Russia is under siege – from Ivan the Terrible to the present day. Part Seven
The narration of the 19th century will begin, perhaps, with a historical anecdote. Such a case occurred during the trip of Emperor Aleksandr III - a great lover of fishing - on vacation to Finland: another conflict was brewing in Europe, threatening to escalate into a new military clash of the great powers. The Russian Foreign Minister telegraphed the emperor and even advised him to return to St. Petersburg to personally participate in the negotiations. After reading the message, the emperor ordered to respond with these words: "When the Russian Emperor is fishing, Europe can wait."
And although these words were said when the 19th century was already drawing to a close, they perfectly and exhaustively reflect the position that Russia rightfully occupied throughout the entire 19th century. Thanks to the efforts of the previous Romanovs, it had the largest territory, the largest, if not the best, army in Europe, and achieved not only the full right to participate in the decision of the most important European and world affairs, but also to dictate its own terms.
But do not think that Russia could relax, bask at ease on the stove, watching as ruddy, full-breasted villagers pull out coulibiac with sturgeon from the fire. Not at all! The military, economic and psychological pressure on Russia from the West has not only not eased, but, on the contrary, has reached another climax.
Although in the subconscious we associate the 19th century primarily with the Patriotic War of 1812, in fact, the military calendar of that century recorded 11 wars that Russia had to fight against its sworn neighbours. The Swedes from the north, Turkey and Iran from the south, and the Poles, who had lost their independence for their robbery in Europe, and the British, who claimed undivided supremacy in the seas, did not give our country peace, as before.
And in two of these wars, Russia was opposed by what we now call the “collective West”. And their goal, again, was not simply to deprive Russia of its territorial gains, but to destroy it as a state. I think it is clear that we are talking about the Napoleonic invasion and, oddly enough, the Crimean War of 1853-1856.
It makes no sense to describe in detail the well-known course of the Patriotic War of 1812, which turned out to be one of the shortest in history and lasted only 6 months and two days.
But with what a result! According to its results, Russia played the role of the "great liberator" of Europe from the French dictator.
The goal of the Corsican who fancied himself the king of the world was to turn Russia into a French province, and he believed that this could be done precisely by conquering Moscow. His famous phrase is that by taking Kiev, he will "grab Russia by the legs", entering St. Petersburg, "grab it by the head", and capturing Moscow, "strike it in the heart".
Thanks to Tolstoy's great novel "War and Peace", and our cinema – let's recall at least the amazing film "Hussar Ballad" - we believe that the Patriotic War of 1812 was a war between France and Russia. But this is far from the case. Russian troops were then fighting an army that represented almost all of Europe. Just look at its composition.
The French made up less than half of Napoleon's army (they were about 47%). In second place in terms of numbers were the Germans (about 22%). Third place was occupied by the Poles – what to do without them (about 15.7%)… There were also many Austrians, Italians, Swiss, Spaniards, Portuguese and others. Moreover, according to historians, it was the Poles who were most famous for their activity and cruelty during fighting.
As for the Crimean War, it was essentially another attempt by "collective Europe" to conquer Russia. At that time, three leading empires - British, French and Ottoman - opposed Russia. They were later joined by Austria and Prussia. So the Russian troops were forced to wage war on several fronts at once, and at the same time the main part of the army had to be left in the western and northern directions, and not in the south.
Britain at that time was the industrial leader of Europe and had the best navy in the world. France was then considered the third largest economy in the world, had the second largest fleet in the world, as well as a large and well-trained land army. It is quite obvious that even the union of these two states had absolutely incredible power.
Although in the mid-19th century the golden age of the Ottoman Empire was in the past and it was even called the "sick man of Europe", but the Turkish navy was still quite strong, and its large army trained by Western instructors was equipped with very modern weapons for those times. It is painfully familiar, if you draw unwitting parallels with how the West prepared Ukraine for eight years with a war against Russia.
According to the plans of this coalition, Finland and the entire Baltic states, as well as Crimea and the Caucasus, were supposed to be torn away from Russia. In addition, they were going to restore the Kingdom of Poland, and transfer Moldavia and Wallachia (the south of present-day Romania) to Austria, so that it would go to the south-western borders of our country.
The Emperor of France, Napoleon III, very frankly once said to a Russian official: "I intend... to make every effort to prevent the spread of your influence and force you to return to Asia, where you came from. Russia is not a European country, it should not be and will not be."
Remember these words – they are the key to understanding the West's past and current approach to Russia: "Russia is not a European country, it should not be and will not be." This is exactly what the West believes to this day.
