The Kremlin and Architecture's Role in Democracy
A deep look into architecture and how it can be used to promote democracy in Russia and other regimes.
Disclaimer
This article predates the academic, citation, and sourcing standards I established during the 2025 housekeeping update. While it reflects my research and intent at the time, it may not fully align with Russia Tomorrow’s current formatting or sourcing expectations.
In the summer of 2022, I was allowed to travel to many capitals in Europe, having the opportunity to see houses of government from London to Berlin and Prague. Paired with experience in Washington and some knowledge about India’s government complex, I noticed stark differences between the structures housing democratic governments and a structure from my childhood - the symbolic, red, and medieval Kremlin.
Unlike the structures holding democratic governments, most of the facilities housing Putin’s regime are either a symbol of former Tsarist riches or historic castles that were designed to keep those on the outside, well, outside. And this pattern can give anyone a glimpse into the processes binding Russia into a constant cycle of authoritarianism.
Before looking into architecture's current position in keeping authoritarianism alive, we must see the foundation, past, and development of these patterns and how this can be defeated.
Birth of the Kremlin
The term “Kremlin” was first recorded around 1331 (Silent Assasins), at which point the structure was a rudimentary fortified structure overlooking the Moskva River. In 1156, the site was primarily expanded before being destroyed by Mongol invaders in 1237. It was then rebuilt using oak in 1339 when it stepped foot on the path to the modern Kremlin - an ancient symbol of authority still used as the primary seat of the Russian government.
Following a short period with the Kremlin still being wooden, Dmitri Donskoi, the prince of Moscow, replaced the walls with rugged white limestone. His son Vasily the I continued work on churches within the fortifications. These limestone walls withstood a siege from the Golden Horde, the remnant of Mongol conquerors in Eastern Europe that controlled modern-day Russia. Then, following a period of slow growth and construction, Ivan the Great led a project to reconstruct the fort. This project saw Ivan invite architects from Renaissance Italy, such as Marcus Ruffus and Petrus Antonius Solarious, to equip the Kremlin with a new wall, towers, and a grand palace for the prince to reside in.
The Kremlin’s historic red walls came into shape by 1495, after which the monarch declared that no structures should be constructed near the Kremlin. A large moat was erected to separate the Kremlin and Moscow by Ivan the Great, who also built an extensive collection of palaces and cathedrals. This primarily marked the end of the beginning for the Kremlin and Moscow as a city, with a future of imperial expansion clouded only by the upcoming “Time of Troubles,” in which Polish forces captured the structure for two years.
Neglect and Empire
The Kremlin was primarily neglected and abandoned, used only for coronation ceremonies, as the focus of the Monarchy moved to Saint Petersburg. The structure regained relevancy after 1773 when Catherine the Great built a new residence within the walls of the Kremlin. Vasili Bazhenov designed the new palace, and the enormous design required the demolition of several churches and palaces. A lack of funds periodically delayed the construction. In the period between the 18th and late 19th centuries, the iconic walls of the Kremlin were painted white to match the fashion standards of the time1.
Another major event for the Kremlin was the French invasion of the Russian Empire. Napoleon’s forces controlled Moscow and the Kremlin for September to October of 1812 until they were forced to evacuate in the face of the harsh winter conditions. Before retreating, Napoleon ordered the demolition of the Kremlin, with the arsenal and several parts of the Kremlin wall being destroyed before the disastrous retreat that ended French rule over Europe. The rain managed to dampen the fuses, causing a reduction in the damage dealt to the structure, and most of the Kremlin survived the demolition attempt.
In the face of widespread structural damage, restorations rebuilt much of the Kremlin. Many ancient structures were rebuilt in a neo-Gothic style; however, several buildings were demolished in the face of disuse. This was essentially the last light the Kremlin would see under the Tsarist regime, with very little new construction occurring until the revolution of 1917.
Red Kremlin and Red Eurasia
The Kremlin became a crucial seat of government for the Soviets during the Russian civil war and eventually became the emblem of the Soviet government. The Soviet Union moved the government from Saint Petersburg, a vulnerable location next to some of their most significant regional rivals, to a safer and less tsarist place - Moscow. During this time, the Soviets worked to destroy Tsarist relics within the Kremlin and the nation, which dealt a hefty blow to the cultural heritage of the historic fortress. According to this book, 28 out of 54 landmark buildings, with 17 of them being related to religion, were destroyed. Most of the demolished structures resided within the walls of the Kremlin for centuries.
During the 69-year-long period of Soviet rule, the Kremlin saw a list of changes to make it a more appropriate fit for the Soviet ideology and an efficient seat of government. During the second world war, the Kremlin was frequently repainted and had its towers camouflaged with wood roofs to reduce the bombing of the fortresses. During the cold war, the Kremlin had several new structures constructed, such as the Kremlin Museum and State Kremlin Palace. The Kremlin became one of the first Soviet structures to be listed on the World Heritage List in 1990, just before the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Oppression and the Kremlin
Now, let’s fast forward from the collapse of the Soviet Union over the Yeltsin years and finally to today. In 2023, the Kremlin is housing a new oppressive regime within its walls, and Russia is embroiled in another war of conquest. From the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s government stayed in the Kremlin, even as Yeltsin broke the constitution and Putin grew in power. With its medieval walls and nature, the Kremlin has been the seat of outdated governments that imprison Russia in a dictatorship.
