Although the British perception that their empire was created in “a fit of absence
of mind” may be exaggerated, it is not an exaggeration to say that from its early
beginnings the Russian empire has been conceived as a deliberate project. The twin objectives of territorial expansion and the subjugation of other peoples
were consciously and purposively pursued by Russia’s political elite. An exemplification
for this mindset is tsarina Catherine the Great’s famous dictum: “I have no way to
defend my borders but to extend them.”[25] It was not only a supposed fragility of the Russian state that was at the root
of its continuous expansion. “The fact that, unlike Western Europe, the formation
of the empire does not succeed the construction of the state, but accompanies it, has also blurred the dividing lines. The concept of the nation and imperial ambition
merge as soon as Moscow, the first centre of the modern state, gains the upper hand
over rival Russian principalities and, then, over the weakened mongol overlord.”[26] The fact that in Russia empire building was a constitutive part of the process
of state formation indicates a fundamental difference with empire building by the
Western European states, which only began after the national states had been consolidated. While Russia was a “product of empire,”
this was not the case here. John Darwin, for instance, emphasized the fact that Britain
“was not in any obvious way a product of empire. It was not ‘constituted’ by empire—a
modish but vacuous expression. The main reason for this was that its English core
was already an exceptionally strong and culturally unified state (taking language
and law as the most obvious criteria) long before it acquired an empire beyond Europe.”[27] The same was true for Portugal, Spain, France, and even the Netherlands (which
from 1568 to 1648 was fighting a war of independence against Spain).
Russian Despotism and Russian Imperialism: Inseparable Twin Brothers?
In Russia internal despotism and external imperialism went hand in hand. They were,
so to speak, inseparable twin brothers. We can distinguish five factors that played
a role in establishing this link:
Territorial expansion gave extra legitimation to the rule of the despot.
Territorial expansion functioned as a surrogate satisfaction for the disenfranchised (serf) population.
Because despots tend to reign for longer periods than democratically elected leaders, they are in a better position to make long-term
projects, especially those concerning imperialist territorial expansion.
Despotic rule as such fits better with imperial rule than with democratic rule. Despotic and imperial rule are congenial.
Despotic rule is not only more apt to generate imperialist policies than non-despotic
rule, it also has a tendency—as in a dialectical process—to be strengthened, in its turn, by the empire, because its vast surface and the many different subjugated
populations will hamper the establishment of a more democratic rule. In this sense
despotic rule and imperialism are mutually reinforcing processes.
Despotic rule means suffering for the population, which is denied basic human freedoms
and civil rights. A despotic tsar does not legitimize his absolutist rule by a reference
to the popular will, but to divine right. This legitimacy, based upon a metaphysical
droit divin, will be strengthened when the ruler can boast important imperial conquests. Imperial
conquests provide, so to speak, an additional legitimacy for his rule. This same mechanism can be seen to play a role in Putin’s (partial) rehabilitation
of Stalin. Stalin’s “geopolitical genius,” that is, his territorial expansionism,
is used to (re-)legitimate his regime.
