Russia: Government Is a Racket

The events in Russia starting on 24 Jun with the actions of the Wagner Group are still shrouded in fog, and will be for some time. Russia is not an open society and all is never what it at first seems. It is even more opaque for people who want to interpret events in Russia through western lenses. The purpose of this essay is to provide some background on Russian traditions, norms and frames of reference.

Russia is a nation that is technologically modern and socially medieval. This is not to say that all Russians have the same outlook. There have always been Russians who were aware life could be different, but they have had hard going realizing their goals for their people. In the 1800s, children of the Russian nobility who studied in western Europe came home with reformist ideas, but they did not take in the stony soil of Russian political culture. In our time, Alexei Navalny and Natalya Sindeyeva (the founder of TV Rain) have modern sensibilities, but it is not evident that the majority of Russians share them, even factoring for the chokehold the government exerts on the flow of information and ideas.

Here at home, we have a running argument over whether Navalny was foolhardy to return to Russia in 2021. As I see it, it was morally imperative that he did so. If he did not return, he abandons his struggle. Yes, he will likely die at the hands of the regime, but everyone must die someday. In Anglo-American history, there have been many persons who risked their lives for their causes. Can Navalny sell his life for the advancement of his cause?

Historical Roots of Russian Political Sensibilities

Russian history flowed very differently than Western history and shaped the outlook of the Russian people accordingly.

The Mongol Yoke

Russia had been overrun by the Mongols in the 1200s. Batu Khan sacked and Moscow and Vladimir. The Mongols built a capital at Sarai on the lower Volga, from which they ruled Russia for the next 200+ years. The Mongols appointed Russian princes to be their vassals and rule over the people, but these princes had to answer to the Mongols at Sarai, often with their lives, for their conduct. The Mongols required the princes to raise money and pay tribute to them at Sarai. Essentially, this was tax farming.

John the Moneybag and Ivan the Great

Over the years, the princes of Moscow began to amass local power, while the Mongols went in to a gradual decline. Ivan I “Kalitá” — whose name literally translates to John the Moneybag — ruled Moscow from 1325 to around 1340. He cooperated outwardly with the Mongols, so that the khans would trust him. They added more responsibility to Ivan by killing his neighboring princes and granting Ivan the additional title of Grand Duke of Vladimir in 1332.

Ivan set about building up Moscow to become strong enough to throw off the Mongol yoke. It would take generations, with reverses along the way. In 1382, the Mongols sacked and burned Moscow again.

Ivan III “the Great” ruled Moscow from his official coronation in 1462 to 1505. Ivan finally threw off Mongol overlordship in 1480, refusing to pay tribute. He was the first ruler to use the title Tsar. The idea of Moscow as the third Rome also begins at this time, as Constantinople had fallen to the Ottomans in 1453,

Lessons from the Mongol Yoke Era

Just because the rulers in Moscow did not have to pay tribute, that did not mean that they were going to collect any less. In Russia, governments collect tribute. A government is a protection racket, not radically different from a criminal gang. You give your allegiance to the organization that offers you the most protection for the least tribute.

The overlord had to be the richest man around, so he could hold his own against all the other people who wanted to take power at his expense. A ruler who did not enrich himself at every opportunity is simply not respectable. You can see this heritage today. Vladimir Putin is reputed to be among the richest men in the world, although he will never be able to enjoy most of it. That is not the point. The wealth is part of the outward appearance of power he must maintain if he is to hold onto power. A king like Louis Philippe I of France, who tried to shun the ostentations trappings of monarchy, wouldn’t last long in Russia. Come to think of it, he wasn’t all that much of a success in France, either.

The Tsar Is Never Wrong

In a society ruled by an autocrat, the autocrat is never wrong. He may be misled by bad advisors. In the run-up to the English Civil War, many moderates still wanted to blame all the mistakes of Charles I on Archbishop Laud and the Earl of Strafford. That is how the game works in such societies.

Appeals to the Tsar

There have been several instances in Russian history where groups of people appealed to the Tsar for redress of their greivances. Among them:

• The mutiny of the Semyonovsky regiment (1820), which was defeated and resulted in the court-martial of the leading participants;
• The Decembrist Revolt (1825), whose participants believed that Nicholas I had usurped the throne from his brother Konstantin;
• Bloody Sunday (1905), where unarmed demonstrators seeking to present a petition to Nicholas II were fired upon by the palace guard.

Vasily Timm: Life Guards Horse Regiment During the Uprising of December 14, 1825 at the Senate Square

None of these incidents succeeded in their objective, but the cultural image appears to be strong. And, really, what else can you do to be heard in an autocracy?

The most recent parallel to Prigozhin’s march on Moscow in Anglo-American history is the Pilgrimage of Grace (1536-37). This was primarily a protest against the dissolution of the monasteries. As was the custom, the rebels announce that their grievances were with the King’s bad advisors. Henry VIII had been caught on the back foot: the rebels amassed a force of 30,000 men. Henry used diplomacy to pacify the rebels until his nobles could raise an army sufficiently strong to put the rebellion down by force.

We don’t resolve grievances that way anymore in the West, but then, we don’t have divine-right kings, either.

The Uses of Corruption

If you were unsure of your future as a dictator, would you want people around you who can’t be bought?

Sergei Shoigu is the Russian Minister of Defense and a mortal enemy of Yevgeny Prigozhin. Shoigu is reputed to have a mistress and to have enriched himself greatly in his office. From the battlefield accounts in the war in Ukraine, it is clear that someone has been skimming to a degree that has impaired Russian combat effectiveness. Since Shoigu has been Minister of Defense for over ten years, it would be hard for him to distance himself from any responsibility for allowing corruption to occur.

But would Putin really care? Putin came up through the KGB; he was trained to be a spymaster. Spymasters like weaknesses in people; the weaknesses provide handles by which to manipulate them. From Putin’s point of view, there could be worse things than a Minister of Defense with his hand in the till. Plus, if things get out of hand, Putin can always push Shoigu under the bus (Bad advisor! Who knew?).

Shoigu appears to be a sufficiently competent operator that he would not have initiated the move to fold Wagner’s mercenaries into the Russian Army by 1 July without being sure of his bureaucratic backing. This is the spark that set off the events of 24 Jun.

Wherever he goes, Prigozhin should keep away from high windows and have someone else start his car for him. We have not heard the last of this matter.