RUSSIA, THE LAST EUROPEAN EMPIRE?

European Empires

  An Empire or a Commonwealth?

Империя или Содружество народов?

Un impero o una comunità di popoli?

 Un empire ou une communauté de Peuples?

Ein Kaiserreich oder eine Voelkergemeinschaft?

To the extent that Bolsheviks had resumed war against occupying foreign forces (Russia, German Army, Freikorps, Baltic, Polish, Ukrainian Asiatic, Czech nationalists, Anglo-Americans, Japanese), they gave the impression they were fighting for the salvation of the Russian Empire (irrespective from the monarchic or republican form of the same).

The same happened with World War II and even with the Cold War, where the strength of the Soviet empire seemed, under certain points of view, to vindicate the loss of the Russian Empire. And also, after so many years, it appears that the idea of a “Russian Empire”, something larger than Russian nationality, is still on the agenda (for instance, in the Russian Media). In fact, already present days Russian Federation (“Rossijskaja Federacija”) is larger that simply the Russian “Nation” (“Ruskaja Nacija”). The Russian People (“Ruskij Narod”) is larger than Russia Federation, and the so-called Sovietic citizens (“Sovietskie grazhdane”) are a further concept than the “Russian People”. Moreover, independently from any contrary political will, Russia still exerts a, direct or indirect, influence on the whole of a larger “post-Sovietic space”. So, we can say that, whilst Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German and Italian empires have disappeared, the Russian still exists, even if in a different form.This situation is not very different from the British “Commonwealth” and the French “Francophonie”.

At the beginning, the connection between the new Bolshevik Russia and the Russian Empire was not clear at all. In fact, the “Trip in the Armored Train” of Lenin, as well as the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, which are the founding events of the success of the Bolshevik movement, were based on a paradoxical deal with the German Empire, whereby Russia would have accepted the creation of new Republics (Finland, Poland more the Balts, Belarus’, Ukraine and Transcaucasia), in the areas occupied by the German Armies, where local nationalists had declared their independence under German sponsorship.

Secondly, it seemed ominous that, after about half a century of rhetoric of self-determination by nationalities, from the side of the socialist movement worldwide, precisely in the “Fatherland of Socialism” the nationalities would have been repressed. Thirdly, it was necessary to recover at least a part of those nationalist leaders which had exerted the power during German occupation, some of them being Marxist. Fourth, most of the Republics did not constitute a “nation” in the Western sense of the word, because they were inhabited by dispersed ethnic entities, including, inter alia, Russians, Germans and Jews.

So, in any case, it was necessary, for managing local administrations, to create a sufficiently consistent local interfaces in the Republics. According to Marxist rhetoric, to create local national bourgeoisies, which were conceived to be similar, from one side, to the Westerns national bourgeoisies, and, from another side, to what the fledging ruling classes of the Republics purported to be.

Stalin, also being himself a Transcaucasian Revolutionary (half Georgian, half Ossetian), was chosen to solve the “nationalities problem”. In reality, the implementation of the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk was not simple, and, for a certain period - corresponding, roughly speaking, to the Russian Civil War -, the Republics remained substantially independent, even if occupied, from time to time, by different, Russian and foreign, armies.

In all that period, the relationships of Russia with other Eastern European Countries (especially Baltic countries, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania, Georgia and Armenia) where heavily influenced by the different situations created in the new bundle of Republics, as well by their evolutions following to independence, civil war, Russian-Polish War, “Dekulakization”, Ukrainization, Russification, 2^nd World War, changes of administrative borders, end of the Soviet Union.

CRIMEA: THE FIRST EAST-WEST CONFRONTATION

Crimean War

Deep-Rooted Reasons for Hostility

Глубоко засевшие причины враждебности

Profonde ragioni di ostilità

Des raisons d'hostilité profondement enracinées.

Tiefgreifende Feindlichkeitsgruende.

The cultural confrontation among Slavophiles and Westerners, can be utilized as a background scenario of Russia’s cultural and political life up to the Soviet Revolution. The reformist “Russian Thinking” around Černyševskij and Herzen, comes out of a Westerner background, whereby the reforms are seen as a partial imitation of Western Europe or of America. On the contrary, most of the literary, and/or musical, and/or pictorial productions (such as Dostojevsk’s, Tolstoj’s, Ciaikowsky’s, Serov’s, Nestorov’s, Rerih’s, Malevič’s, Strawinsky’s) are deeply rooted in the Slavonic tradition.

