The Kremlin and Russian National Identity

The first page of the internal Russian passport depicts the Kremlin. Together, the massive red walls of this ancient fortress, the towering spire of the Vodovzvodnaya Tower, and the monumental size of the Grand Kremlin Palace form a recognizable silhouette. For many Russians, this place is nearly sacred and embodies the iconic image of Russia.

At the same time, the Kremlin remains a symbol of state power that is often associated with political changes in the country, be it in the form of a physical seizure of the fortress or symbolic one. Leading media and social media users refer to the so-called “Kremlin decisions” or call for the “capture” of the Kremlin, thus reducing everything that occurs in this vast country to a single architectural complex.

The function of the image of the Kremlin is to fuse the concept of Russian power together with the nation’s cultural identity. However, upon closer examination, the seeming immutability of its power is more illusory than it may seem. This image, which has come to symbolize the “uniqueness of Russian culture,” originated back in the 19th century. Since then, state authorities have skillfully adapted it to serve their interests, transforming it into an important symbol of their power. To diminish the Kremlin’s influence, it is necessary to dismantle its image, which has so adversely affected the lives of many nations.

1847. The Making of the Myth

^{Loving Moscow means loving the entire Russian land, since Moscow goes beyond its merely local significance and assumes a more general and unifying meaning for the whole country.}

^{Konstantin Aksakov, 700 Years of Moscow}

Perceived indestructibility of the Kremlin stems from the myth about Moscow, the importance of which is often equated with that of the entire country, as evidenced by Aksakov’s statement. According to the history textbooks in Russian schools, Moscow was founded by Yuri Dolgoruky on April 4, 1147. It must be noted, however, that both the date and the name of its founder are more of a matter of convention. Most of such “facts” and their interpretations go back to the 19th century — a period marked by the rise of Romanticism in Europe and accompanied by the active making of national myths. In Russia, this movement, inspired by the victory over Napoleon, combined both nationalist and imperial aspirations. In many countries the growth of national movements played a key role in the dismantling of monarchical structures. However, in Russia, the authorities employed historiography strategically to assert their continuity with previous generations of rulers as well as the grandeur of the state, thereby creating myths about the indestructibility and unity of the Russian Empire.

In the early 19th century, Nikolay Karamzin, court historiographer to Alexander I, published History of the Russian State, in which he set out the official version of the country's origins, starting from the calling of the Varangians to the unification of the lands around Moscow, which completed with its liberation from the Mongol yoke. Karamzin’s work attributed Moscow a unique status, bestowing upon it the title of a “gatherer of the Russian lands.” At the time of the book's publication, the city was still recovering from the devastation caused by the French occupation of 1812, which likely contributed to its popularity. History of the Russian State played a key role in two ways: on the one hand, it fostered the development of national self-consciousness, and on the other hand, it solidified Moscow’s position as a pivotal symbol of Russian statehood.

Later, in 1846, Ivan Zabelin, an archaeologist and historian from Moscow, established “the date of the foundation of the city” on the basis of one of the ancient chronicles. According to the chronicle, Prince Yuri Dolgoruky had invited Novgorod Prince Svyatoslav Olgovich to a certain “Moskv.”

The very idea of a precise date for the foundation of the city seems artificial: what event could we consider to be the starting point? Archaeological excavations have revealed evidence of settlements on the territory of the Kremlin existing even before the period mentioned above. When historians endeavoured to find out the “date,” these settlements had already been well-known. Nevertheless, the fortress came to be associated with the name of Yuri Dolgoruky (although it was basically constructed by Andrei Bogolyubsky). The official historiography connects the foundation of the city of Moscow with the establishment of the Kremlin as the source of statehood. This fortification became a symbol of Moscow as the “heart of Russia” and a pillar of power. The name of the “founder of Moscow,” Yuri Dolgoruky, who was nicknamed because of his ambition to acquire new lands, was inscribed in history as a symbol of the birth of Russian statehood.

