The empire must not peter out

President Putin is trying to cosplay Peter the Great, but only when it comes to seizing territories. Historian Yevgeny Anisimov talks about the first Russian emperor’s place in history

“Surprisingly, practically nothing has changed. You come to this realisation at a certain point,” Vladimir Putin pointed out with a satisfied chuckle during a meeting with “young entrepreneurs” (as described by Russian state TV) following the exhibition timed to the 350th birthday of Russia’s first emperor Peter the Great. Since September 2021, when a sixth-grader corrected Putin, who mistook the Great Northern War for the Seven Years’ War, the Russian president has done his research, strengthening his ideological platform. Peter the Great waged the Great Northern War against Sweden for 21 years, supposedly “seizing” some lands, Putin said. “He didn’t seize anything!” the president exclaimed, doing a stellar job raising his eyebrows and gesturing with his hands. “He was returning them!” In case his facial expressions were not convincing enough, Putin doubled down: “Yes, that’s right! That’s how it is.” And the same thing is happening “in the Western direction,” the Russian leader added. “It seems that it fell on us too,” Putin smiled, clearly satisfied with himself and his mission. “It fell on us to take back and reinforce as well.” The president noted that he was talking about the lands to the west of Narva.

Novaya Gazeta. Europe interviews historian Yevgeny Anisimov, who specialises in Peter the Great’s reign, to find out more about the role that Russia’s first emperor, whom Putin compared himself to so blatantly, played in history.

Professor Yevgeny Viktorovich Anisimov is the Chief Research Fellow at the Saint Petersburg Institute of History, Academic Supervisor at the Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg Campus), Professor of the European University in St. Petersburg and the Russian Academy of Arts, Academic Supervisor at the Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University.

— Yevgeny Viktorovich, which lands did Peter the Great “take back and reinforce”? What was the goal of his territorial acquisitions?

— I would like to remind you that along with “historically Russian” lands, Peter also seized Estland, Livonia and Finland. And later, a part of Iran.

— He incorporated them.

— According to the 1617 Treaty of Stolbovo, Sweden gained a part of Novgorod lands at the mouth of the Neva River. These lands became Swedish territory, and Russian tsars had to take a “cross-kissing” oath, which reaffirmed their fidelity to the agreements recognising these lands as Swedish. Russian diplomats attempted to take back this “small loss”, as they called it, during negotiations, but the Swedes ignored their requests. Shortly before the start of the Great Northern War, Peter also took the same oath.

— That he vows to respect Sweden’s territorial integrity in the future?

— Yes, exactly. That he adheres to the existing treaties. By the way, this escalated tensions later, because Peter even sent ambassadors to Sweden confirming that a “cross-kissing” oath did take place, and right when the delegation arrived in Stockholm, Peter treacherously attacked Narva. The Swedish king later said that Russians are not to be dealt with, as they do not keep their word and violate the treaties they signed. In other words, a state had signed agreements with another state on its territorial integrity, and later attacked this state suddenly without a declaration of war.

— But then Russia explained the reason for the attack.

— Yes, the reasons were announced later. There were two main reasons. The first one was the resentment towards Sweden: when Peter came to Riga incognito within the Grand Embassy (a Russian diplomatic mission to Western Europe in 1697-1698, led by Peter the Great — translator’s note), the Swedish governor did not allow him to make a sketch of military fortifications installed in the city. The Russian Emperor considered that an insult. The second reason was the return of the lands around the Neva River that had previously belonged to Novgorod and that had been seized by the Swedes according to the peace treaty. These lands were called “otchiny and dediny”(the lands of the ancestors — translator’s note).

— The lands the ancestors had fought for?

— Precisely. This was the main justification for the attack.

— So, we simply wanted to take back “what was ours”, or did Russia actually need these lands for something?

— You see, here’s the thing. The concept of territory takes a special place in Russian consciousness. Russia holds its territory as the most important value. The fact that the country is so huge is already something to be proud of. Although the average annual temperature in modern Russia reaches 5.5 ºC below zero.

— But Russia has enough territory, why don’t we cultivate what we have?