The strengthening of the hold of the Russian Empire on its Asiatic territories (Caucasus, but also Central Asia and the Artic Regions) had increased the interest of Russian intellectuals for the Asiatic Roots of Russia (the Scythians, the Tatars, the Finns, the Persians, the Turks), but also their sympathies for the subjected peoples, whose origins, histories, traditions, languages, were investigated at that time.

Russia was defined more and more as a “Eurasiatic” reality. “Asiatic” subjects enter into the repertory of artists, such as Shagané, Hadij Murat, the Fire Bird, Shahrazade, the Finnish folklore of the North.This attention is not much different from the praise of Mohicans by Fenimore Cooper, or the one of "strong men" of East and west by Kipling, and, fimnally, the participation of Ann Besant both to the induistic revival and to the independence struggle of India.

But also the idea of a community of destinies between Russia and Europe remained at that times strong, albeit Russia felt not be  well understood , and even to be rejected, by Europeans.

Many made an effort to become more European, for being better accepted, as in the case of the Occidentalist, or of social reformers like Caadajen. Others, like Ivanov-Razumnik (who converted to Catholicism as suggested by De Maistre), stressed that Europe needed Russia. He launched the idea of “Europe’s two lungs”, an idea which will achieve so large a resound after having been adopted by John Paul II himself.

The conflict between “Slavophiles” and “Occidentalists” will be synthesized, finally, after the October Revolution, by Blok, who, in his Panmongolizm, will submit, to Europeans, a dramatic alternative: either to accept, brotherly, the Russian as a part of the European family of people, or to find them hostiles, allied with “the Mongolic World” (now, we could think of China and of Islam).

During the XIX Century, Russia did not abandon the “Greek Project” (i Megàli Idèa”), albeit the independence of Greece was not achieved thanks to Russia (or, at least, not thanks to Russia alone); the newly independent Greece became open, besides Russian influences, also German and English connections.

The peak of anti-Russian feelings was reached between the 1848 Revolution and the Crimea War. Russia had intervened, upon request of the Austrian Emperor, in Hungary, for stopping the liberal and nationalistic unrests.Moreover, the Croatian Ban Jelacic, the Ruthenian  peasants and the Bohemian Pan-Slavists    had all supported the Emperor against the revolutionary, so causing all together the suppression of the revolts in the Austrian Empire. From this fact, Marx and Engels draw the pretext for a violent attack against the "peoples without history", responsible, first of all, to have supported the Russian and Austrian Emperors against the revolutionary movements. In 1853, there were not only the left-wing extremists, but also the bourgeois liberals governments of France and of England to be worried of the momentum gained by Imperial Russia by its presence in the Balkans  (including the occupation of Wallachia and Moldavia) and its support to Balkanic nationhoods.

The "Crimean War" consisted, in reality, in a vast encirclement of Russia by British, Franch, Austrians Turks and Sardinians, which took place along the Danube, in Ucraine, Crimea, Caucasus, the Baltic, the White Sea and the Pacific Ocean. The adhesion of the Kingdom of Sardinia was unequivocally motivated by the will of the liberal Cavour Government to join the liberal cohalition of Western constitutional monarchies, abandoning the traditional Russian friendship. The conservative opposition, led by Count Thaon de Ravel, refused to vote in favour of the war. The latter contributed heavily to the self-consciuosness of Russia, to the weakening of Austria, to the assertiveness of the Balkanic countries and to the strenthening of national feelings in Caucasian nationalities.

The Western alliance pretended from Russia the acceptance of some points, what Russia refused to do:

1. Russia was to give up its protectorate over the Danubian Principalities;
2. It was to abandon any claim granting it the right to interfere in Ottoman affairs on behalf of Orthodox Christians;
3. The Straits Convention of 1841 was to be revised;
4. All nations were to be granted access to the River Danube.

At the end of the war, these points were accepted by Russia only partially, and never fully complied with.

Wallachia and Moldavia, formerly under a strong Russian influence, united under the name of Romania, into a new state, where French and Italian influences are decisive, up to the point that the same Rumanian language is “purified” from many of the preceding Slavonic influences, so that the heritage of the Romans is put in the forefront.

Russia interests concentrated on the Slavonic peoples of the Balkans, such as Bulgarians and Serbians, which Russia helped in their efforts to become independent from the Turkish Empire. These efforts, which were at the origin of the “Balkanic Wars”, contributed to creating the background for World War I. 