Shortly after the “date” was established, the Slavophile publicist Konstantin Aksakov published a prominent article dedicated to the approaching 700th anniversary of Moscow. In this work, he contends that Moscow, having successfully withstood the onslaught of Polish intervention and, subsequently, French occupation, became “the mother of Russian cities” because it embodied the unifying principle of the nation — it could foster nationwide unity among the Russian people. Shortly afterwards, the Slavophiles initiated an official celebration of the capital's anniversary. Despite Nicholas I’s opposition to the Slavophile movement, which advocated for Russia’s liberalization, there were celebrations on January 1, 1847. This solidified the significance of the event and underscored the connection between the city, the Kremlin and the state power. 

Although Moscow's anniversary was not officially celebrated again until a hundred years later, when it regained the status of the capital, the history of the city and the Kremlin had already become a part of the ideological agenda. The architecture of the Kremlin had originally been designed to resemble a medieval Russian city. However, since then it has been adapted to align with the political and ideological needs of the time.

This is a view of the Kremlin from the Stone Bridge. Only the ‘Ivan the Great’ Bell Tower, which is depicted in the painting, is easily recognizable.The city’s skyline is accentuated by the soaring dome, which symbolizes Moscow’s spiritual center. The image dates back to the very beginning of the 19th century, prior to the French occupation and the fire of 1812. The Grand Kremlin Palace is not yet complete, and the walls of the Kremlin are in architectural harmony with the surrounding buildings. The Vodovozvodnaya Tower, located in the center of the composition, appears unusually squat, as if relinquishing its central role to Ivan the Great.

This daguerreotype image from the workshop of Noel-Marie-Paymal Lerebours demonstrates a significant redistribution of emphasis in the composition. While the Bell Tower of Ivan the Great remains higher according to the formal criteria, the spire of the Vodovzvodnaya Tower draws attention to itself, accentuating the corner of the fortress with its elongated shape. In its current form that we know today the tower was restored according to the design of Osip Bove, an architect who worked primarily in the style of classicism. It is no longer a medieval lancet, lost among many towers of different heights, but a bright element dominating the landscape.

It is also noteworthy that some of the Kremlin buildings were demolished to make room for the Grand Kremlin Palace, the construction process of which is depicted in this image. The walls of the fortress underwent a transformation, receiving a coat of whitewash that helped create a cohesive monumental structure. In combination with the temples inside the Kremlin, this created a comprehensive representation of the “white city” with its majestic golden domes that symbolized the harmonious unity of church and nation. The Kremlin came to embody national symbolism with every element bearing symbolic significance.

The construction process of the Grand Kremlin Palace began in 1837. Emperor Nicholas I, driven by the desire to modernize, commissioned the architect Konstantin Ton, who had previously worked on the design of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, dedicated to Alexander I's victory over Napoleon, to design the new Kremlin residence. Ton's project provided the Kremlin with a new perspective. The grandeur of the palace, clearly visible from the water, turned out to be the perfect backdrop for the Emperor’s ceremonial portrait. Both buildings — the Grand Kremlin Palace and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior — fundamentally changed the appearance of the embankment, which now came to symbolize “the power and greatness of the Russian Empire,” which at that time was actively expanding its borders and suppressing dissent. 

The interior design of the residence also appealed to the aesthetics of military glory of the “victorious nation”: the halls of the palace were all named in honor of the main Russian orders (St. George's, St. Andrew's, St. Catherine's and St. Vladimir's). The architects incorporated the Russian-Byzantine style in both the interior and exterior of the structure, blending classicism with motifs inspired by Old Russian architecture. This helped meet two seemingly opposite demands — imperial and nationalistic — simultaneously, while uniting them in a single symbol. 

This synthesis corresponded in a very unusually precise way to the aspirations of the official ideology, which sought to combine the ideas of state greatness with the emerging national consciousness. Consequently, the Kremlin and Moscow received new mythological and symbolic interpretations that became the basis for the official narrative of the past.

1947: Soviet Reinterpretation

Following the Revolution and the transfer of the capital of Russia to Moscow, the Kremlin assumed a dual role: it became both the administrative center of the new state and its primary symbol. Red Square came to be used as a venue for military parades and mass demonstrations, and the Kremlin served as the seat of Soviet power. New symbols of Soviet power began to appear around its walls.

