Russian history, Charykov’s ideas are noteworthy in terms of understanding the period much better. STRUCTURED ABSTRACT Memoirs of diplomats are one of the most important sources of diplomatic and political history. Despite the fact that their subjectivity is much higher than the official reports sent by them to the Foreign Affairs, memoirs or autobiographies are deserved to be paid attention to comprehend one’s perspective as a witness to the international events. They can also include some “unofficial” information that is not reflected to the documents enabling scholars to speculate on. From this point of view, Nikolay Valerievich Charykov’s autobiography, Glimpses of High Politics: Through War & Peace, is a noteworthy resource to penetrate contemporary international relations between Great Powers, notably on the Ottoman affairs in the context of this paper. After the Bolshevik Revolution, he wrote his book in 1931 on exile in Istanbul where once he had functioned as an ambassador. This paper has two aspects in terms of evaluating Charykov’s ideas: one of them is his thoughts and actions as a diplomat on high politics that took place during his term of ambassadorship. Charykov had been appointed to this post as a consequence of a mutual agreement between Russia and France to collaborate in Istanbul. However, in his opinion, the Triple Entente could not make use of the circumstances occurred with the Young Turk Revolution in spite of this arrangement. Even if the members of the Entente forged a pact signifying their cooperation in international affairs, all of them had conflicting interests in Ottoman territories which prevented them to cooperate in this issue. Accordingly, when the German influence in Ottoman administration rooted in the reign of Abdulhamit II shattered with the Young Turks, Charykov blamed the Entente because they could not put theirs instead. France, Britain and Russia had different concerns and paid their attention to their zones of influence in the Ottoman Empire; Basra and the Mesopotamia for the British, the Levant for the French and Eastern Anatolia and the Straits for the Russian. He claimed that every movement of the Triples antagonized the Sublime Port and pushed it to the Germans. On the one hand, they were trying to get concessions in their zones; on the other, they refused to help the Porte financially for a couple of reform plans at the capital. In other words, to him, the Triples themselves were responsible for opening one more front in the Great War. Once there wasn’t any consensus among Entente Powers on how to work jointly as a whole in Ottoman affairs, Charykov made an individual attempt on solving an age-long problem in favor of Russia. The primary concern of the Russian Foreign Affairs’ agenda was to secure a safe passage for her battleships through the Straits to the Black Sea. Especially, when the Ottoman government ordered two modern battleships from the Britain, this concern was felt more intensely because superiority would be in favor of the Porte by far to the detriment of Russia. Soon after a fail attempt of Izvolski, the former Foreign Minister, who aimed to deal with the problem with Vienna accepting annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in favor of support for opening the Straits for Russia, Charykov tried to solve the matter with the Porte offering a Balkan league under the Ottoman leadership against Austria-Hungary and of course for their security, removing capitulations and a “sincere” guarantee of its territorial integrity. However, his efforts ended in failure because Russia being archenemy of the Ottomans could not gain their trust and the Porte fearing of any possible military action for this purpose from the Russian side preferred to put forward the proposal in international arena. Illprepared plan cost his post and he was recalled. One of the main drawbacks of the plan is that Charykov underestimated intercrossed interests of Great Powers and Little Powers, namely the Balkan states, on the Ottoman territories. Thus, solving the problem just among two governments, whether could it be Vienna or Istanbul was not a viable option. The other is that his offers are too weak to bargain from the Ottoman part because of a couple of reasons: Firstly, the capitulations are, no doubt, the biggest financial obstacle for the Ottoman economy, but Russia is the last one among other beneficiaries. Secondly, Russia regards the Balkans as her backyard. However, after the 1877-78 RussoOttoman War, the perception of the Balkan states towards Russia changed. There were too many interwoven interests in the backyard and it was almost impossible to satisfy everyone. Lastly, guaranteeing territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire by his archenemy who came so close to the capital not so long time ago was not a viable and realistic offer. The other aspect of the study is to evaluate Charykov’s ideas about serfdom as a member of an aristocratic family and about Bolshevik Revolution as a victim of it on exile. In his perspective, serfdom and Bolshevik Revolution interlinked, one’s failure caused the other. Serfdom began to be a serious problem as it could be observed in Pugachev’s Rebellion which alienated aristocrats and serfs to each other further. With the defeat of the Crimean War, Russia’s backwardness, especially outdatedness of serfdom, became so obvious. The Russian administration preferred to emancipate the serfs from top rather waiting for an uprising coming from the bottom in such a weak position. Thus, serfdom was abolished in 1861 without land. To Charykov, this is the beginning of the end. The serfs were freed on paper but put under the control of village communes. They could get land if they paid its cost which meant they were not free as they expected. This problem remained as the most important and chronic obstacle in internal affairs. He thought that in every case in which the state weakened afterwards, situation of serfs became more and more prominent. After another defeat in Far East Asia against Japan led 1905 Revolution and foundation of Duma. He claimed that Duma filled with revolutionists who were not willing to find any solution to the problems of serfs. In contrast, as the problem survived, the favor of serfs to the Duma increased. Obviously, he was not fond of constitutional movement which meant for him a revolutionist activity. After the Bolshevik Revolution, he, like other Russian aristocrats, took refuge in Entente occupied Istanbul and lived there in the rest of his life. It is interesting to note that he suspected that the Bolshevik Revolution was a German supported plan. Executions of Alexander Kolchak and Alexei Brusilov, who fought remarkably against Central Powers were obvious examples of this thought. Another criticism that Charykov directed to the Bolsheviks is that serfdom which brought Bolsheviks to power was now dictated to all Russia by Bolsheviks themselves. Thus, there was nothing changed for ordinary peasants with the arrival of Bolsheviks for him