Of course, not just Russia, but the whole system of powers of the Europe of that time, are equally responsible for the Balkan Wars and for the subsequent World War II. It has to be remarked that the Russian Tsars were active in the diplomatic scene, for fostering a movement for Peace and Disarmament (the Hague Congress for Peace was promoted by Tsar Nicolas II).

The policy of the Russian Empire in that period is rather contradictory. In fact, it had to manage too many contradictory tendencies. From one side, Russia was a very powerful, cultivated, and even rich, country, whose rates of growths were higher than the ones of Western Europe. From another point of view, riches was very unequally distributed, and this created strong social contrasts. The land reforms carried out at the end of the XIX Century, whilst fostering industrialization,also as a consequence of the Crimean War, had not solved the problem of a sound farming class.

The Tsar swinged between the tough defense of traditional autocracy and timid tentatives of reforms in the direction of a parliamentary monarchy, from avant-garde initiatives in the field of internationalism, such as the Hague  Congress, to military escalations, such as the ones in the Balkans.

The policy of Russia-bashing from the side of western goverments and intellectuasls went on. The fact that, contrary to what happened in France, Italy and Austria, liberal reforms had not been implemented during the largest part of the XIX Century were explained, as always, by the innate autocratic spirit of Russians. However, as always, many of the faults identified by polemists in Russia were, or false, a shared with many other European countries.

As an example, the myth, according to which the Russian Empire had to be considered as the main enemy of nationalities in Eastern Europe is not correct. It is true that a strong conflict arose since the beginning with Poles, who did not accept the partial autonomy role of the Kingdom of Poland. It is also true that the Empire forbade the Ukrainian language and the transliteration, into Latin characters, of Baltic languages. However, also Prussia and Austria had annexed large parts of Poland, where they had suppressed any form of autonomy, whilst Russia had been even helpful with Belorussian and Lithuanians, for asserting their own nationhood, after long centuries of dominance of the Polish language, aristocracy and clergy.Not to speak of the violent repression, by England, of Irish autonomy.

EAST EUROPEAN NATIONALITIES AND EUROPE

Nationalities in Russia: an Excellent Example of a European  Problem.

Народность в России: необыкной Премьерn всеевропейского вопрос

Les nationalités en Russie: un exemple excellent d'un problème européen. 

Nationalitaeten in Russland ein ausgezeichnetes Beispiel einer europaeischen Probleme.

1.     Nationalities in the Empire

Hostile propaganda, starting from XIX Century, described Russia (not differently, from this point of view from Austria and Turkey) as a “Prison for the Peoples”. This negative stereotype was never been abandoned, either during the Sovietic Period, nor even today, albeit both the Bolsheviks and Elcin’s Russia had made, in fact, remarkable efforts for solving the “National Question”, in a way which cannot be described as prejudicially inconvenient for minority peoples, both the ones of Eastern Europe and of Northern Asia. On the contrary, one could even object that the choice of both the USSR and of the Elcin period was the one to foster and emphasize the role of “Republics”, from one side consolidating “Nationalities” which were, originally, just at their beginning, and, from another, privileging the “secession right” to the geopolitic interest for unity. Many people, not just in Russia, but all over the world, have found that this overwhelming role given to smaller nationalities has fostered disputes, and even wars, like the ones in Caucasus. 

Present-days Russia’s Constitution has included multiculturalism into its foundations. Russia's constitution is one of the few constitutions in the world expressly mentioning multiculturalism. Multiculturality has been a standing characteristic of Russia since the first phase of its history, the “Kievskaya Rus’”. Already at the times of the largest extension of the latter, the States of the Velikij Knjaz included Variags, Slavs, Finns, Turks (Qipqaq, Khazars, Cumans, Pechenegs).Even the "Slovo o Polku Igorevo", Russia's national epic, is filled with references to the Turkic Polovesian People.

Starting from the conquest of the Kazan Khanate in 1522, Russia had always had the problem to arrange the government of minority peoples annexed to the Empire, starting from the Tatars, which were the first ones to be subdued. Already the policy of the Tsar towards such minority nationalities was characterized by a large amount of ambiguity. Certain moments of decentralization, such as, for instance, the ones at the creation of the Tatar Khanate of the Kerimov, or of the autonomy of the Zaporozhie Cossaks and the Khanate of Crimea, and, finally, the policy of Catherine II at the occasion of the Legislative Commission, coupled with excesses of centralization, like the case of the Oprichnina, of the forcced conversion of Tatars, of the russification campaigns in Ukraine, Poland and Georgia.The recent disputes with Poland, Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnia, find all their far away roots in ancient events, such as the Rebellions of Razin, Mazepa and Pugachev, or the wars of Chamil.

