On the Occasion of the Armenian Edition of Documentary Drama “Anastas Mikoyan: From Ilyich to Ilyich” by STAS NAMIN & ANDREY RUBANOV

Review by Prof. Ruben Mirzakhanyan

The infamous plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Armenia in 1937 is a factually documented historical event. Among the distinguished participants who arrived in Yerevan for this session were Anastas Mikoyan, a senior member of the Soviet leadership; Georgy Malenkov, Head of the Union-wide Central Committee’s department (who later assumed the role of the head of the Soviet Government following Stalin’s death); as well as Mikhail Litvinov and Lazar Artman, both figures associated with the People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD). Additionally, Lavrentiy Beria travelled from Tbilisi to attend.

The session lasted for four days, following an officially declared break. Ultimately, this event precipitated widespread political repression across the country. While these occurrences have been extensively analyzed in scholarly literature, a less known yet intriguing detail has recently emerged: Mikoyan actively participated in the first day of the plenary session but was conspicuously absent for the remainder, reappearing only at the end of the session. It has now come to light that during his absence, he secretly crossed the Armenian-Turkish border to meet with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The contents of their discussion remain classified to this day. However, it is plausible that the plenary session served as a mere pretext to obscure significant foreign policy arrangements. The fact that an Armenian statesman was entrusted with these discussions is noteworthy.

More than two decades later, following the conclusion of the Second World War, Mikoyan – who had been the first high-ranking Soviet official to visit the United States in the early 1930s – played a crucial role in diplomatic negotiations between the two emerging superpowers. During his later meeting with then U.S. Vice President (later President) Richard Nixon, Mikoyan addressed the condition of Armenians in Turkey, expressing his concerns in that respect. Official records of these discussions are actually there. It is evident that in both instances, substantial attention was devoted to the plight of Armenians in the region. The undeniable outcome of these efforts was the safeguarding of the physical security of the Armenian people.

In light of the foregoing discussion, it becomes evident that diplomatic negotiations yield results when conducted by political figures of exceptional stature – individuals who wield genuine power – possess intellectual acumen, and act with responsibility.

Stas Namin and Andrey Rubanov’s documentary drama “Anastas Mikoyan: from Ilyich to Ilyich” is dedicated to the political figure of Anastas Mikoyan, an eminent statesman of the Soviet era. The book has been published in multiple editions in Moscow, later translated into Armenian, and published in Yerevan. The translation was undertaken by one of Armenia’s leading historians, Dr. Khachatur Stepanyan, Doctor of Historical Sciences and Professor. The involvement of a scholar of such high caliber in producing the Armenian edition, which incorporates various primary sources, lends the work considerable academic credibility. The Armenian translation includes bibliographic annotations and a rigorous scholarly apparatus, reflecting the expertise of a distinguished historian.

One of the co-authors, Stas Namin, is not only a cultural figure of international renown but also Anastas Mikoyan’s grandson.

Anastas Mikoyan had ten grandchildren, but Stas was his most cherished one. Mikoyan himself remarked that this was due to two reasons: first, Stas was a boy; second, he was born to an Armenian mother. Consequently, Stas Namin’s work represents not only an invaluable scholarly contribution but also a deeply personal endeavor.

The book provides a comprehensive examination of Mikoyan’s life, covering:

ü  His childhood and early years (1906–1917);

ü  His role in the Baku Commune (March 1917–September 1919);

ü  His professional activities in Nizhny Novgorod and Rostov (1919–1928);

ü  His contributions to the organization of the Soviet Union’s food industry (1930–1941);

ü  His efforts during and after the Great Patriotic War (1941–1953);

ü  His pivotal role in the de-Stalinization process as the Soviet Union’s crisis manager in diplomacy (1953–1964);

ü  His tenure as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet Presidium and his final years (1963–1978).

As a committed Marxist, Mikoyan was an active participant in the Bolshevik movement in both Caucasus and Russia. He was imprisoned five times for his political undertakings. His contributions to the Baku Commune were particularly prominent. Notably, he named his children after the executed Baku Commissars. It is said that Stalin occasionally referred to him as the “twenty-seventh commissar”, an epithet intended to highlight Mikoyan’s survival amid the purge of the Baku Commissars, thereby keeping his inner circle in a constant state of apprehension. However, first-hand accounts, including those of Mikoyan himself and Suren Shahumyan (son of Stepan Shahumyan), provide a more nuanced perspective on these events.