— No, absolutely not, we do not have enough territory, there are still lands that definitely must be ours. For many reasons. First of all, they are the lands of our ancestors. Secondly, we need to ensure the security of the lands that we already have. Because if we take back the lands of our ancestors, the Swedes can attack what we already have. So, to protect the lands of our ancestors around the Neva River, we need to take Estland on the one hand and Finland on the other.

— You’re talking about the events that happened 350 years ago, right?

— Of course. The realisation that our territory is enormous is mixed with awe and the idea of our greatness.

— So, it’s not because our people are happy and our economy is rich. We are great only because our territory is so huge?

— We are great and strong. And new territories are needed as an airbag of sorts. Peter the Great wrote that after Vyborg was taken, St. Petersburg got a guarantee of security. This gives the leader a carte blanche to carry on despite the potential losses and expenses.

— Are you talking about human losses?

— Human losses as well. Look up what Vladislav Surkov (Putin’s former political aide often viewed as the main ideologist of the Kremlin, removed from his duties in February 2020 — translator’s note):

according to him, Russia must expand its territories “not because it is a good thing, and not because it is a bad thing, but because it’s how physics works.” And he said that in November of last year.

— That is, Russia is annexing new territories in accordance with the laws of physics?

— Exactly. And everything happening now reaffirms the Russian idea of expanding its territory. The leader who lost or gave away a part of the country’s territory is a bad one. This is why Gorbachev and Yeltsin will forever be cursed in the Russian consciousness for failing to “save” the Soviet Union. It’s because of them that we have these “small losses” again. And on the other hand, the leader that took back what was lost will take his spot in the hall of fame of the “gatherers.” By the way, the Brandenburg rulers that later became Prussian kings were considered “gatherers” as well.

— From what they taught us in school, I remember Peter having different motivations. At least, “this is not why we love him.”

— You shouldn’t love him at all, he is a complex figure, although he can be considered great, and even a genius. But he really was motivated by other factors. Peter wanted to get access to the sea. To him, the sea had a special allure, he loved the art of navigation. Besides, a country that wants to become rich through sea trade needs to have access to the sea. And not just have access to the sea, but to build what is called a quay. This is a very broad term, at the time it combined many things: a port, a harbour, a stock exchange, warehouses, a port city and industrial facilities.

Peter was a very rational man. He needed access to the sea to open up the path both to the West and to the East. He wanted Russia to serve as a bridge between the two. In 1722, he set his sights on the Caspian Sea and seized the northern territories of Persia to replace the local Muslim population with Christians in order to build a city there and later move on to India. Peter planned to build a new city at the mouth of the Kura River, although hydrography experts told him it was impossible, as the area was swampy. However, he managed to build St. Petersburg on a swamp. Had Peter lived longer, there would have been another St. Petersburg at the mouth of the Kura. The city would have taken on the role of Vladivostok: Peter said that the city would become the centre of the eastern trade.

At the same time, he was actively involved in the construction of canals and floodgates in order to cross the Russian Plain (now known as the East European Plain). He wanted to make it possible to navigate a ship from the Caspian Sea to the east, through the Amu Darya River, and then through smaller rivers, to ultimately reach India. You have to agree that this is an incredibly ambitious plan: to leave from the Palace Embankment in St. Petersburg and to reach the bank of the Indus River.

— And to wash his boots in the Indian Ocean (*an allusion to the infamous quote by the late Russian populist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who said that Russian soldiers would ‘wash their boots in the Indian Ocean’ — translator’s note).*

— That was his imperial dream. He also dreamt about expanding the lands around St. Petersburg. To ensure security. In 1710, Riga and Reval surrendered, their residents were recognised as Russian subjects. Even before the peace treaty with Sweden, they had to take an oath of loyalty to the Russian Tsar. Having conquered Finland, Peter wanted to force Finns to do the same, but then Finland was returned to the Swedes. In 1757, Russia seized East Prussia: its residents also had to take an oath. And Kant was a subject of Empress Elizabeth of Russia for several years.

— So basically, it’s like the population were issued Russian passports en masse?

— Yes, you could say that now, issuing passports serves the same purpose.

— What was it for?