Apart from Poland, which fought during the whole XIX Century for its independence, it is with the 1905 Revolution that the national movements of the different ethnic minority really started to enter into contact with the idea of the auto-determination of nationalities, as preached by the Austro-Marxists of Bruno Bauer, and which had been the basis of the decentralization of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

During World War I, the conquests of the German Armies, an, later on, of the White Armies and of the Allied Forces, permitted to nationalist governments to be set up in Finland, in the Baltic States, in Bielorussia, Ukraine, Caucasus, Urals and Central Asia.

In reality, the problematics of historical Russian “Nationality Policy” does not differ very much from the one of the others historical  empires (such as the Sacred Roman Empire, the Austrian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire), which collided with the new idea of independent “national” States based essentially on a common popular language.

So, also there we experience the emergence of new, ethnic and religious nationalisms, such as the ones of Bohemia, of the Netherlands, of Italy, Hungary, Croatia, of Greece, of Serbia, of Romania, of Bulgaria, of Albania, of Arabia,of Tibet, of Xin Jiang and of Mongolia. Also here, we can see the progressive emergence of a “core nationality”, which does not include just the former “core folk”, but was the result of a beginning of “Melting pot”. From another point of view, the dialectics between the “core” melting pot and its peripheries is vivid in several European “Nation-States”, what show a degree of ethnical differentiation, not dissimilar from the one of some “empires” (as, for instance, in Spain, Great Britain, France, Italy, Bulgaria, Turkey, the Baltic States  and Georgia, where "minorities" amount to very high percentages of the poplulation, even surpassing 50%).

2.     The Sovietic Nationalities Policy

The Sovietic Nationalities Policy was influenced by Austro-Marxism and by Panturkism, and in its turn, influenced Yugoslav federalism (Alexandre Marc, Jovan Djordjevich), and even the “autonomies movents” in Western Europe (such as, e.g., the “Carta di Chivasso” and the concept of the “Autonomous Regions” and “autonomous Provinces” in the Italian Constitution, and, hence, the one of "Comunidades Autònomas" in the Spanish one. The Baku Congress, of 1^st September 1920, marked a turning point in the Sovietic politics of nationalities, because it persuaded the Bolsheviks that national minorities were an essential and necessary part of the Leninist Project of “Socialism in a Sole Country”. Moreover, thanks to the “Nationalities Policy”, Soviet Russia hoped to reverse, in its own favor, the traditional risk of destabilization of minorities by foreign powers. In fact, Russia presented itself, at the Baku Congress, as the defender of the oppressed nationalities worldwide, and, especially, in Asia.

During that period, Russia entertained a friendly relationship with the Chinese nationalist party GuoMingDang, forcing the Chinese Communist Party to merge, for a certain period, with that party, and, in any case, to maintain a sort of alliance with it up to the end of World War II.

The nationalities policy, whose supreme expert in the Communist Party was Josef Stalin himself, maintained the same degree of ambiguity which had reigned during the Tsarist period.From one side, the Soviets, for persuading break-off Republics, like Ukraine, Belarus and Caucasus, to join the new Sovietic Union,  went on fostering a policy of autonomy of such Republics, encouraging, i.a., the establishment of specific national ruling classes, of national government bodies and of a national language (which often did not exist  beforeas such and was created expressly); from another side, they went on utilizing Russian (or Russian speaking) political personnel, including, into each republic, important foreign minorities (including ethnic national minorities) and fostering large scale migrations among the different republics.

So, in practice, the life of the Republics remained always “split” between local, fledging, national identities, and a strong presence of the Soviet Communist Party, of the Soviet Centralized State, of many and many minority citizens and “Soviet citizens”, which in “intra-community lives” spoke Russian.

So, a certain degree of conflictuality between Republic and the center never ceased to exist, and it was only the totalitarian rule from the center which guaranteed that Republics could hold together, developing along a consistent political and economic path

"Duszą Narodu polskiego jest pielgrzymstwo polskie" (THE SPIRIT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE IS POLISH PILGRIMAGE)

The Kingdom of Poland, a failed tentative of union between Russia and Poland.

Польское Королевство: не успешная попытка соединения полши и России

Il Regno di Polonia:un tentativo non riuscito di unione fra Russia e Polonia

 Le Royaume de Pologne: une tentative non réussie d'union entre Russie et Pologne

 Koenigreich Polen:  erfolgloser Versuch  von Union zwischen Russland und Polen.

