Russian tsar’s men

A tyrant invariably means living hell to his subjects and more often than not remains a mystery for historians. For example, why did the rulers of Muscovy, and later the Russian and Soviet empires — Ivan the Terrible, Peter I, Joseph Stalin — time and again activate their machine of physical destruction, considering they had practically suppressed all opposition? Perhaps mental problems were the culprit. However, even a quick analysis proves that there was logic behind their actions, that each had built a certain system.

Joseph Stalin, one of the most horrifying rulers of Russia [then identified with the Soviet Union – Ed.], made an important statement concerning this system when delivering a kind of lecture attended, among others, by the Soviet movie star, Nikolai Cherkasov, and the celebrated film director, Sergei Eisenstein, who made the Soviet blockbuster Ivan the Terrible. Cherkasov recounted this lecture by the “master of all sciences” in his Notes of a Soviet Actor, published in 1953. Stalin told them that Ivan the Terrible was an outstanding, progressive statesman who had played a far more important role in Russia’s history than Peter I (who “never finished his tasks,” said Uncle Joe): “Commenting on Ivan the Terrible’s activities as a statesman, Comrade Stalin noted that Ivan IV was a great and sage ruler who secured his country against foreign influence, who sought to unite Russia. Stressing Ivan the Terrible’s progressive endeavors, Comrade Stalin said Ivan IV was the first to institute Russia’s foreign trade monopoly, adding that Lenin was the only one to follow suit. Comrade Stalin also noted the progressive role played by the Oprichnina [the period of Russian history between Ivan the Terrible’s 1565 initiation and his disbanding, in 1572, of a domestic policy of political police, mass repressions, public executions, and confiscation of land from Russia’s aristocrats. – Ed.]. Comrade Stalin further commented on Ivan the Terrible’s mistakes, noting that one of them was his failure to do away with five large feudal families; had he done so, there would have been no Time of Trouble in Russia… joking that ‘Ivan was impeded by God.’ Ivan the Terrible did away with one such feudal boyar family and then spent a year repenting, praying for God to forgive him his sin, whereas he should have acted in a more resolute manner!”

This long quote is a case study in the cynical, inhuman attitude of the man who then ruled almost half of the planet (the lecture took place in 1947). However, this by no means substitutes a deep-reaching analysis of the underpinning principles of that despotic tsarist, then Soviet autocratic system which, regretfully, keeps manifesting itself centuries and generations later as Ukraine’s “fraternal” northern neighbor, “strategic partner” or “imperial threat factor,” depending on one’s fancy. The point in question is an alarming continuity, considering that the Kremlin’s fans of Ivan the Terrible have declared that Joseph Stalin, who had lectured Cherkasov and Eisenstein on that Russian ruler, was an “effective manager.” True, in 2010, there have been statements made by Russia’s ranking bureaucrats about the need to carry out a de-Stalinization campaign, but these are no reasons to regard them as anything but expressions of goodwill (what with the graphic example of Vitalii Tretyakov’s article in Izvestia, once a liberal post-Soviet Moscow-based newspaper [previously one of the Soviet Union’s two official mouthpieces, along with Pravda. – Ed.] in which he asks the rhetorical question, “What else do I have to denounce to be regarded as being de-Stalinized?”). Apparently, this inhuman tradition is being packaged with outwardly perfectly respectable, patriotic wrappings in today’s Russia.

Getting back to the logic behind Stalin and Ivan the Terrible’s systems, an analysis of their conduct helps understand the similarities between the 20th-century Soviet and 16th-century Muscovite rulers, both bloodthirsty monsters in human form. Even though Ivan IV’s rule dates back hundreds of years, these similarities are self-apparent, with the main underpinning principles beings the same, namely:

1 Loathing any form of parliamentarism, truly representative governance, with the parliamentarian phantom haunting Ivan IV, enraging him at the slightest mention thereof. He had every reason to feel that way, considering that, in the mid-16th century, there was Sweden with its royal power being dependent on the country’s nobility; with the Queen of Great Britain having to discuss every major issue, e.g., finance, declaring war, making peace treaties, in parliament; with the French king being likewise bound; with the Italian republics being ruled by various kinds of chambers and forums. Ivan the Terrible’s attitude to such a political system is obvious from his letter to Prince Andrei Kurbsky: “Needless to say, the rulers of such Godless lands and languages have no control over them; they act as told by their servants (a characteristic reference to parliamentarian countries as ‘Godless lands’ — Author)… People should remain under the ruler’s control, for where there is no such control, there are drunk ill-wishing men staggering down city streets… For so long as the subjects refuse to accept the tsar/king’s rule, they will keep giving rise to feuds.” Ivan IV offers his denigrating view of parliamentarism: “Such people are concerned with their own well-being…” This Russian tsar believed this was the reason behind all troubles. In his opinion, autocracy was the only solution to all problems. The tsar was to be in control of everything, to pass judgment on all matters, with his subjects addressing petitions, referring to themselves as his “humble servants” — the formula used in all official documents under Ivan the Terrible — for this was the sole guarantee of securing what he believed were the interests of the state uppermost on the agenda. Other Rulers of Russia, the ruthless Peter I, the “enlightened” Catherine II (Taras Shevchenko wrote she was a bloodthirsty she-wolf), Nicholas I (Alexander Herzen wrote he was a man with “tin eyes”), and of course, Russia’s “Genghis Khan with a telegraph,” Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, to go down in history as the formidable Uncle Joe — in the West — and as the beloved Comrade Stalin for millions of brainwashed Soviet citizens.

