A Zen Blog post
https://dzen.ru/a/aRl478twZBjVFC5h

Like me, do you like to skip the story through the lens of the subjunctive mood? I admit, I am very. I like to think about what would have happened if I hadn't taken a step or if this or that event in the history of the country hadn't happened. In this case, the impulse of my pseudo-historical fantasies was to return to school and revise the traditional view of literary works from the school curriculum. Let's take, for example, the tragedy Boris Godunov. What would have happened if the False Dmitry I (not the thief of Tushino or Astrakhan) had remained in power?
Clearly, maintaining the power of False Dmitry I would have changed the course of the Troubles, but I believe it still would not have made Russia a Western democracy. His fate depended on too many factors: Polish support, the sentiments of the boyars and the church, money, and the army. But the alternative scenario can be outlined quite clearly.
The main question is whether he could have held on, because he did not have a stable base: the boyars tolerated him, but did not respect him.
Erpetse was wary of his "Polish" manners and plans, as if the people would not be taken to churches. The people considered him too "foreign" and Polish. Polish support for him was both a blessing and a yoke. Even if he had survived May 1606, he would have had to perform gigantic political acrobatics — balancing between Poland, the Cossacks, the nobility and the church.
But let's say that he succeeded. If he had held on, there would have been no war between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1609-1618, because Poland supported him. His presence in Moscow suited the Polish magnates better than installing their own prince. Conflicts with Poland simply would not have arisen. The Time of Troubles might have ended more peacefully than under Vasily Shuisky. There would be reforms, albeit moderate ones, but of a Western nature. False Dmitry loved the Western lifestyle and was oriented towards Europe. Quite possibly, a limited "early Europeanization" would have begun — not like Peter the Great's, but with similar tendencies. The army would be created according to the European model — with mercenaries, muskets, and discipline. With regard to the nobility, he would have made an attempt to limit corruption and arbitrariness. With regard to the bureaucracy, I would probably carry out reforms in the spirit of the "Polish-Lithuanian school." Russia as a whole would become a little more Polish-Lithuanian in administrative culture.
However, the source of False Dmitry's tragedy was the church. False Dmitry was too tolerant of Catholics, and in the 1600s it was deadly. It is highly likely that he would not have introduced the union, but he would have protected Catholics and allowed Polish priests to operate in Moscow. The patriarch and the clergy would have resisted. There might have been a religious crisis, but without the massacre.
If he had married Marina Mnishek (as happened), an heir would have been born. A new dynasty would have appeared — 100-150 years ahead. The Romanovs would not have come to power, and modern Russia would have looked different, it would have become more like an Eastern European monarchy. Russia under False Dmitry would have developed along the path of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Hungary, not Muscovy and not Peter I. That is, it would be more open to Europe; the nobility would be more free and independent; the economy would be less serfdom; there would be less militarism; less imperialist ambitions. Russia would not have turned into Poland 2.0, but it would have become noticeably more European and less autocratic. If Russia had been oriented towards Europe already under False Dmitry, Peter I in his forms might simply not have been needed.
Anyway. If False Dmitry had survived: Russia would have become softer, more Westernized, less autocratic, the Time of Troubles would have ended faster, the Romanovs would never have ruled, Russia would not have become an aggressor empire, but an Eastern European monarchy with limited ambitions.

I believe that there have been many such "forks".
What, in my opinion, history teaches is that often "at the moment" nothing is predetermined, it depends on a combination of sometimes "ridiculous" factors, the "accidental" determination of certain actors, "falls" under those who act and do not accept (and they are, if anything, the first victims), that one should not relax about the fact that "freedom will conquer itself," "the market will decide on its own," and "minced meat cannot be turned back."
It turned out that it was still possible, but the principles of democracy and democracy require constant struggle and protection. Even in "stable democracies".
The "window of opportunity", when and if it opens, closes quickly and must be used as much as possible before the opponents "bricked up" again.
And also that history never ends, progress is slow, 1.5 steps forward and one step back are "jerks", but it is always possible, all dictatorships and empires end, any political action is not in vain, no one is doomed, no peoples or territories are "condemned" to anything, and there is always hope!

I write and shoot. Join me

Author's video content

Political trash

I invite you to the telegram channel

Highly Social on Zen

Gingerbread support and Donations

My hobbies are history, philosophy, psychology, music, economics, politics, and sociology. I write about this and much more. Professional model. She has performed at international music festivals. I dance, I sing, I parody the voices of the performers. I am studying in the Netherlands at the Academy of Arts, Faculty of Film Industry and Arts. Co-owner of a video studio in St. Petersburg.

I am glad to see all of you in my blogs.