Another question which was, and still is, common to Poland and Russia is the “Polish Question”, which rendered, at that time, and still renders, bitter and bitter the relationships between Russia and the rest of Europe. At the beginning, the first partition of Poland had not caused any important cultural reactions, either in Poland itself, nor abroad. In fact, in the middle of XVIII Century, there was nowhere a strong national feeling, and, in particular, Poland had never been a strong centralized kingdom. On the contrary, it had evolved, during the last two centuries, into a loose confederation of a myriad of feudal lords, which was governed by an elective King (usually a Swede, a Hungarian or a German), and, in the last period, was under the alternate influence of Prussia, Russia and Austria. The Three Partitions involved all the three monarchs.

In the meantime, during the XVIII Century, from one side, both the idea of nationhood, and the one of liberalism,  had started becoming more sensitive, also in Poland, and, from another point of view, it resulted clearer that, with the partition, the foreign influences, which had been important also before, were reaching a level which was no more tolerable, at least for little aristocracy (“Szlachta”), which was not connected with the foreign kingdoms like higher aristocrats.

This had led to a subdivision of the aristocracy (which remained the leading social force in Poland), into two “fields”: from one side, the “Whites”, around the great aristocrats, like Poniatowski and Czartoryski, which accepted a certain extent of influence of Russia, and, from the other side, the “Reds”(like Kosciuszko and Mickiewicz) which included mostly the small aristocracy and the bourgeois, which were contrary to any accommodation with the occupation powers, and opposed themselves militarily.It is worthwile noting that the distinction between “Reds” and “Whites” survived the Polish Independence Wars, and transferred itself to the Russian Civil War.

The accession of the Polish politician Czartoryski, after violent struggles, to the role of Foreign Minister of Russia had arisen the hope that a new, “liberal” policy of Alexander 1^st would have found, via Czartoryski, a solution satisfying all the Poles.

Czartoryski, consistent with the general vision, shared with Alexander 1^st, of Europe after the Vienna Congress, where a place would have been left to the “Europe of the Peoples”, worked out the idea of a constitution of the Polish Kingdom within the Russian Empire, alongside the “Konstytucja Trzeciego Maja” and the Finnish “Constitution”, as well as the one of the Duchy of Poland established by Napoleon between 1807 and 1813. .

The furtherance of the “constitutional experiment” in Poland and Finland, if successful, could have become an anticipation of an alternative “reformist”, path to the creation of a “Europe of the Peoples”, by gradually granting autonomy to the territories of the Russia, German, Austrian and Ottoman Empires (and, why not, of other large European States), without the need of two centuries of uninterrupted wars and revolutions.

However, the solution was not accepted by the Poles; Poland insurged, and Czartoryski himself, after having become the Prime Minister of the insurged Poland, was condemned to death, fled from Poland andcontinued to keep alive from Paris the conservative Polish opposition, whilst Lelewel headed the progressive opposition from Brussels.

THE EUROPE OF THE PEOPLES

The "Russian" Version of the Holy Alliance
"Русская" версия Священного Союза
La "versione russa" della Santa Alleanza
La "version Russe" de la Sainte Alliance
Die "russische Version" der Heiligen Allianz

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of  Nicolas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of Humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the  tonations their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Because of all of these initiatives, Alexander !st was the only soverain after Charlemagne to be called "the Empèeror of the Europeans"

Some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian  federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Rosmini and Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

For all the above reason, Russia was able to play a decisive role over the shape of the Holy Alliance, albeit its specific points of view were not taken into the hoped account. In particular, according to the secret instructions conferred, by the Tsar , on Novosiltsev, the political form of Europe should have been transformed deeply, from the one side, for accommodating the national ambitions of the peoples of Europe, and, from the other side, following a bit the scheme of the famous projects for the reform of Europe, which had been worked out, over the centuries, by Podĕbrad, De Sully, Crucé, St. Pierre, Rousseau, Kant, Novalis and others, whereby the European Kings should have stipulated a “Peacefully Pact” (Fœdus Pacificum) for avoiding wars and for protecting Christendom. In this sense, the Russian project defined Europe as “the Christian Nation”, and “Europe of the Peoples”T he document is of great interest, as in it we find formulated for the first time in an official dispatch the ideals of international policy which were to play so conspicuous a part in the affairs of the world at the close of the revolutionary epoch, and issued at the end of the 19th century in the Rescript of Nicholas II and the conference of the Hague. Alexander argued that the outcome of the war was not to be only the liberation of France, but the universal triumph of "the sacred rights of humanity". To attain this it would be necessary "after having attached the nations to their government by making these incapable of acting save in the greatest interests of their subjects, to fix the relations of the states amongst each other on more precise rules, and such as it is to their interest to respect."