Mikoyan’s exceptional administrative aptitude was most evident in his food supply management, internal and external trade arrangements, and the coordinated material and technical provisioning of the Soviet Union. During the Great Patriotic War, his role was decisive in organizing food supplies for the Red Army and overseeing the relocation of industrial enterprises to the eastern regions of the USSR – an unprecedented logistical operation in world history. It was customary for high-ranking Soviet officials to receive awards on solemn occasions. Mikoyan was conferred the title of the top-ranked Hero of Socialist Labor in 1943 in recognition of his outstanding merits.

Mikoyan astutely recognized that, from the mid-1930s onward, the undertaken technological advancements were predominantly occurring in the United States rather than in Europe or elsewhere. This awareness led to his numerous visits to the U.S., where he laid the groundwork for the Soviet canned food industry and the mass production of processed food. His initiatives facilitated the large-scale introduction of sausages, frankfurters, ice cream, condensed milk, and even Soviet champagne – each manufactured on an unprecedented scale. Notably, while Soviet industry adopted American technological advancements, it carefully adapted them to the specific conditions of the USSR, ensuring that food production avoided artificial additives. Mikoyan is also credited with the famous assertion: “Advertisement is trade’s engine.”

From the 1950s to the early 1960s, Mikoyan emerged as a dominant figure in Soviet diplomacy. In 1957, Time magazine featured his portrait on its cover – an honor traditionally reserved for heads of state. Harvard University surveyed specialists, asking them to identify the foremost crisis manager of the 20^th century. The majority named Mikoyan, despite the list including primarily world leaders.

Mikoyan was the principal negotiator during the Berlin Crisis when the world teetered on the brink of a third world war. He also played a decisive role in resolving the Cuban Missile Crisis when nuclear war seemed imminent. Furthermore, he was the chief Soviet negotiator in diplomatic engagements with China, India, and Vietnam. Upon his passing, numerous prominent global leaders sent messages of condolences despite the fact that he had long since retired and no longer enjoyed the favor of the Soviet establishment.

Anastas Mikoyan was a statesman of global significance. International developments were there to ground his actions and policies, and he approached Armenian affairs within this broader geopolitical framework, which ensured the efficacy of his decisions. A question might be asked: So, what did Mikoyan do for Armenia and the Armenian people? The answer is unequivocal: he twice prevented a nuclear war, and Armenia is part of the world he helped to preserve.

For those with a narrower perspective, one need only consult the memoirs of Soviet Armenian leaders from the 1950s and 1960s. Whenever they visited Moscow, their first meeting was invariably with Mikoyan, after which numerous issues concerning the Armenian SSR were resolved.

Incidentally, regarding the concepts of parochialism and insularity, it is essential to note that the origins of a future political figure are not necessarily indicative of their intellectual or ideological capacity.

For instance, Anastas Mikoyan was born in Sanahin, a modest rural milieu.

Nevertheless, he adhered to a particular ideological framework – one that could be either accepted or contested – and demonstrated the ability to think and act on a broad scale.

In contemporary Armenian political circles, a form of militant insularity appears to be prevalent. This phenomenon manifests in the subordination of national values and historical narratives to the pursuit of political power and in the tendency to interpret events and phenomena through narrow and localized perspectives. A coherent ideological foundation does not inform a provincial mindset. Consequently, individuals exhibiting such tendencies, often possessing only partial literacy, construct their subjective perspectives with the objective of legitimizing actions that may be deemed as betrayal or hostility towards their nation. Furthermore, these individuals frequently lack the requisite educational qualifications and have limited proficiency in foreign languages, yet they attempt to communicate in them, thereby exposing themselves to ridicule.

Such individuals are often burdened by deep-seated psychological insecurities shaped by difficult childhood experiences and a deficiency in familial upbringing.

Their external markers of success – frequent changes of attire, the use of luxury vehicles, indulgence in food and drink, and extensive travel – are perceived, within their framework of understanding, as indicators of a fulfilled life. However, such displays ultimately constitute little more than superficial performance.

Academician Rafael Ghazaryan, a member of the Karabakh Committee – who could never be accused of sympathy towards the Soviet regime and ideology – once wrote: “If only Armenia had a president like Mikoyan.”

And there seems to be no other way to put it better.