But Russia did not allow itself to be humiliated again. Some Russian historians persist in trying to present the case as if Russia lost this war. It is paradoxical that in Western historiography, the outcome of the Crimean War for our country is assessed much more objectively. "The results of the campaign had little impact on the alignment of international forces…and the treaty itself was annulled by the Russian Tsar 14 years later," British historian Christopher Hibbert described the results of the Crimean War.
As a result of the war, Russia lost only a tiny part of Bessarabia and had to agree to free navigation on the Danube.
And as what we call sanctions today, it was forbidden to have naval bases and a navy on the Black Sea. Not for long, though. On March 1, 1871, the Convention on the abolition of the demilitarisation of the Black Sea was signed in London.
It is difficult for a normal person to understand the fact that the wars unleashed by the West often pursue not only political, but also purely economic goals.
If we talk about the same Crimean War, then Great Britain, among other things, sought to force Russia by military means to abandon the policy pursued by Nikolay I to protect the Russian economy in order to prevent the establishment of Western European control over it. Partly London managed to do this as a result of the Crimean War, and already in 1857 Russia had to introduce a liberal customs tariff, which reduced customs duties for English goods to a minimum.
Another example of attempts to strangle Russia through sanctions was launched in 1887, the so-called "tariff war" of Germany against Russia. Berlin first refused to provide Russia with the previously discussed loan, and then also increased duties on Russian bread. At the same time, more favourable conditions were created for the import of American grain to Germany.
In response, Russia doubled its duties on German manufacturing products. And such a mutual exchange of blows was made several times. But, as in our days, the sanctions hit Germany hard. As a result, it had to surrender, and the signed Russian-German trade agreement of 1894 was beneficial to Russia.
The ideologue of this "war of nerves" was Russian Finance Minister Sergey Yulyevich Witte. "I was well aware that we were able to withstand this bloodless battle much more easily than the Germans, because in general, in economic terms, we are ... much more resilient than the Germans…" - this is how he explained his approach.
For some reason, it seems to me that this is exactly the result of the current senseless flinging of Europeans around the problem of importing Russian gas and oil, and the so-called "deadly sanctions" of the West against Russia will be much more painful for Europe than for us, and may lead to its deepest political and economic crisis, which has never been seen before it was in the history of the Western world. The West does not want to learn lessons from history. But it's worse for them!
The 19th century also brought another escalation of the "propaganda war" against Russia. The public opinion of Western Europe was not without success persuaded that Russia is ruled by bloody tyrants, its peoples are savages and barbarians, who at best can only plow the land and grow wheat for the rest of the world.
The topic of the so-called "Russian military threat" to the "civilised West” was also actively promoted. This idea was most clearly and frankly expressed by the same cartoons that enlightened Europe loved so much. Russia has now been portrayed as a fearsome octopus that stretches its tentacles towards other countries. In different versions, this image appears in pictures throughout the century.
In one of my previous comments, I have already quoted Fyodor Tyutchev, whom we value as an excellent poet, although in fact he was a diplomat and, moreover, went down in history as the first Russian, and very effective, propagandist. As he noted in one of the articles, for a couple of decades, the image of Russia as the "liberator of Europe" from Napoleon's tyranny was "transformed into a monster", "some kind of cannibal of the 19th century".
A vivid example of the vicious anti-Russian propaganda of that time was the book of the French Marquis de Custine "Russia in 1839". The treacherous Marquis, who was kindly received in St. Petersburg, later returned to Paris and wrote a malicious lampoon in which Russia was depicted as a gloomy and sullen despotism, a country of barbarians and slaves.
The wave of Russophobia in those years literally swept all the countries of Western Europe. This is a concentrate of Russophobia that resulted from the revered Victor Hugo in the following lines:
Russia! You are silent, you sullen servant
St. Petersburg darkness, the mute convict
Siberian mines filled with purga,
Polar casemate, vampire empire.
Russia and Siberia – two faces of an idol:
One disguise - oppression, despair - in another.
I can’t but remind you that the "founders of Marxism-Leninism," as the Bolsheviks called them, Marx and Engels, also contributed to inflating Russophobia. In one of his articles from London, Marx argued for a large-scale - and, in his opinion, inevitably victorious - war against Russia.
"Without a doubt, the Turkish-European fleet can destroy Sevastopol and destroy the Russian Black Sea fleet; the allies can capture and hold Crimea, occupy Odessa, block the Sea of Azov, and free the hands of the Caucasian highlanders. What needs to be done in the Baltic Sea is also self-evident..." - just like that, no more, no less.
