Showtime’s adaptation of Amor Towles’ 2016 novel A Gentleman in Moscow is a must-see for every American who cherishes freedom. This powerful series serves as a stark warning against the perils of socialism and communism—ideologies that promise equality but deliver oppression. In an era where collectivist ideas are gaining traction among young Americans, the show’s message is more urgent than ever. Though some may quibble with Showtime’s casting, the actors deliver gripping performances, pulling viewers into a story that exposes the devastating consequences of surrendering individual liberty to the state.
**WARNING — SPOILER ALERT**
Set from 1922 to 1954, the series follows Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov, a former noble confined to Moscow’s opulent Metropol Hotel after the Bolshevik revolution. Spared execution due to a poem attributed to him that allegedly fueled the revolution, Rostov, portrayed masterfully by Ewan McGregor, embodies dignity and resilience in a world corrupted by collectivist ideology. While Rostov is the protagonist, the series’ most compelling lessons come from secondary characters: Nina Kulikova, Mikhail “Mishka” Mindich, Osip Glebnikov, and Anna Urbanova.
These characters initially embrace the false promises of socialism and communism, only to have their lives destroyed by the very systems they trusted. Their stories are a clarion call to Americans: reject collectivism and defend the individual freedoms that define our nation.
Nina Kulikova
Nina Kulikova is the series’ most heartbreaking figure, a vivid illustration of how socialist ideologies seduce and betray. Introduced as a bright, innocent girl whose father works at the Metropol, Nina forms a close bond with Rostov, who teaches her the virtues of civility and personal honor. Her early warmth and curiosity make her relatable, but her path darkens when she leaves for a Soviet school. Upon returning, Nina is unrecognizable—a loyal disciple of the state, her mind poisoned by Marxist propaganda. Though she still cares for Rostov, her devotion to the Soviet regime has dulled her compassion and eroded her individuality.
Rostov warns Nina that communism’s collectivist dogma will lead to ruin, urging her to stay at the hotel and preserve her freedom. She dismisses his advice, swept up in the Soviet vision of a utopian society. As her education deepens, Nina becomes a fervent enforcer of the regime, blindly obeying party leaders. She is eventually sent to participate in the collectivization of farms—a policy that crushed independent farmers and unleashed a wave of anguish, despair, and profound suffering.
Years later, Nina returns to the Metropol with her daughter, Sofia, her spirit broken. Nina reveals that her husband, a fellow worker tasked with modernizing farms, was falsely accused and sent to a Siberian gulag. Leaving Sofia with Rostov, Nina sets out to save her husband. Her final words are a wrenching admission of regret: “You were right. I should have stayed. I wish I had stayed.” The series later reveals her tragic end: her body is discarded into a mass grave in a frozen Soviet wasteland, a chilling testament to the state’s betrayal of its loyal followers.
A Warning for America
Nina Kulikova’s story is a powerful cautionary tale for young Americans tempted by the siren call of socialism. Her arc mirrors the journey of those who, frustrated by economic challenges or perceived injustices, are drawn to collectivist ideologies peddled by progressive politicians and activists. Socialism’s promises of fairness and shared prosperity may sound appealing, but Nina’s fate exposes the grim reality: these systems demand the surrender of personal freedom and lead to oppression, suffering, and dehumanization.
Nina’s transformation into a Soviet loyalist reflects the dangers of ideological indoctrination, a growing concern in American universities and online echo chambers where Marxist ideas are often romanticized. Her willingness to sacrifice her autonomy for the “greater good” echoes the mindset of those who advocate for expansive government programs and collectivist policies, ignoring the erosion of individual rights. The Soviet regime’s betrayal—imprisoning her husband and casting her into a mass grave—lays bare the true cost of trusting the state over personal responsibility.
For conservatives, Nina’s story underscores the importance of defending the principles that make America exceptional: individual liberty, limited government, and personal accountability. Her regretful final words, “I wish I had stayed,” are a haunting reminder of the consequences of embracing ideologies that prioritize the collective over the individual. As socialist rhetoric gains ground in the U.S., A Gentleman in Moscow urges young Americans to reject the allure of big government promises and protect the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. The series is a rallying cry to stand firm against collectivism and preserve the values that ensure prosperity and independence.
Mikhail “Mishka” Mindich
Mikhail “Mishka” Mindich, portrayed by Fehinti Balogun, a British-Nigerian actor, is a complex and pivotal character in A Gentleman in Moscow. Balogun’s casting, while not historically typical for a Russian character, delivers a captivating performance that quickly dispels any initial viewer skepticism. Mishka is introduced as a mysterious figure, a close friend of Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov, yet someone who holds a position of authority within the Soviet Party. This duality creates intrigue, as the audience questions how a man of such revolutionary fervor could maintain a deep bond with an aristocrat.
