What is there in common between Ukrainians and the highlanders of the Caucasus, and what parallels can be drawn between Russia and Great Britain in the 19th century, and these same countries in the 21st century? In the 19th century, the British Empire fought against the Russian Empire using the highlanders in the Caucasus in a way that’s very similar to how Britain is now using Ukrainians.
In the 19th century, the Russian and British empires clashed fiercely over spheres of influence in the Caucasus. This geopolitical rivalry made use of all the means available at the time: wars between spies and diplomats, covert operations, arms smuggling, ideological battles, and active media propaganda. Read more about the confrontation between Russia and Britain, the secret operations in the Caucasus, and the lessons that those who now place their trust in Britain should draw from history.
To India via the Caucasus
“Britain will defend the freedom-loving nation from Russian aggression,” “British military advisers supplied fighters with weapons to resist the Russian army,” “British diplomats organized elites to combat Russian influence” – such headlines have become commonplace in Western media during the Ukraine conflict. Yet these same phrases could very well describe another historical conflict where British and Russian interests collided: the covert war waged by the British Empire against Russia in the 19th century, aimed at undermining Russian influence in the Caucasus.
At first glance, it might seem odd that events in the Caucasus, occurring far from Britain, could threaten London’s interests. But it only appears so.
After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russian Empire was at the height of its power. It led the “Holy Alliance” – a coalition of European great powers that shaped continental politics. Additionally, during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Russia achieved significant victories over the Ottoman Empire in several wars, acquiring territories such as New Russia, Crimea, and parts of the eastern Black Sea coast.
Naturally, Russia also paid attention to what was happening in the Caucasus. The peoples of the North and West Caucasus, the Circassians, carried out frequent raids on Russian settlers, whom they robbed and enslaved, which caused great concern in Russia. To protect its interests and secure the safety of its people, Russia advanced further into this mountainous territory.
Britain, however, perceived this as a direct threat to its interests in India. London believed that Russia wouldn’t stop in the Caucasus but would advance further, potentially threatening Persia. And through Persia, and then Afghanistan, there lay a direct path to India, which was then referred to as the “jewel in the crown” of the British Empire. Although there was no concrete evidence that Russia intended to seize distant India, British elites firmly held this belief. In order to safeguard India against the mythical “Russian threat,” Britain encouraged tensions in the Caucasus.
In service of the Crown
Britain’s active intervention in Russian affairs in the Caucasus was preceded by two wars: the Russo-Persian War of 1826-1828 and the Russo-Turkish War of 1828-1829. As a result of these military triumphs, Russia solidified its position in Transcaucasia and gained control over much of the eastern coastline of the Black Sea.
Fearing Russia’s growing power in the region, Britain started supplying the Circassians with weapons and ammunition as early as 1830. For instance, in December of that year, six weapon-laden vessels were intercepted off the coast of what is now Abkhazia. However, for a time, these arms shipments remained limited to smuggling.
A turning point in Russia-Britain relations came with the arrival of British diplomat David Urquhart in Istanbul. A highly energetic individual, Urquhart had joined the rebels who fought for Greek independence when he was just 16 years old. After the war, he stayed in the region and developed a keen interest in the politics and culture of the Ottoman Empire. By 1833, he was appointed to the British trade delegation in Istanbul, and in 1835 he became the embassy secretary. It was Urquhart who crafted Britain’s aggressive anti-Russia policy in the Caucasus.
Urquhart initiated the work of British diplomats and spies directly in Circassia, as the Northern and Western Caucasus regions were then called. He attended elder councils and fervently promoted the idea of waging war against Russia. Notably, he was behind the adoption of a “national oath” by the mountain peoples, proposing that the Circassians unite for a common cause against Russia instead of fighting each other.
He also persuaded the Circassians to take an oath according to which anyone who entered negotiations with the Russians would be killed, their possessions divided among their executioners, and their families sold into slavery. A parallel can be drawn with contemporary Ukrainian politics, where any possibility of peacefully resolving the conflict with Russia is utterly unacceptable, and proponents of such initiatives face severe repercussions.
