Day: September 27, 2025

The neo-imperialist post-Soviet Russian Mafia State under the cover of Putinism is one and the latest of the historical waves of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing and its patterns of the social, political, and economic relations
–
GS – AI Overview
The idea that modern Russian politics, particularly “Putinism,” is a continuation of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing is a highly debated historical and political thesis. While some scholars and political commentators draw comparisons between specific patterns of centralized power, corruption, and the use of violence, others reject this theory as a problematic oversimplification of history. [1, 2] 
Arguments supporting the comparison • Centralized, autocratic rule: Some historians, like Nikolai Karamzin, have argued that Mongol rule helped unify the fragmented Russian principalities under a single, autocratic Moscow-based authority. This historical trajectory established a precedent for a powerful, centralized state, a pattern seen today in the concentration of power around Vladimir Putin.
• A historical view of the state: The Eurasian school of thought, which gained traction among some Russian emigres, argues that the Russian state is the heir and successor of the Mongol Empire. This view frames Russia as a unique Eurasian civilization, distinct from the West, and sees its autocratic traditions as a continuation of its imperial, Eastern heritage.
• Political culture: Proponents of the theory point to similarities in political practices, such as the use of fear and intimidation to maintain control. The Mongols demanded absolute submission from Russian princes, who in turn learned to use similar tactics to enforce compliance and collect tribute.
• Economic extraction: The Mongol system of extracting tribute through local intermediaries who were rewarded for their loyalty created a dynamic of corrupt, personalized relationships rather than a rules-based system. Critics of Putinism argue that it reflects a modern version of this system, with a ruling elite enriching itself through the state’s resources.
• Historical rhetoric: The narrative has been deployed politically within Russia as well. In a 2023 speech, Putin himself controversially framed submission to the Golden Horde as a choice that preserved the Russian people from Western invasion, a message with clear contemporary political overtones. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] 

Counterarguments and criticisms • Remote vs. direct rule: The Golden Horde did not directly occupy the Russian lands, but instead ruled from a distance, relying on Russian princes to collect taxes. This differed significantly from the Mongol approach in other regions, such as Persia and China. The Putinist “mafia state” involves a more direct, systemic integration of criminal and state interests, which is not an equivalent model.
• Overlooking other historical influences: The Mongol-Tatar yoke was just one of many formative periods in Russian history. Russian political traditions also draw heavily from Byzantine statecraft, Orthodox Christianity, and later, Western European imperial models. Focusing solely on the Mongol influence is a simplification that ignores these other complex historical sources.
• Anachronistic comparisons: Critics warn against drawing direct lines from medieval Mongol-Tatar rule to modern-day politics, pointing out that such comparisons are often used for political rhetoric rather than historical accuracy. Comparing Putin to a medieval ruler like Genghis Khan, for example, is seen by some as a crude analogy rather than a serious historical analysis.
• Exaggerated impact of the “yoke”: Some historians, particularly Soviet-era and post-Soviet Russian scholars, argued that the Mongol impact was minimal or even beneficial, emphasizing Russian heroism and self-preservation during the period. This view is contrasted with the “Westernizer” school of thought, which blames the Mongol period for Russia’s divergence from European modernity. [1, 2, 9, 10, 11] 

A complex historical legacy Ultimately, the thesis is not a straightforward factual claim but a framework for historical interpretation. The comparison is a controversial way of understanding the origins and characteristics of Russian authoritarianism. It highlights certain aspects of centralized power and political culture while downplaying the multitude of other factors that have shaped the Russian state over the centuries. [1] 

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1]  ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/arti…
[2]  scholarworks.iu.edu/journals…
[3]  egrove.olemiss.edu/hon_thesi…
[4]  encyclopedia.com/history/enc…
[5]  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putini…
[6]  study.com/academy/lesson/how…
[7]  ijors.net/issue5_2_2016/pdf/…
[8]  fiveable.me/key-terms/ap-wor…
[9]  lowyinstitute.org/the-interp…
[10]  dergipark.org.tr/en/download…
[11]  fiveable.me/early-world-civi…
–

Gemini
g.co/gemini/share/2d5702eb91…
The assertion that the “neo-imperialist post-Soviet Russian Mafia State under the cover of Putinism is one and the latest of the historical waves of the Mongol-Tatar system of governing” is a complex thesis that draws parallels between contemporary Russia and the historical period of Mongol rule over the Rus’ principalities. While not a direct continuation, scholars and analysts have noted certain structural and political similarities that suggest a lasting influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke on Russian political culture and statecraft.1

At the heart of this argument lie several key perceived parallels: the centralization of power, the nature of the state’s relationship with society and the economy, and an expansionist foreign policy.

The Specter of the Golden Horde: Centralization and Autocracy

The Mongol Empire, and its successor, the Golden Horde, governed the Rus’ principalities through a system of tribute and vassalage.2 Russian princes were required to obtain a yarlyk, or charter, from the Khan to legitimize their rule. This fostered a political environment where power was concentrated in the hands of a single, autocratic ruler who acted as an intermediary.

Similarly, “Putinism” is characterized by a “power vertical,” a highly centralized political structure where regional leaders and institutions are beholden to the Kremlin.3 This system, much like the Mongol model, prioritizes the stability and authority of the central state above all else. The selective application of law and the suppression of dissent to maintain this order are also cited as echoes of the Horde’s methods of control.

Economic Relations: From Tribute to State Capitalism

The economic model of the Golden Horde was largely extractive.4 The primary goal was the collection of tribute from the subject principalities.5 This created a system where economic activity was heavily influenced and often controlled by the ruling power for its own enrichment.

Critics of the modern Russian state describe it as a “mafia state” or a kleptocracy, where a small elite of government officials, oligarchs, and security service members (the siloviki) are bound together to control and exploit the nation’s wealth.6 In this view, economic power is not independent but rather fused with political power, and state resources are used for personal enrichment and to maintain the loyalty of key figures, a dynamic that bears resemblance to a system of tribute and patronage.

A Neo-Imperial Foreign Policy?

The Mongol Empire was built on conquest and the subjugation of neighboring territories. The Golden Horde maintained its dominance through military might and by playing rival principalities against each other.

Contemporary Russian foreign policy under Putin has been described as “neo-imperialist,” characterized by a desire to reassert influence in the “near abroad”—the former republics of the Soviet Union.7 Actions in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine are often cited as evidence of a willingness to use military force to achieve geopolitical objectives and maintain a sphere of influence, a strategy that some analysts connect to a long-standing Russian imperial tradition that was arguably shaped during the Mongol period.

Divergences and Historical Debate

It is crucial to note that this thesis is a matter of historical and political interpretation and not without its critics. Many historians argue that the influence of the Mongol-Tatar yoke is overstated and that Russian political development was also heavily influenced by Byzantine traditions, Orthodox Christianity, and its interactions with European powers.

Furthermore, the modern Russian state operates within a globalized and technologically advanced world that is vastly different from the medieval period of Mongol rule. The ideologies and justifications for power have also evolved significantly.

In conclusion, while contemporary Russia under Putin is not a direct replica of the Mongol-Tatar system, the argument that it exhibits certain enduring patterns of governance—such as a strong, centralized autocracy, the fusion of political and economic power, and an assertive foreign policy—is a compelling one. These parallels suggest that the historical experience of the Mongol yoke may have left a lasting imprint on Russia’s political DNA, an imprint that some see re-emerging in the 21st century.
–

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Sep 27, 2025