The series gradually reveals the layers of Mishka’s relationship with Alexander. As university roommates, they shared a profound friendship. It is later disclosed that Mishka attributed a revolutionary poem to Alexander, an act that inadvertently saved Alexander’s life during the Bolshevik purges. Before the revolution, Alexander had allowed Mishka to publish the poem under his name to shield Mishka from scrutiny, a decision that later protected Alexander when the poem was interpreted as pro-revolutionary.
Mishka is initially a staunch supporter of the Soviet cause, fully committed to its ideology and leadership. His convictions are tested when he is tasked with transcribing Chekhov’s letters for the Party. Stalin orders Mishka to alter a letter in which Chekhov praises German bread, as it conflicts with Soviet propaganda. During a conversation with Alexander, Mishka reveals the devastating truth: the Soviet Union is gripped by a famine, later known as the Holodomor, which claimed millions of lives. Alexander, insulated within the opulent Metropol Hotel, is stunned to learn of the starvation beyond its walls. This moment also alludes to the historical cover-up of the famine by Western media, including The New York Times. Against Alexander’s pragmatic advice to comply with the Party’s demands, Mishka refuses to censor Chekhov’s work, driven by his principles. His defiance leads to his arrest and exile to a Siberian labor camp.
Years later, Mishka returns to the Metropol Hotel, a broken man, haunted by the horrors of the camp. His once-ardent belief in the Soviet system has crumbled, leaving him disillusioned and traumatized. Alexander tries to console his old friend, but Mishka remains unreachable. In a poignant departure, Mishka leaves the hotel without informing Alexander, bidding a quiet farewell only to Sofia, Alexander’s adopted daughter. The viewer watches him disappear into a cloud of fog, a symbolic reflection of his faded ideals and implied death.
A Warning for America
Mikhail “Mishka” Mindich’s arc in A Gentleman in Moscow serves as a stark warning for young U.S. citizens seduced by the false promises of socialism and communism, ideologies that clash with the core American values of individual liberty and free enterprise. His story resonates with a generation lured by collectivist rhetoric, revealing the devastating consequences of trading personal freedom for utopian dreams—a lesson conservatives hold dear in their defense of constitutional principles.
Mishka starts as a fervent Soviet loyalist, swept up in the promise of a classless society. His zeal mirrors the enthusiasm of today’s youth, who, frustrated by economic challenges or perceived inequities, flirt with socialist policies like universal basic income or wealth taxes. Conservatives see this as a dangerous misstep, and Mishka’s journey proves why. His faith in the Soviet system crumbles when he’s forced to confront its moral bankruptcy—ordered to falsify Chekhov’s letters to prop up propaganda. This betrayal of truth reflects what conservatives warn about: socialist regimes, from Stalin’s USSR to modern-day Venezuela, prioritize state control over integrity, crushing dissent and distorting reality to maintain power.
The Holodomor, the man-made famine Mishka uncovers, is a chilling historical truth that stands as evidence of socialism’s failures. Millions starved while Soviet leaders hid the crisis, a cover-up echoed by Western apologists like The New York Times. For young Americans tempted by figures like Bernie Sanders or AOC, who frame socialism as compassionate, Mishka’s shock at the famine is a wake-up call. Centralized planning, conservatives argue, leads to inefficiency and suffering—look at Venezuela, where GDP collapsed by over 60% from 2013 to 2020 under socialist policies, or Cuba, where citizens still ration basic goods. Mishka’s discovery underscores the conservative belief that free markets, not state control, drive prosperity, as evidenced by America’s GDP per capita, nearly 10 times higher than Cuba’s in 2023.
Mishka’s punishment for defying the Party—arrest and exile to a Siberian gulag—lays bare the authoritarian core of collectivism. Conservatives warn that socialism’s endgame is coercion, not equality. The Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991, after bankrupting itself while imprisoning dissidents, proves their point: the USSR’s economy was a fraction of the United States’, with a military budget eating 15-20% of GDP by the 1980s. Mishka’s return, broken and disillusioned, embodies the personal toll of trusting a system that conservatives see as inherently anti-human. His fate is a grim reminder that no amount of idealism can salvage a flawed ideology.
For conservatives, Mishka’s bond with Alexander, an aristocrat who values tradition, highlights the enduring strength of individual relationships over ideological divides. Yet, his tragic end—vanishing into the fog—drives home the conservative critique: socialism doesn’t just fail; it destroys the very dreamers who buy into it. Young Americans, swayed by promises of “equity” or “shared prosperity,” must heed Mishka’s lesson. The Constitution, free markets, and personal responsibility—not collectivist experiments—have made America the world’s beacon of opportunity. Mishka’s story, rooted in history’s harsh truths, urges the next generation to reject socialism’s siren call and embrace the rugged individualism that built the nation.
Osip Glebnikov
Osip Glebnikov, portrayed masterfully by Johnny Harris, is a central figure in the series, serving as a loyal enforcer for the Soviet state, the true protagonist of the story, which embodies the ideals of socialist and communist totalitarianism. Harris’s compelling performance—through nuanced demeanor, dialogue, and body language—makes Osip one of the most captivating characters. Introduced early as the warden of the hotel that functions as Alexander’s prison, Osip personifies the silent menace of the KGB and other agencies that suppress freedom and rebellion in socialist states.
