Despite the enormous differences between the two situations, two worlds and two people, Rasputin under Nicholas is somehow elusively similar to Ramzan Kadyrov under Putin.

The coming years will inevitably be filled with allusions to events of a century ago. The 1917 revolution has not yet become history in Russia, and Vladimir Putin's recent statements criticizing Vladimir Lenin and the controversy that arose over them only prove this.

Much more will be said about Lenin next year, when the 100th anniversary of his triumph will have to be celebrated one way or another. But in 1916, few people in Russia knew Lenin. The iconic and fatal figure of 1916 was Grigory Efimovich Rasputin-Novykh, a 46-year-old peasant from the Tobolsk province, who bore the outlandish court title of "lighter of the tsar's lamps" and played an incomprehensible role in the imperial family.

Rasputin's real role at court and the extent of his influence on decisions were, apparently, greatly exaggerated by critics of tsarism. Nevertheless, for those dissatisfied with Nicholas - both at court, moderate oppositionists, and radicals - he became the symbol of all the misfortunes happening to the country, all the unsuccessful personnel decisions, and the general atmosphere of crisis in the last months of tsarism.

Rasputin is deliberately popular, archaic, brutal, surrounded by dubious personalities - completely inadequate to the European Petersburg that surrounds him. By his origins and moods, his place is more likely in the deep underground, at the head of the Khlyst sect, but he is tragically close to the autocrat, and the latter does not want to break this connection even in spite of the constant reports of the security agencies about the atrocities committed by Rasputin and his participation in various machinations. The Tsar methodically breaks off relations with those in his circle who speak negatively about Rasputin, and encourages those who find a way to get closer to the "elder". In fact, the attitude towards Rasputin in 1916 became a key issue in Russian politics.

Despite the enormous differences between the two situations, two worlds and two people, Rasputin under Nicholas is somehow elusively similar to Ramzan Kadyrov under Putin. The key similarity is in how this tandem is perceived by the country's elites and the public.

Kadyrov, like Rasputin, is a non-systemic character, clearly and openly opposed by the bearer of supreme power to the entire traditional administrative and security elite. It is no secret that for many high-ranking security officials, who have experience of the Chechen wars behind them, Kadyrov is as strange and hateful in his current status as Rasputin was hateful to the highest aristocracy and bureaucracy of the Russian Empire. There is nothing to say about the attitude of the bureaucracy and especially civil society towards Kadyrov - he appears to be a completely alien element within the rather homogeneous system of Russian power, possessing opportunities, powers and a level of immunity unimaginable for other regional leaders.

As we remember, the Tsar eventually lost control of the situation, lost power and his life. But Rasputin was the first to die. At the very end of 1916, he was killed – not by revolutionaries, not by Masons or liberals, but by the political elite itself: the Tsar’s cousin, Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, one of the richest and most distinguished nobles, Prince Felix Yusupov, and the leader of the Black Hundreds, Vladimir Purishkevich.

Author – President of the Institute for Development and Modernization of Public Relations, Yekaterinburg

Lighters of the royal lamps