RESTORATION WATCH #3: TO REBUILD AN EMPIRE, FIRST GET AN EMPEROR

(Washington, D.C.): The latest
indication that the Kremlin is determined
to achieve the swift restoration of its
former empire is as clear as it is
foreboding: Virtually the entire
Russian political spectrum is
enthusiastically embracing the idea of restoring
Russia’s imperial monarchy.

One means of accomplishing the
restoration of the Romanov dynasty (which
ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917) that is
apparently under active consideration
would have the Russian government invite
back into the country a twelve-year-old
descendent of the last czar, Nicholas II.
This child, Georgii Romanov, living in
exile with his mother Maria in Spain, is
the grandson of the Count Vladimir
Kirillovich — Nicholas II’s cousin —
and the Countess Leonida Bagration.
Kirillovich died in exile in 1992. Under
this scenario, a regency would be
established for the adolescent monarch,
in which the real power would remain in
other hands.

The following are but a few of the
relevant straws in the wind:

• Young Georgii and his mother were
  accorded czarist honors during
  their trip to Russia in May 1993.
  They were officially received by
  President Boris Yeltsin, Prime
  Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, and
  the mayors of Moscow and St.
  Petersburg, Yuriy Luzhkov and
  Anatoli Sobchak, respectively.
  The Patriarch of the Russian
  Orthodox Church, Alexiy II, also
  enthusiastically welcomed the
  Romanovs’ return.
• According to one of the most
  knowledgeable observers of the
  Russian political scene, Radio
  Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s
  Victor Yasmann:

“Neo-imperial ideas
that were officially taboo
now have entered the realm of
mainstream political
discourse … Restoration of
the monarchy is gaining
support and will become a
vehicle of political struggle
during this year.”⁽¹⁾

• The trappings of the imperial era
  and even of the Romanov dynasty
  are increasingly in evidence. The
  traditional double-headed eagle,
  for example, is being widely
  reintroduced in the place of
  communist symbols. Interestingly,
  at the Russian technology trade
  show underway in Washington this
  week, plaques bearing the eagle and
  Romanov crests are being
  presented as souvenirs to honored
  guests.
• The return this month to Russia
  of Alexander Solzhenitsyn — a
  long-time supporter of the
  monarchy and a forceful advocate
  of its restoration to save Russia
  — should also provide fresh
  impetus behind this movement.
• Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
  the fascist Liberal Democratic
  Party (LDP), frequently endorses
  the restoration of the historical
  Russia within the boundaries of
  the Russian empire.
• Mikhail Antonov — the leader of
  a communist nationalist group,
  the Union for the Spiritual
  Revival of the Fatherland —
  endorsed the idea of restoring
  the monarchy in January of 1994
  with a classic double negative,
  saying that this solution to the
  present political situation is
  “not most improbable.”
• At the mid-February 1994 Plenum
  of the pro-democratic
  “Russia’s Choice”
  party, a group of activists asked
  reformist ex-Prime Minister Yegor
  Gaidar to promote the quickest
  possible introduction of
  constitutional monarchy.

Selling The Idea to the
West

Presentation of the restoration of the
Romanovs as a constitutional
monarchy would, of course, be critical to
making the idea palatable to governments
in the West and elsewhere — governments
that are becoming increasingly uneasy
with developments in Moscow. Toward this
end, the model of Spain would inevitably
be cited — a nation stabilized, unified
and democratized under the beneficent and
largely ceremonial rule of King Juan
Carlos.

Western concerns would presumably be
further allayed by the selection of a child
as emperor and the establishment of a
known figure like Yeltsin as his regent,
or one of several with that authority. To
the extent that Yeltsin contends such a
step is necessary to shore up his eroding
power base, those like Deputy Secretary
of State Strobe Talbott, who are disposed
to give him the benefit of the doubt come
what may, will probably be quite
accommodating. Such an attitude is
particularly likely in Talbott’s case
given his romantic sentimentalism about
“Great Russia’s” history and
traditions and his longstanding
preference for strong central authority
in Moscow.

The Bottom Line

The net result of the return
of an emperor to Russia, however, is less
likely to be the legitimation of
constitutional democracy than the
rehabilitation of tendencies and
institutional arrangements that have
traditionally underpinned Moscow’s
assertion of hegemony over its former
subjects throughout Eurasia. It
would be dangerously naïve to believe
that the principal beneficiary of such a
development will be a pro-Western Boris
Yeltsin rather than those — in Yeltsin’s
camp and among this opponents — who are
determined to reclaim Russia’s greatness
by restoring its empire, military power
and strategic position.

The Center for Security Policy
believes that the United States should
not support or facilitate the
reconstitution of the Russian monarchy.
If such a development cannot be
prevented, it must at least be understood
for what it is: an important step toward
the reestablishment of mechanisms by
which power and control in the former
Soviet Union can be centralized in Moscow
and exerted over the increasingly
fractious Russian Federation, the
so-called “near abroad” and
perhaps elsewhere in the erstwhile Soviet
empire.

-30-

1. From an undated
paper by Victor J. Yasmann entitled
“New Ideology Impacts on the Role of
Military and Security in Foreign
Policy.”