The erection of Lenin's mausoleum and the burial of prominent Bolshevik figures next to it served to reinforce the sacral status of the Kremlin. In contrast to the tsarist burial vaults within the fortress, the Soviet necropolis was situated outside, signifying a shift in perspective regarding historical heritage. In this way, the authorities asserted continuity with the past, while symbolically distancing themselves from it with a wall.

At the same time, the urban positioning of Moscow and the Kremlin as the center of the new empire was undergoing a major shift. The transformations began with the 1935 General Plan for the Reconstruction of Moscow, which underscored the central role of the Kremlin within the capital’s urban framework. The changes strengthened the Kremlin not only as a symbol of power, but also as the urban and ideological center of the state. During this period, Moscow began to consolidate its position as a cultural, economic, and administrative center, gradually concentrating its resources and power. 

As part of these changes, many historic structures inside and outside the Kremlin were demolished, including the adjacent buildings of Kitai-gorod — this effectively separated the fortress from the rest of the city. Surrounded by spacious squares and parks, the Kremlin became an isolated space, which further emphasized its symbolic and commanding status.

A revision of symbols was implemented: the double-headed eagles adorning the Kremlin towers were replaced by ruby stars, which became the new ideological marker of the Soviet era. Despite the destruction of many of the city's churches, including the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, the golden domes of several churches inside the Kremlin were preserved. The initial disdain for the church — a hallmark of the early years of the Soviet regime — was gradually replaced by indifference under Stalin’s rule. The leader began to adopt “traditional values,” with the Kremlin itself becoming an integral part of this shift.

During World War II and in the subsequent years, Stalin and the rest of the state actively used the Kremlin as a symbol of its own merits and to assert its role in the victory over Nazism. On November 7, 1941, a parade was held at the Kremlin’s Red Square, from where the troops were deployed directly to the frontlines. In 1945, the Victory Parade was held, featuring a triumphal procession by the victorious army. Mass celebrations took place on the Stone Bridge, where thousands of people celebrated the victory against the background of the Kremlin. For those who came here, the Kremlin became a symbol of victory, and the 9th of May became associated with it for years. With the help of propaganda, the authorities constructed a new state myth, portraying the Kremlin as the “protector of the people” and taking credit for the victory over fascism.

Shortly after the victory, in 1947, the nearly forgotten Slavophile holiday — Moscow City Day — was revived. The celebration, which was initiated by Moscow City Executive Committee Chairman Georgy Popov and personally approved by Joseph Stalin, marked the city’s 800th anniversary. This anniversary was intended to further strengthen the ideological significance of the Kremlin and underscore the continuity of Stalin's power to the “merits of the state” of past centuries. The date of the celebration, September 7, coincided with the 135th anniversary of the Battle of Borodino, a strategic event in Russia’s military history. This choice combines two significant moments: the founding of the city and Kutuzov's failed attempt to defend Moscow. This combination of events served to reinforce the myth of Moscow as a symbol of survival and rebirth, thereby providing support for state propaganda

The anniversary was commemorated with great enthusiasm. Large posters and portraits of national heroes were displayed on buildings. Along bridges and facades, garlands of light bulbs were strung, as evidenced in the photos of the festive fireworks. The Kremlin’s walls, towers, and the Grand Kremlin Palace were adorned with lanterns. The temple buildings were deliberately placed in shadow, thereby underscoring the preeminence of symbols of state power. The crowd, illuminated by spotlights, gathered on the bridge to better see the spectacle. 

Moscow once again “started looking better.” The city underwent a significant reconstruction, with major improvements to its infrastructure and aesthetic appeal. Key highways were resurfaced, signposts and lanterns were repainted, entrances were now illuminated, and garden sofas and flowerbeds were installed. These efforts collectively demonstrated the city's commitment to enhancing its appearance and overall well-being. On September 6, a ceremony was held to lay the monument to the “founder of the city,” Yuri Dolgoruky. On the occasion of Moscow City Day, the construction of the Stalinist skyscrapers, which served as symbols of Stalinist architecture, was initiated. The design of these buildings was inspired by American skyscrapers, and their profile was reminiscent of the Kremlin towers, albeit in a new form.