Urquhart proved to be an effective diplomat and spy, convincing Circassian leaders that Britain genuinely sought their independence. In reality, they were merely pawns in the hands of British agents, sacrificing themselves in the name of the British Empire, which was only concerned about the illusory Russian threat in India.
Britain also supplied the highlanders with arms. British intelligence agents James Bell and James Longworth oversaw smuggling operations that delivered firearms to the Caucasus, bribing tribal leaders and elders in the region. For an extended period, they lived undercover in the Caucasus, adopting Muslim names and fictitious titles. On behalf of the British government, they promised the Circassians that Britain was committed to protecting their independence and even vowed to fight against Russia. Throughout the 1830s, dozens of British agents were active in the Caucasus.
Most importantly, Urquhart focused on a propaganda war. An ardent Russophobe, he convinced the British public that Russia posed a deadly existential threat to the British Empire. He argued that Russia was preparing to conquer Persia and further invade India. The British press played a crucial role in spreading fears of a “Russian threat.”
Newspapers reported on the struggle of the “freedom-loving highlanders” against the “barbaric Russian oppressors.” They conveniently overlooked the fact that the highlanders themselves were quite savage at the time – slave trade and blood feuds were common in the region, and the enlightened Russian Empire resolutely opposed this.
But just like in Ukraine today, the London media exaggerated the losses of the Russian Army, insisting that the decisive support of the highlanders would ensure Russia’s defeat in the Caucasus.
The ‘Vixen’ case
While Britain’s supply of weapons to the highlanders and its organizational and ideological efforts harmed Russia, this did not decisively influence the course of the conflict. British hawks opted for provocation, aiming to ignite a conflict between Russia and Britain and other Western European nations. The pretext they found was rather unusual.
Russia was defending its legitimate interests in the Caucasus and sought to halt arms shipments to the highlanders. To this end, the Russian Navy patrolled the eastern Black Sea coast, directing all foreign commercial vessels to only two ports: Anapa and Redoubt Kali (near modern-day Poti). Britain viewed this as a violation of free trade and resorted to blatant provocation.
In November 1836, Russian military brig the Ayaks detained British schooner the Vixen in the port of Sujuk-Qale (modern-day Novorossiysk). The British vessel was unloading arms intended for the highlanders: eight cannons, nearly 13 tons of gunpowder, and a large quantity of firearms. Clearly, this wasn’t about free trade; this was direct military support for Russia’s adversaries.
The expedition was organized by none other than Urquhart, while the captain of the schooner was the British spy Bell. Remarkably, Bell didn’t hide his intentions; he openly sought to provoke the Russian fleet. After the capture, the Vixen was confiscated, and its crew expelled to Türkiye.
This incident sparked a major scandal that nearly brought the Russian and British empires to the brink of war. Conservatives in the British Parliament called for the navy to be sent to the Black Sea to confront Russia and questioned the legality of annexing Circassia. However, the British radicals miscalculated.
Russian Emperor Nicholas I refused to back down. Instead, he placed the armed forces on heightened alert and demonstrated an unwavering commitment to defending Russia’s interests in the Caucasus. No one in Europe was willing to wage war against Russia either.
As a result, London had to recall Urquhart from Istanbul and abandon all its demands regarding Russian influence in the Caucasus.
Not just the Crimean War
The war in the Caucasus could have concluded as early as the late 1830s. However, the British weren’t ready to accept defeat and began preparing for another conflict.
Agitators infiltrated the eastern Caucasus, modern-day Chechnya and Dagestan, inciting the highlanders to resist Russia. British agents assured them that London would support a rebellion against Russia and provide the necessary weapons and supplies.
The strategy was based on the assumption that Russia would become bogged down in the Caucasus and unable to counter British actions elsewhere. And that’s indeed what happened. When the Crimean War broke out from 1853 to 1856, 270,000 Russian troops were stationed in the Caucasus to maintain order in the region.