2 Rejection of all forms of economic independence. In a letter to Queen Elizabeth (1570), Ivan IV sarcastically and scornfully commented on her political system: “We had expected you, as Queen, to keep your reign, to keep all of your subjects under control, so as to add to the well-being of your country. What we see, instead, is that there are people who dare defy your orders, among them plebeians concerned about their respective businesses rather than national interest, while you remain in your current disgusting condition as a virgin queen. (Remarkably, the possibility of an inter-dynasty marriage between Ivan IV and Elizabeth was negotiated in 1570. — Author)… Muscovy can do well without goods supplied from England.”

Why act so rudely on an international level? The reason is simple enough: the Russian tsar was scared that the example of all those plebeian businessmen being able to have their say in the British parliament would prove an attractive example in Russia. The big question is: Has this fear vanished in Russia, considering its age-old historical roots?

3 The Big Fear of the powers that be — something without which none of the abovementioned tyrants could have existed, considering that Ivan IV repeatedly stressed that he would mercilessly deal with all kinds of traitors, regardless of their posts and social standing. In one of his letters he wrote that hostile noblemen — boyars — would be subject to the harshest punishment: “Those found guilty of capital treason shall be subject to His judgment and my own; I shall exercise my powers as Tsar and order them punished as I will…”

4 The tsar ensures justice for all his subjects by appointing his administration, made up of loyal people — as for the others, see Clause 3. The tsar is there to protect the lower social strata against all those who “roll in money and enjoy prosperity” (also, to uphold their hatred of all those better-off, a concept that was rather strong even in the 16th century); he is supposed to be the only one to rebut their arbitrary actions.

This naive sci-fi concept promises to cause a number of deadly challenges for world democracy, as well as for Ukraine (suffice it to recall “cheap” gas supplies from Russia, and that such moods have had their effect on the 2010 presidential campaign).

5 The need to have a force made up of faithful men — starting with Ivan IV’s Oprichnina, followed by Russia’s tsarist then Soviet secret police (Cheka-GPU-NKVD-KGB-FSB, etc.), preferably with manpower from the lower social strata — people who would owe everything to their superiors — while also having men from the upper social strata to keep the balance of power under Kremlin control.

6 The top-priority necessity of controlling outbursts of people’s wrath by guiding them in the right direction, so that the masses won’t notice their being used, that by attacking the better-off fellow citizens they are serving to replenish the tsar’s purse (not to be mistaken for central budget) and that of his sycophants. Ivan the Terrible took away the dissenting boyars’ real property (“Boyars, voivodes, and other government officials found to have abused their office shall be either beheaded or exiled, with all their revenues confiscated.

Ivan the Terrible treated his subjects — common folk, government officials, even the boyar nobility — with contempt and never bothered to disguise it, although he was smart enough to use the common folk as the main factor in carrying out his political schemes. He succeeded in scaring all his subjects into unquestioning obedience, making his will law and order — something his Russian/USSR followers tried to uphold. Are we duly aware of this drastic continuity?

7 16th-20th-century rulers’ emphasis on the one-mentality-law (often made tragically correct), whereby one acted like a rat escaping a sinking ship, never hesitating to side with those who looked likely to have the upper hand.

8 Ivan the Terrible and his political successors in Russia appear to have constantly relied on the good old divide-and-rule strategy, so as to instill a discouraging spirit and, possibly, hurt the enemy’s morale.

This strategy keeps being used, currently known as the Eurasian spin-doctor technique, not only in Russia, considering that all those supporters of Ukrainian democracy should have long learned this lesson. 

Ivan IV’s letter to Lithuanian Hetman Grzegorz Chodkiewicz (1567) read: “Our Tsar, our true ruler by the will of the Almighty Lord, has a clear vision of what is taking place in his domain…” Ivan the Terrible allowed his boyar Mikhail Vorotinsky to sign this letter. Given modern computer technologies, the above formula could be put in modern terms and then become strikingly reminiscent of the official stuff we watch and hear every night on our government-run channels. This is precisely the kind of political culture they’re trying to instill in Ukraine, pulling both domestic and foreign strings. Whether Ukraine succumbs to this campaign depends solely on public awareness and resistance.