A general treaty was to become the basis of the relations of the states forming "the European Confederation"; and this, though "it was no question of realising the dream of universal peace, would attain some of its results if, at the conclusion of the general war, it were possible to establish on clear principles the prescriptions of the rights of nations." "Why could not one submit to it", the Tsar continued, "the positive rights of nations, assure the privilege of neutrality, insert the obligation of never beginning war until all the resources which the mediation of a third party could offer have been exhausted, having by this means brought to light the respective grievances, and tried to remove them? It is on such principles as these that one could proceed to a general pacification, and give birth to a league of which the stipulations would form, so to speak, a new code of the law of nations, which, sanctioned by the greater part of the nations of Europe, would without difficulty become the immutable rule of the cabinets, while those who should try to infringe it would risk bringing upon themselves the forces of the new union."

As it is well-known, such ambitions were nullified by the resistance, to the Russian proposals, of the other main negotiators of the Vienna Treat, which refused to sign the general text of the Holy Alliance, which was not a legal text, but a political manifesto of a conservative project for a new “European Concert” inspired by the Enlightened Conservatism and by a form of Christian Ecumenism alongside the ideas of Novalis. Nevertheless, Alexander 1^st ordered that this document was read officially at least once a year in all Churches of the Empire.

Moreover, some of the ideas of this text of the “Holy Alliance” were taken over, unexpectedly, by West European politicians such as Mazzini and Gioberti, who continued the ideas of a “Europe of the Peoples”, and, respectively, of an Italian federation presided by the Pope. Surely, Mazzini, and even Gioberti, who were considered, in their times, very “progressive” people, would not have appreciated this analogy. Nevertheless, it appears self-evident when reading secret instructions to Novosiltev and of the works of the two Italian politicians and thinkers.

THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE AS A DREAM FOR EUROPEAN INTELLIGENCIJA

The ideas of a Russian Empire came from Europe

идеи русской империи происходили  из Европы

Le idee dell' impero russo provenivano dall' Europa

Les idées d'un empire russe provenaient de l' Europe

Die Ideen eines russischen Kaiserreichs stammten aus Europa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     The Greek Project

Not just the religious engagement of Russia and of peoples of the Balkans, as parts of a sole Orthodox Church, prompted a strong interest for Russia, but also the diffusion of Enlightenment as an all-European ideology.

One could even say that the formation of the Russian Empire is distinctly interlinked with the ideas and objectives of European Enlightenment. In the XVII and XVIII Century, many European intellectuals intervened with the Zars for persuading them to undertake the conquest of the Ottoman Empire, so re-establishing the unity of Christendom and of the Orthodox World. Especially, in the XVIII Century, Katherine II, urged, i.a., by Herder, worked out an ambitious plan (the “Greek Project”, that the Greeks called “I Megàli Idèa”), for transforming the Ottoman Empire into a Christian Kingdom, governed by a son of herself. During the Independence Wars of the Balkanic States, Russia was without exitation at the side of the Balkanic peoples.

The idea of a Third Rome was not simply an empty slogan. The Tsars shared the Millenaristic faith of West European Rulers, clergymen and intellectuals of their times, such as Columbus, Dom Sebastião, Vieira, Jan Komenský, Campanella, Winstanley or Cotton Mather.

Moreover, they were subject to pressure of intellectuals like Krizanic urging them to attack the infidels of the Ottoman Empire, as a whole Balkanic clergy,.

2.     The Perpetual Peace

As it is well known, the intellectuals of early Modernity were very much attracted by the demiurgic powers of “Enlightened Despotism”. Erasmus, Luther, Machiavelli, Bodin, Grotius, Hobbes, Leibniz, Kant, Voltaire, were all puzzled by the possibility to materialize, via the Prince, their auspices as to the best organization of the State.

Also the idea of a “Perpetual  Peace” was influenced, from one side, from the idea of a Crusade against the Turks, and, from another side, by the idea that, after the fall of the Sacred Roman Empire and the defeat of the Invincible Armada, a New World Order had to be restored.