It was at this point that the Kremlin officially adopted a red color scheme. White walls, traditionally associated with the architecture of ancient Russia, were replaced by red brick. This transition went almost unnoticed, as the old whitewashing of the walls had already crumbled, and was also seriously damaged by the camouflage structures installed during the war. However, the new color solution introduced a significant shift in the compositional hierarchy of the ensemble. The walls, which once merged with the temple complexes and Orthodox Moscow, now stood as a contrasting frame, visually emphasizing the isolation of the Kremlin — a feature that had already been established at the urban planning level.

Red has become a permanent color, and today it is difficult to imagine the Kremlin any other way. The smooth walls, adorned with painted bricks, exude an image of sophistication and authority, seemingly transcending the complexities and inconsistencies of the surrounding history and context.

It was this image of the Kremlin that began to be actively replicated in the postwar years. In 1947, postage stamps were issued with key views of Moscow, including the Kremlin. Subsequently, in 1961, the three-ruble banknotes were redesigned with the familiar canonical image. The banknote features a specific arrangement of buildings, beginning with the Vodovzvodnaya Tower, followed by the Grand Kremlin Palace, and concluding with the ‘Ivan the Great’ Bell Tower. This arrangement is further enhanced by the presence of stars, a red flag, and a barely visible cross, contributing to a cohesive visual theme. This combination of religious, imperial, and Soviet symbols coalesced into a unified image, embodying the country's novel ideology, which was meticulously crafted by Stalin. Despite the apparent contradictions between these elements, they solidified the image of the Kremlin as an integral part of the country's official representation, symbolizing its historical continuity and centralized power.

The representation of state power in the Soviet Union was based on imperial-nationalist symbols of the 19th century, which had been adapted to new ideological forms. The image of the Kremlin became increasingly detached from the city and the country itself, becoming a symbol of power. It asserted itself as an autonomous, self-reproducing system, independent of society. Consequently, the Kremlin maintained its central position in Soviet and post-Soviet ideology, culture, and the visual representation of authority.

1997: Post-Soviet legitimations

In post-Soviet Russia, the image of the Kremlin has undergone a reinterpretation to align with emerging needs, reflecting both ideological and political shifts. The restoration of imperial symbols, interwoven with the Stalinist legacy, established a foundation for the consolidation of new power. New rituals have been reconstructed from the past, but often without a full comprehension and analysis of their contradictory legacy.

The Victory Day parade, which was held only in anniversary years in the late USSR, became an annual event after a grand celebration in 1995. Symbols of pre-revolutionary Russia, including the St. George's Ribbon, have been incorporated into the Soviet symbols traditionally associated with this holiday. The parade that marched down Tverskaya Street and Red Square virtually supplanted the family memory of the war, replacing it with the pathos of state power. Rather than focusing on personal narratives and recollections, the war began to be viewed as a means of political rhetoric, encapsulated by the symbolism of the parade.

A similar process occurred with Moscow City Day. The holiday was reinstated in 1987, at the initiative of Boris Yeltsin, then-head of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU. In 1994, while serving as President of the Russian Federation, Yeltsin issued a decree establishing the 850th anniversary of Moscow's founding as a commemorative event. This event was a significant step in reviving the city's symbols and solidifying its historical role as a center of power and culture.

As in previous celebrations, more than 430 cultural sites were reconstructed and rebuilt for the capital's anniversary, including the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, which restored the imperial-nationalist spirit of the Moscow River embankment. The restoration of pre-revolutionary buildings and temples, in conjunction with the preservation of Soviet-era symbols, has contributed to the formation of a new Russian identity.

The folk festivities spanned three days and incorporated a diverse array of activities, seamlessly integrating both conventional official events and staged folk festivals across various locations in the city. 