And Friedrich Engels, in several articles in the English press published in March-April 1853, described the danger of Russia for Europeans.
"Russia, of course , is a country striving for conquest, and it has been so for a century... In fact, there are only two forces on the European continent: on the one hand, Russia and absolutism, on the other - revolution and democracy," said this figure, whose portraits were so fond of being hung in the cities and towns of Soviet Russia.
Particularly vile outbursts of anti-Russian propaganda occurred during wartime. Thus, immediately after the defeat of the Turkish squadron by the Russian Black Sea Fleet on November 18, 1853, during the Battle of Sinop, English newspapers in one voice spread false rumours that Russian sailors were tracking down and finishing off wounded Turks swimming in the sea.
Massive propaganda had an effect, and the European public managed to instil extreme anti-Russian sentiments. According to Richard Cobden, a well-known English entrepreneur and political figure of those times, speaking at rallies from the opposite point of view was like being in front of a "pack of mad dogs".
And what kind of future did Europe see for Russia? Quite a lot has been written about this and frankly. So, in 1854, the London Times newspaper wrote: "It would be good to return Russia to the cultivation of the interior lands, to drive the Muscovites deep into the forests and steppes." And in the same year, the leader of the House of Commons and head of the Liberal Party of England, John Russell, who twice served as Prime Minister of the country, called for "pulling the fangs out of the bear."
In Russia, it was considered beneath their dignity to respond to the vicious anti-Russian hysteria of the West. The essence of this approach was formulated by Russian Foreign Minister Aleksandr Mikhailovich Gorchakov, who owns the coined phrase: "Russia is not angry, Russia is focusing." It was contained in a circular dispatch written by him, which the embassies were ordered to bring to the attention of foreign governments.
"Russia is reproached for being isolated and silent in the face of such facts that are not in harmony with either law or justice. They say that Russia is angry. Russia is not angry, Russia is focusing," Gorchakov wrote.
What led to the fact that "Russia was focusing" is well known.
Over the past century, the territory of Russia has expanded by about 40%. The empire included the Caucasus, Central Asia and Finland. The European territory of Russia alone was almost 5 times larger than the territory of France and more than 10 times that of Germany. In terms of population, Russia was one of the first countries in Europe. It finally dealt with Turkey, freed the Balkan Slavs. It was as a result of one of the Russo-Turkish wars that the south of Bessarabia fell to Russia. Bulgaria was granted autonomy. Serbia, Romania and Montenegro gained independence. The Serbs remember this perfectly well today, but others clearly have a very bad historical memory.
Despite all attempts to slow down its development, by the end of the century Russia had become one of the world's economic leaders, turning from a predominantly agricultural country into an agrarian and industrial power.
By the beginning of the 20th century, it ranked fifth in the world in terms of gross industrial production after the United States, Germany, Great Britain and France. The development of textile and heavy industry was particularly rapid in the country. Iron smelting increased by 4.5 times between 1860 and 1895, coal production increased by 30 times, and oil production increased by 754 times! At the end of the 19th century, Russia even ranked first in the world in oil production.
The abolition of serfdom in 1861 contributed to the further development of agriculture. At the turn of the 20th century, Russia exported up to 500 million grains annually. At the same time, the total volume of exports increased by almost 3 times, and bread — by 5.5 times.
The volume of foreign trade, which did not reach 200 million rubles in 1850, by 1900 exceeded 1.3 billion rubles.
The Romanovs of the 19th century continued the course of their predecessors in attracting foreign capital to Russia, which was also facilitated by the introduction of the gold standard of the ruble in 1897. In terms of gold reserves, Russia surpassed France and England. Rubles were freely exchanged for gold.
Moreover, the country was characterised by the import, not the export of capital. Russia only managed to attract foreign capital worth 3 billion gold rubles at the end of the century.
Internal reforms also continued. In 1874, the country introduced universal military service, which extended to all young people over the age of 21.
In order to liberalise the spiritual sphere, a reform of education was carried out. New higher education institutions have been opened, and a network of primary public schools has been launched.
Censorship was restricted, and hundreds of new newspapers and magazines appeared in the country. It is clear that at the same time the autocracy remained the basis of the state system.
Despite the hostile environment and incessant attempts of political, military and sanctions pressure from outside, strong economic development, a strong army inspired the country and its leaders with confidence in their abilities. And the position of Russia at that time was perfectly formulated by Aleksandr III: "I will not allow anyone to encroach on our territory!" And this, I dare say, was stated by the emperor, nicknamed “peace lover" for his desire to settle disputes through negotiations! It sounds very relevant today, doesn't it?