Philip II and Louis XIV had tried, uselessly, to re-create a “Universal Monarchy”. Thus, the attentions of many began to concentrate on Russia and America, the countries where, as Tocqueville noted,  Europe’s utopias could have materialized.

When Peter 1^st, at the beginning of the 18^th Century, showed an unusually strong capability to modernize its Empire according to European standards, hiring the best technicians, architects and artists from all over Europe, this fact became an irresistible enticement for all intellectuals in Europe, and Peter was exalted by them as the founder of a new Golden Age.

For this purpose,according to Leibniz,  the capital of the Russian Empire should have been transferred into the newly built town of Odessa, situated in the newly conquered Southern Ukraine, and, hence, at midway between Northern Europe and the Middle East. In fact, according to him, the Eurasiatic Continent should have been dominated by two large empires: the Chinese and the Russian. This project was shared by Voltaire, who expressed this point of view in several occasions, and, with special vibrancy, through his satirical pèiece “Le Rescrit de l’Empereur de la Chine”, which constitutes an ironical comment to the comment of Rousseau to St. Pierre’s “Project pour une paix perpetuelle” (in which, in any case, as in the preceding and following “Projects”, the presence of Russia was contemplated). By the way, we consider this “Rescrit” a document having a stringent contemporary value, taking into account the past, and present, role of China.

The idea itself of the conquest of the Baltic Coast, of the construction of St. Petersburg and of the re-baptization of the “Tsar” as “Imperator” was a precise choice in the direction of Europe. But for the Europe of “Enlightened Despotism”, non, surely, for “liberalism”.

Moreover, Peter was too despotic a nature for tolerating too stringent invasions on this decision sphere. On the contrary, Catherine 2^nd albeit a quintessentially despotic ruler, was a very curious and intellectual woman, which, on the other side, mixed with ease their romances with the affairs of State. So, she raised still more the attention of European intellectuals, such as Leibniz, Diderot, Muratori and Voltaire, the latter describing Catherine as the most enlightened sovereign from the times of Solon.

3.     The “Legislative Commission”

Under Peter and Katherine, Russia succeeded in its ambitions to become a European Power, having conquered Estonia, Latvia, the Eastern part of Poland, Belarus’ and Ukraine. The emissaries of Katherine influenced the politics of Poland, Germany, Turkey, England, and even the Kingdom of Naples and the United States.

The accomplishment of this objective was celebrated by Catherine with the well-known monument to Paul 1^st in St. Petersburg. On the Pedestal of the monument, a riding Peter looking at the Baltic from his rampant horse, he let the following phrase, in Latin, be written: “Paulo I, Catherina Secunda”.

The political reforms undertaken under his guidance, such as the “Legislative Commission” which was supposed to introduce, into Russia, the principles of Enlightenment, constituted an excellent example, more than for its contents, for its methodology, since the Commission involved all social resources and all ethnic groups of the Empire. As such, it constituted de facto a precedent for the Politics of Nationalities in XIX Century’s Europe and in XX Century’s federations.

Many commentators maintain that the creation of the Legislative Commission, as well as the text of the Instructions, which it wrote to the members of the Commission, itself, were not genuine, and they should explain why they were not implemented. However, these objections  could be raised also against the reforms of all reformistic Monarch of the XVIII Century. They wanted to abolish the irrational or absolute aspects of the preceding societies, not at all abolish their own power, nor the position of ruling classes. On the contrary, their logic was precisely the one of restraining the elements of Ancien Régime for enhancing the absolute power of the Crown.

As it is known, Katherine was a German aristocrat. Albeit she was perfectly Russian-speaking and an Orthodox believer, she had constantly privileged relationships with subjects of other nationalities, such as August Poniatowsky, a young Polish aristocrat, which, after having been her lover, she promoted to become the King of Poland, as well with the Khan of Crimea, and, finally, with Diderot, whom she sustained heavily from the financial point of view.

Katherine was involved also (as almost all Enlightened Princes)in. American Independence Wars In fact, she promoted the creation of the so-called “Armed Neutrality”, an alliance among European Powers, aiming at preventing the King of England to carry out his embargo to the United States. However, in the last years of her life, after the Pugačiov Revolt, and, especially after the French Revolution, she withdraw many of her proposals, being afraid, before of any other thing, of the risk to undergo the same fate as Louis XVI (who had also enthusiastically supported the American Revolution).