The inaugural day, September 5, commenced with a gala concert on the Kremlin's Cathedral Square, featuring the participation of opera and ballet dancers from the Bolshoi Theater. The patriotic mood was set exclusively by fragments of works by Russian composers. The following operas have been performed: “Life for the Tsar” and “Ruslan and Lyudmila” by Mikhail Glinka, “Boris Godunov” and “Khovanshchina” by Modest Mussorgsky, and “Prince Igor” by Alexander Borodin. The event was graced by the presence of several distinguished guests, including President Boris Yeltsin, Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov, and Patriarch Alexy II. This evening, Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov officially commenced the anniversary events by raising the city's flag on Tverskaya Square.

The festive program continued with a fantasy performance titled “Our Ancient Capital” by Andrei Konchalovsky, which was held on Red Square. The significance of Moscow's cultural and historical legacy, spanning centuries and dating back to the 19th-century Slavophile narratives, was accentuated by the prevailing circumstances.

On the second day, September 6, a 14-hour telethon-concert titled “The Slavic World Welcomes Moscow” was held on Red Square. Concurrently, a procession was held from Tverskaya Square to Novy Arbat. On Poklonnaya Hill, an artistic and patriotic program was held. The program was called “Vivat, Russia! Vivat, Moscow!” The reconstruction of frontline concerts, battlefield kitchens, and hospitals, as well as a theatricalized parade of branches of the army from Peter the Great to the present day, was the highlight of the event. Concerts were held in various locations throughout the city, including Manezhnaya, Tverskaya, Pushkinskaya squares, at Christ the Savior Cathedral, and in the Kremlin Palace. The event's zenith was Jean-Michel Jarre's concert near Moscow State University, which attracted an estimated 3.5 million spectators. The military-patriotic spectacle, which highlighted the “power of the state,” seamlessly integrated with cutting-edge technologies and global pop culture.

The final day was no less pompous. A children's festival was held on Vernadsky Avenue, and an international parade of ethnic groups with trained elephants, bagpipers, and wedding rituals of “friendly nations” took place on Red Square. Manezhnaya Square was filled with a vibrant atmosphere, featuring performances by renowned retro stars, while Tverskaya Street was alive with the sounds of popular ‘90s hits. The festivities concluded with a spectacular laser show, featuring the image of the Virgin of Vladimir icon floating in the sky, accompanied by the final performance by Alla Pugacheva and the choir: “We are your children! We are your children, Moscow!”

Reconstructed religious, imperial, and Soviet symbols merged into a common stream of jubilation, formalizing themselves into the staged “nationality” of the new Russia. The ideology and propaganda of nationalism were subtly incorporated into public festivities, effectively transforming these events into a means of consolidating power symbolically.

In 1997, shortly before the national celebration, the design of the Russian passport with the image of the Kremlin was approved. Consequently, this symbol was firmly established in the main national document. Russian identity was reassembled anew, and the Kremlin was established as a visual symbol of the new Russia, connecting different periods of its history.  

Conclusion

Regimes may change, but the power centered in the Kremlin remains unchanged. This symbol, which has become part of Putin's personal cult, continues to reinforce Moscow's status as the center of state power through regular and pompous events such as Moscow City Day, Victory Parades, and National Unity Day. Architectural changes and symbolic actions, including the construction of palaces, the rebuilding of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, and the installation of ruby stars, serve as visual representations of the new ideologies. The Kremlin is the site of numerous significant events, including inaugurations, meetings with world leaders, and declarations regarding the “greatness of Russia.” These events serve to reinforce the Kremlin's connection to state power.

The Kremlin has come to symbolize the permanence of power, with its influence remaining consistent despite changes in external appearances. Whether adorned with crosses, stars, the tricolor, or the red flag, the Kremlin continues to serve as a testament to the enduring strength of authority. This architectural and symbolic construct has become the core of Russian ideology, combining national identity with the notion of centralized power. Breaking free of the imposed image of the Kremlin as the basis for legitimizing power is an important step toward breaking this link. While the proposals to transform the Kremlin into a museum and relocate the seat of government are currently only plans, implementing fundamental changes in the country requires a re-examination of this iconic symbol.

It is important to acknowledge that the portrayal of the Kremlin as a historical landmark is largely influenced by perceptions rather than factual information. While the manipulation of public consciousness links the Kremlin to state power, breaking this link is essential for rethinking and liberating national identities.

‍