— Peter built a city on the territory that belonged to the Swedes, and declared it the capital in 1712, nine years before the peace treaty was signed. Why? So that Swedes would essentially have no opportunity to take this territory back even if a peace deal is signed. How do you take the land back if there’s a city built there already? And not just a city, the capital city.

— So, this is like rebuilding Mariupol, and then saying that we’ve spent so much money here, and our citizens live here already, so Mariupol is ours?

— I don’t want to make comparisons to the current situation, I am a historian. I only wish to say that the idea of presenting the opponent with the evidence of “exploration” of the seized lands as a fait accompli was a valid argument during negotiations at the time: how do we give the lands back after so much effort? What is more, Peter seized lands “just in case”. For example, the whole of Finland was seized, though Russia only needed Vyborg.

— Why did they seize the entire territory then? Why kill so many people for nothing?

— It was a bargaining chip. Peter said that during the talks, we needed to meet the opponent halfway. Estland, Livonia and Vyborg are ours, and now we will meet you halfway and make a concession: you can take Finland.

In 1702, Russian troops took the city of Nöteborg, renaming it Shlisselburg (meaning “key fortress” in German). During the celebrations of this milestone, Peter said something absolutely remarkable to the Prussian envoy.

— Something about the laws of physics?

— No, he said: next spring, I shall take Nyenskans. This is where St. Petersburg now stands. Otherwise, there’s no point in living, Peter added. Can you imagine how much he valued access to the sea?

— Now, Russia has access to many seas, the ideas regarding what is considered great have changed over the past 350 years, and the economy is different, not to mention the legal system. Why are we raising the matter of “expanding territories” again?

— Here, I can only reiterate that I’m a historian, so I wouldn’t want to discuss the present. This is a professional principle. You can ask me about Peter the Great.

I can say that having visited Holland and England, Peter completely rejected the idea of parliamentarism and democracy for Russia. He said: you need to know the people that you rule over. Enlightened absolutism is the only way for Russia.

— At the same time, we have heard a wide range of clichés regarding Peter’s rule: he strived for enlightenment, studied and worked a lot himself, shaved off beards, built “a window to Europe.” I’ve never heard anything about Peter shielding the country from Europe based on traditional values, pushing it back into barbarity. He even brought forks to Russia so that people wouldn’t eat with their bare hands.

— It's not about the forks! Peter always said that we are a European nation, that we have no other development path, that we belong to Europe, that we are a part of the Ecumene. But we were held back, we need to concentrate of the new and advanced, we don’t need this Byzantine junk, we are no Third Rome. This is why Peter founded a new city. He was a European. Ivan Neplyuyev, who became a renowned diplomat under Peter’s rule, wrote this about the emperor: his most important merit is that he made our homeland an equal among European powers, and taught us that we are people too.

— Others called him an Antichrist because he renounced traditional values.

— Yes, he rejected all that. He got drawn into the European, or to be more precise, the Protestant idea of existence based on pragmatic knowledge and on labour as the only way to lead a dignified existence. Based on faith in God in your heart, and not on idolatry intrinsic to Orthodoxy. And he was consistent in promoting these ideas, he always urged people to learn, to enlighten themselves, to work, as in labour he saw the basis for human existence. Peter was perhaps the only ruler in Russian history who only thought of what’s best for the country. This is why he got drawn into this Western European model, this is why he opened the gates to Europe. He visited Europe, and Europeans came to Russia. Yes, he considered absolutism the only acceptable form of governance for Russia, but it had to be enlightened absolutism.

Pushkin later accused [Russian Imperial historian Nikolay] Karamzin of “singing praises to the whip.” This is not fair. Karamzin wrote an entire volume dedicated to Ivan the Terrible’s reign of terror. His main point was that absolutism is not a tyranny. An absolutist ruler follows the law, he is equal to his subjects in this sense. We can easily imagine an age of tyranny. And it’s not quite the same thing as absolutism. In this regard, Russia took a huge step forward during Peter’s reign.

— But you were the one who said that there was nothing to love Peter for. And that he was a tyrant himself.

