Karelin, V. Russian envoys in Kristiania, 1905-1917. Three incomplete portraits // Caution & compliance : Norwegian-Russian diplomatic relations, 1814-2014 / Kari Aga Myklebost & Stian Bones (eds.). - Stamsund : Orkana akademisk, 2012. – Vol. 1. - S. 61-70.

RUSSIAN ENVOYS IN KRISTIANIA, 1905-1917. THREE INCOMPLETE PORTRAITS V lad im ir K arelin On 17 (30) October 1905, the government of the Russian Empire recognized Norway’s independence, following the dissolution of the union with Sweden, and was the first state to do so. This became a starting-point for the establishment of full diplomatic relations between the two neighbouring countries. Yet the balance of power in Northern Europe had radically changed and there was a strong impulse for the Russian government to moder ate its Scandinavian policy in its basic principles and details, primarily towards the young “democratic kingdom”, as Norway was often named by the Russians at that time. As we know, Minister of Foreign Affairs Vladimir Nikolaevich Lamsdorff authorized his adviser, the professor of international law Baron Mikhail Taube to make a draft plan for a new Russian policy on Scandinavia. Soon it was ready and Nikolai II approved it. From then on, Russian envoys to Kristiania were responsible for the implementation of new tasks specified in this plan. Three diplomats successively represented tsarist Russia in Kristiania: Anatolii Nikolaevich Krupenskii (November 1905 —May 1912), Sergei Vasilevich Arse- nev (May 1912 - February 1916) and Konstantin Nikolaevich Gulkevich (February 1916 - May 1917)- Gulkevich was followed by the charge d ’affaires Count Dmitrii Kotseby, but we should remember that by the end of 1917 Russian diplomatic activity in Norway was showing an evident tendency to come to nought. What do we know about these three envoys’ personalities, their professional and life experi ence, their ability to solve concrete tasks in Norway and to make true contributions to Rus sian policy in the neighbouring country? What do we know about their professional careers after they were moved from Norway to other diplomatic posts in European countries? Last but not least, what do we know about their life after their resignations, and during the dra matic years of war and the Russian Revolution? The aim of the present paper is to provide answers to these questions. The present study is based on previous research by Soviet historian Petr Batsis and more recent research by Anastasia Kasian. With regard to Gulkevich, I refer to articles by A. V. - 6 1 -