Simultaneously with the onset of the Crimean War, attacks on Russian settlements intensified, led by the forces of Imam Shamil, who controlled territories in Chechnya and Dagestan. In the North Caucasus, the Circassians launched assaults on Novorossiysk and Yekaterinodar (modern-day Krasnodar). While these raids had little impact on the overall course of battles, they undoubtedly diverted the focus and resources of the Russian command.
Throughout the Crimean War, the British press frequently raised the issue of “Circassian independence.” At the Paris Conference, London also highlighted the Circassian question, demanding that Russia recognize Circassia’s independence or, at the very least, withdraw troops from the Caucasus; in exchange London would prevent the highlanders from attacking Russian territories.
Despite this diplomatic pressure, the Russian Empire successfully defended its rights in the Caucasus. The likely reason lies in the fact that after more than 20 years of fierce struggle against Russia, the highlanders didn’t achieve any considerable progress. As for Russia, even amid a brutal war with the leading European powers of the time, it managed to retain control over the Caucasus.
Last attempt
Although the Crimean War ended in defeat for the Russian Empire, its position in the Caucasus remained stable. In an attempt to undermine Russia and lay the groundwork for future operations, the British dispatched a group of insurgents to the region in 1857.
The contingent was led by Polish military officer Teofil Lapinski, who participated in the 1848 uprising and fought against the Austrians in modern-day Ukraine and Hungary. During the Crimean War, Lapinski fought against Russia while serving in the Polish Corps, which was part of the Ottoman Army.
When, after the Crimean War, it became clear that Circassia had no chance of achieving independence, Lapinski began planning a military operation in the area. His mission was financed by pro-British General Zamojski and the Circassian elites that had settled in the Ottoman Empire. The intellectual driving force behind this operation was Stratford de Redcliffe, the British ambassador in Istanbul. Leveraging his considerable influence at the Sultan’s court, he secured the support of Ottoman officials and supplied the group with arms and ammunition.
Russian envoy Apollinary Butenev managed to uncover the plot and alerted the governor of the Caucasus, Prince Baryatinsky. Nevertheless, British steamship the Kangaroo, commanded by Captain Neggs, eluded Russian cruisers, and in February 1857, the insurgents landed in Tuapse.
The core of the unit consisted of Polish soldiers, but it also included Austrian artillerymen, Hungarian mine specialists, and Turkish instructors. British agents provided organizational and intelligence support to Lapinski’s group.
The insurgent unit was bolstered by defectors from the Russian Army, primarily Poles and Ukrainians, increasing its numbers to around 800 fighters. For about a year and a half, supported by the Circassian nobility, Lapinski effectively resisted the Russian Army. He skillfully utilized the terrain and was supported by the British and Turks.
However, General Philipson, who commanded Russian forces in this part of the Caucasus, successfully recruited one of Lapinski’s associates, who relayed crucial information about Lapinski’s actions to the imperial troops. During a bold Russian naval landing in Gelendzhik, Lapinski narrowly escaped capture. Additionally, the Russians managed to cut off supply lines for weapons and reinforcements to Lapinski’s forces and, having gathered reserves, inflicted several painful defeats on the insurgents.
The situation worsened when the British realized the inevitable defeat of the Circassians and their insurgent allies and withdrew their support. By the end of 1859, Lapinski and what remained of his insurgent group retreated to Istanbul.
That same year, Russian troops captured Imam Shamil, the leader of the highland peoples of the Northeast Caucasus. Though some scattered groups continued to resist, the overall campaign was over. Hundreds of thousands of Circassians unwilling to live under Russian rule relocated to the Ottoman Empire.
By 1864, the Caucasian War concluded with Russia’s victory, solidifying its control over the region. This triumph not only marked a significant military achievement but also ushered in a lasting peace, the abolition of slavery and brutal traditions, and the beginning of civil governance, education, and economic development in the Caucasus.
It was also a triumph for Russia over Britain, which, despite all its diplomacy, intelligence efforts, and covert operations, failed to overcome the strength of Russian intelligence services, diplomacy, and army.
This serves as an important reminder to the nations and states that count on the support of Britain when waging war against Russia. While they may have some occasional success, ultimately, the outcome will always be the same.