— He was absolutely insufferable: a suspicious, vindictive, cruel man. But talented people are often deplorable. And I wouldn’t want to live during Peter’s rule. Aleksey Tolstoy, who was a talented writer regardless of what you think of him as a person, has this almost Pushkin-like remark in one of his plays: “Peter enters — the crowd scurries away.” But we need to concentrate on another aspect: the role he played in Russia’s destiny. It so happened that Peter was able to please everyone. Liberals and Westernisers, like me, those who called Russia a European country that desperately needs ties to the West.

— He didn’t just say it, he put his words into action.

— Unlike many other rulers, Peter knew what he wanted. He wanted Russia to become part of Europe, a European country. He did everything he could to develop enlightenment and culture. He established the Academy of Sciences in Russia, even though Theophan Prokopovich, who led Peter’s reform of the Russian Orthodox Church, said that not even one pair of compasses could be found in the country at the time. He laid the basis for science in Russia. He managed to please the imperialists, too, as he expanded the borders. He pleased the technocrats who did not care for politics, as he ensured the introduction of countless new technologies and inventions in Russia. Over a period of 20 years, 3,000 new concepts and terms were introduced to the Russian language. This was a real breakthrough. Yes, we’re an absolutist state, but we are European, as Europe also has different forms of government: democracy in Holland, absolutism in France, and we can live together in peace within one united European Ecumene.

— There were other more dubious achievements first recorded during Peter’s reign. For example, for the first time ever, those who were lucky enough to make it big thought of transferring their money abroad. So that the fruits of their labour wouldn’t be taken from them if the emperor so wished. This was first attempted by [Russian Imperial statesman] Alexander Menshikov and Catherine I (Peter the Great’s wife, later Empress of Russia — translator’s note), right?

— There is one known case when Menshikov contacted merchants who sold goods abroad, and the man who worked for him accumulated several million talers in Amsterdam. And then Peter came to Amsterdam: the first thing he did was to visit this establishment. He took all the documents, and this is how it was revealed. Because he knew Menshikov’s nature, he knew that he was a thief. As for Catherine, this is just a myth. Although it is still remarkable: Peter was a terrifying man, and yet his people still stole.

— And they stole enormous sums.

— Exactly! Stealing under the rule of the weak Anna Ioannovna (Empress Anna of Russia, ruled from 1730 until 1740 — translator’s note) is one thing. But even then, people realised that it’s easier to live if you’re honest. The empress asked a landlord’s wife once why they lived so modestly. “At least my husband can sleep with a clear conscience,” she replied. Well said, right? And Peter wasn’t just ruthless in his punishment, he was very perceptive and smart. He often grabbed Menshikov and others by their feet, so to say, and shook them to see how much they’d stolen, but they still continued to do it. There were no honest people in Russia. At least, there were very few.

— That is, we can list the honest ones by name?

— There was one high-ranking official, Klokachev. His widow complained that she was left with just 70 rubles after his death, while her husband worked with hundreds of thousands of rubles in his line of work.

Do you know what happened to field marshal Heinrich von der Goltz? Peter hired him to lead the troops during the Great Northern War. When his contract was up, Goltz wanted to resign. Russia owed him a large sum of money. Peter’s officials presented him with a choice: the death penalty or leaving Russia with no money. And Peter was involved in this too, it’s shameful!

— What’s with the penny-pinching? What about the generous Russian spirit, et cetera?

— That’s how it is… Somehow, generosity is coupled with these features.

— But Peter wanted the laws to work, right?

— In the 19th century, US national William Clark came to Japan and founded the University of Hokkaido. Now, there is a monument to Clark in Sapporo that reads “Boys, be ambitious!”. And they followed his advice. What could Peter do, for his part? There were no universities in Russia, no Richelieus, no Colberts, no Magdeburg rights, no real artisans or cities, no banks, no loans, there was nothing there for the development of the country. Only his absolutist will. Peter developed the economy, helped entrepreneurs, purchased machinery and hired specialists, paid them money. And they didn’t form a bourgeoisie. So, Peter formed a serfdom economy. And then what? Russia couldn’t form a bourgeoisie class.

— It all started to appear with time. Russia had the best judiciary system in Europe a century and a half later.

— But that was only after the disastrous Crimean War of Nicholas I when Alexander II started the Great Reforms. It was a way to overcome Peter’s heritage based on serfdom.