In any case, Catherine was always consistent with her absolutistic creed, which she draw from the reading the works of the enlightened writers to which she was linked, and who were all firm tenants of the Ancien Régime. Just at the beginning of the “Instructions to the Legislative Commission”, where she fixed the terms of engagement of the members of the Commission, she declared that she would have continued to govern Russia in a “despotic” manner (“samodieržavie”) because, as Montesquieu had written, a State of larger scale may be governed only in this way. It is also known that also Hamilton’s Federalist Papers pretended to be based on Montesquieu’s teaching, and, precisely, on the same passage of “De l’Esprit des Lois”, where Montesquieu completes his affirmation concerning the “States of large extension”, saying that they may have governed not just in an autocratic manner, but also by federalism.

This observation shows how much Russia and the United States constitute, so to say, two “mirror images” of Europe. Moreover, it is not even true that the American Federalism is integrally decentralized, whilst Russian centralism is forthwith despotic. In fact, in America, Hamilton’s “federalism” was seen, and correctly, as a trend towards centralization, whilst the idea itself of the Legislative Commission was based on the cooperation of local entities, a cooperation which, in a way or another, never ceased in Russia.

Catherine was the most known and successful German princess at the St. Petersburg’s court. However, she was not the only one. In fact, Martha Skavronskaja became Catherine 1^st, Augustina Wilhelmina von Hessen-Damstadt and Sophia Dorothea von Württemberg married Peter the Great, Luisa Maria Augusta von Baden Baden married Alexander 1^st; Federica Luisa Sharlota Wilhelmina of Prussia married Nicolas 1st; Maximiliana Wilhelnmina Augusta Sofia Maria von Damstadt married Alexander 2^nd; Maria Sophia Federica Dagmar of Denmark married Alexander III, and Alisa Victoria Melana Beatris von Damstadt married Nicolas II, being killed by the Bolsheviks together with her husband.

4.     Europeans in Russia

Saint Petersburg was filled by Europeans, like the Italians (“Friaziny”), northern (protestant) Europeans, who lived in Kukuj/Svoboda.

Many important characters of Peter’s and Catherine’s St. Petersburg were western Europeans. Such as the Danish Vitus Bering, the discoverer of Alaska; the historian Gerard Miller; the Italian architects Aristotele Fioravanti, Domenico Trezzini, Giuseppe Bove, Francesco Bartolomeo Rastrelli, Artuto Rinaldi, Giacomo Quarenghi, Carlo Rossi; the French Jean Baptiste Le Blond and Jean Vallin de la Mothe; the English Charles Cameron; the German sculptor Peter Clodt; the Swedish painter Alexander Reslin; and, especially, the French sculptor Etienne Frelcemiet (author of the monument to Peter the Great).

Herder thought that the real focal point of Russia was the newly built Odessa, in Ukraine, since, from that town, it could have dominated both the East and the West (a thought which is shared by many anti-Russian of today, who, precisely for this reason, make any efforts as possible for separating Ukraine from Russia).

Melchior von Grimm foreshadow to Catherine II the subdivision of the world hegemony between Russia and America. This idea will be developed, among others, by Tocqueville. According to Grimm, the strength of Russia derived from the fact of not having suffered a revolution.

During the Reign of Catherine, Russia is really a European State, having a German Empress, a capital similar to Venice, speaking French and with an aristocracy being, to a large extent, Polish, German and Swedish. Large minorities of Balts, Poles, Ucrainians, Greeks, Romanians, Tatars, Georgians and Armenians live inside its southern borders.

Under Catherine, a large wave of German immigrantsentered the country  In reality, Catherine invited immigrants of all nationalities, to whom she offered free land, which, after one hundred years, would have become their full property. The colonists flocked towards several destinations, and, in particular, towards Saratov on the River Don. However, with the passing of time, the conditions of German immigrants worsened and worsened, following to the consequences of the abolition of serfdom, to the expiration of the first 100 years privileges, of the russification policies.

During the Bolshevik Revolution, the German immigrants were granted the right to create their own Republic of the Volga Germans. Unfortunately, also in this regions, the problems of land collectivization, of “dekulakisation” and of “Golodomor” were felt.

During World War II, all Volga Germans were deported to Kazakhistan or Siberia.

During the Perestrojka period, they received the right to quit Russia, so that the majority has come back to Germany.

During the Reign of Catherine, the Ermitage was created, which, in Sakurov’s film, has been pertinently defined as “the Russian Arch”, where many and many artistic treasures of the European culture have been stored, for preserving them against the upheavals of history.