Every government that has sat in the Kremlin has transitioned, whatever their ambitions initially were, into an authoritarian and oppressive regime. While it would be stupid to deny that this is caused by many factors, ranging from social acceptance to outdated military thought, the Kremlin’s place as the iconic house of Russian authority cannot be denied. That is why any future government that wants to bring real change - a government that wants to finally bring Russia out of its thought bubble and into the modern age - would need to do so within a new facility.
The Foreign Example
This project will require a level of foreign contributions akin (but on a higher level) to the churches ordered by Vasily the First but built by architects from Italy. Thus, this blog post must address some dos and don’ts for anyone trying to replace a millennia-old symbol of oppression - a very common challenge. Many countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas could serve as examples, from the symbolic house of the German government to Brazil’s significant architecture; however, for this piece's purposes, I will look at two critical locations for democracy. The longest-living democracy, the United States, with its proud white buildings, and the biggest democracy, India, with its new government complex and open style of architecture.
The "Central Vista Redevelopment Project" is a project that will rebuild the central administrative region in Delhi, including the Parliament building, in the image of a modern and free India. The facilities currently in use around Central Vista were built by British colonizers, with the need to suppress independence movements as a constant factor within the design and features of the buildings. Now, the new government complex focuses on defining India’s government as one of modernity, efficiency, and openness, with parks and public spaces being integrated thoroughly throughout the design. While the redesign remains controversial with conservative elements of the government due to its cost and being seen as a waste of resources, especially during the Coronavirus pandemic, it has remained steady on the path to realization. It will most likely become a symbol of India’s transition from an exploited colony to the biggest democracy in the world.
In contrast to these new, modern buildings, one must look at the mighty symbols of American democracy - the Capitol, White House, and other such legislative structures. These marble behemoths have been the house of one of the most prominent and revolutionary democracies ever seen on our planet. America’s influence and position as “the democracy” are undeniable through the centuries in which it developed its ideals. These buildings were built with the thoughts of Greek and Roman democracy while also including public spaces, tours, and opportunities for their citizens to interact with the politicians representing them in government. The beautiful parks and spaces around these buildings are tourist attractions, often stunning foreign visitors and citizens.
The Solution
After all that has been stated, the solution is evident on a fundamental level - leave the Kremlin as a museum or even destroy it, and move the government to a new set of facilities following the principles of democracy, openness, and citizen participation. Lenin should finally be buried alongside his wife and removed from the Kremlin, ending the (at the time of writing) nearly 100-year-old period as a symbol of a cult of personality. The Kremlin will face a challenging path - with either demolition of some or all of its buildings or the conversion to a museum to document its history and a memorial to all of the crimes committed by leaders resigning within its walls. Destroying the Kremlin seems overly radical, which would most definitely be compared to the Communist destruction of historic tsarist artifacts by any opposed to the motion.
Yet, on a level of precise details, this becomes a complicated question - something I, with barely any experience in architecture, have no right to answer.
How close should the new buildings be? Should they even be in Moscow? Maybe taking the American route and having a different capital city is best? What would be a perfect balance between traditional Russian architecture and other styles?
These questions are both tough to answer and, quite plainly, unnecessary for an establishing post like this one - dedicated to planting the seeds of such an idea and not immediately making a polarising decision. In the future, I have small ideas of discussing the concepts of a new capital city, a revitalization of Moscow, and even a detailed look into the essential functions of a new Democratic government.
A small idea that came to mind right before publishing would be to paint the Kremlin in its image during the 18th and 19th centuries - white. Such an act paired with making the historic structure into a museum may be enough to remove the structure's threat to democracy. 
The End!
Like the last post on aviation, this one broke another record for length, research, and maybe even procrastination - quite the milestone. In fact, I got a warning that I am approaching the email size limit! It remains to be seen if it will break my previous post's surprisingly high view record, which is around 108. In other notable news, my Twitter following tripled after a lot of debating under the following thread:
Other than Substack not yet being able to display Twitter’s 3000-character limit, my observations after participating in the thread are problematic. The thread shows how people who dedicate a substantial portion of their time to supporting Ukraine have a very negative view of any attempts at Russian democracy in a way that very much resembles Putinist propaganda points. My next post will most likely focus on Putin’s Propaganda 101. I will attempt to cover Putinist propaganda points that have been so successful they managed to embed themselves in the most anti-Putin communities.
Regarding the post, it leaves me with a sort of mediocre impression. While I was able to lay out my ideas, historical context, and some foreign examples, it still feels incomplete without a solidified answer - a pattern that repeats itself consistently within the Big Tent (Big Tent - a form of movement that seeks to incorporate all elements of the opposition under the same “tent” to fight a mutual enemy) opposition movement. Recently, I have had a vision of a “New Moscow” project, an expansion to Moscow that would build new districts, incorporating modern advancements in Urban design, creating a new image for Russia’s capital city, and providing an optimal place for a new government. However, these ideas are both children of my bias as a Muscovite and not even close to a realistic thought-through proposal. I will most likely debate them further on my Twitter and let the response decide whether it is worth developing and writing a blog post about.
In any case - thank you for reading my post, and if you have read this far down, my little conclusion episode. If you want to receive more updates and content from me regarding the blog, please follow my Twitter. If you have any comments or concerns regarding my work, feel free to reach out via Twitter or comment using Substack.
I hope to see you in the next post!
Some nice pictures of the Kremlin can be seen on this site: https://www.artlebedev.com/mandership/174/
Do you know about the White House of Russia and the unrest of 1993 when it was under the tank attack? Quite a turning point in the history of modern Russia.
I'm curious if you see any parallel with January 6 events and your prognosis on whether it can lead to more closeness of the us governmental structures.