Osip inflicts profound emotional pain on Alexander throughout the series. He executes one of Alexander’s friends for attempting to escape the Soviet Union and ensures that none of Alexander’s friends or acquaintances can attend a dinner party held to commemorate his grandmother’s passing. Despite this, Alexander’s resilient spirit, love of freedom, and humanity gradually influence Osip, revealing cracks in his stoic facade.
In a pivotal moment, Osip proposes that Alexander work as a spy, providing information on his friend Mishka to help Osip advance within the Party. This request underscores the pervasive paranoia in socialist states, where anyone could be an informant, leaving citizens in constant fear of betrayal. Although Alexander declines to spy, he agrees to tutor Osip, initiating a complex relationship. Through their discussions of literature, politics, and global affairs, Osip begins to recognize the class divisions within the socialist system, particularly the privileges of the Party elite. These interactions expose Osip’s humanity, revealing him as a caring father who, despite his loyalty to the regime, has been misled by socialist ideals.
Osip’s internal conflict deepens when Alexander’s adoptive daughter, Sofia, is gravely injured after a staircase collapses. Though a high-ranking KGB officer, Osip helps save Sofia’s life by securing Moscow’s best surgeon. When Alexander risks certain death by leaving the hotel, Osip not only conceals his departure but also ensures Sofia’s safety, demonstrating the profound impact of Alexander’s friendship.
As the series approaches its climax, Osip grows anxious about the power transition from Stalin to Nikita Khrushchev. Meanwhile, Alexander devises a plan for Sofia to defect to the United States, agreeing to spy for U.S. intelligence in exchange. Alexander confirms to both Osip and U.S. operatives that Khrushchev will assume leadership. Osip, aware that his loyalty to Stalin jeopardizes his position and his family’s safety, faces a moral dilemma. Influenced by Alexander’s compassion, Osip indirectly aids Sofia’s escape and warns Alexander’s love interest that he is still under surveillance, preventing him from joining her on the train.
A Warning for America
Osip Glebnikov’s storyline, as a KGB enforcer in a suffocating Soviet regime, is a stark warning for today’s younger generation in the U.S., grappling with the creeping tide of collectivism and government overreach. His arc—from a loyal cog in the socialist machine to a man wrestling with his conscience—holds a mirror to the ideological battles defining American politics. Osip’s journey exposes the perils of statism, the suppression of individual liberty, and the seductive lies of egalitarian promises, issues that should jolt young Americans awake to defend their freedoms against progressive encroachments.
Osip’s blind devotion to the Soviet state reflects the conformity demanded by today’s left-leaning cultural and political elites, who wield tools like cancel culture, and woke institutional dogma to silence dissent. The First Amendment, a bedrock of American freedom, is under siege when universities stifle speech or social platforms deplatform voices for challenging progressive orthodoxy. Osip’s role as a state enforcer is a chilling reminder of what happens when power consolidates unchecked, a reality young people must resist as government and corporate collusion grows.
Osip’s gradual disillusionment, sparked by Alexander’s defiance and their discussions exposing socialism’s hypocrisy, aligns with the skepticism conservatives urge against collectivist ideologies. The left’s push for policies like the Green New Deal, student loan forgiveness, or socialized healthcare—sold as fairness—masks a bloated bureaucracy that erodes personal responsibility and economic freedom. Osip’s realization of class divisions within a supposedly classless system parallels the hypocrisy of America’s coastal elites, who champion “equity” while hoarding privilege.
Osip’s redemption—risking everything to aid Sofia’s defection and shield Alexander—underscores the triumph of individual conscience over statist loyalty. For today’s youth, this is a rallying cry to stand unapologetically for their rights. Osip’s story exposes the dangers of trading freedom for the false security of state control, a trap conservatives warn against in every progressive policy that bloats the nanny state. His shift from oppressor to reluctant ally emboldens the viewer to reject the left’s moralizing groupthink and champion the rugged individualism that built America.
Osip’s arc demands the viewer guard the Constitution’s protections against a progressive agenda that mirrors the Soviet playbook—centralized power, suppressed dissent, and hollow promises of utopia. His journey from enforcer to rebel urges conservatives/moderates to hold the line, fight for truth, and preserve the liberties that define a free nation, lest they fall to the same collectivist abyss that ensnared Osip’s world.
Anna Urbanova
Anna Urbanova, portrayed by Mary Elizabeth Winstead, is a celebrated actress and a favorite of the Soviet elite, embodying the role of Count Alexander’s love interest. Her undeniable chemistry with Alexander, played by Ewan McGregor, is amplified by their real-life marriage. Initially, Anna is a privileged citizen, valued by the Party for her fame, which she leverages to maintain appearances for Party members in exchange for prominent film roles. However, her character arc reveals deeper complexities.
Anna exposes a rare flaw in Count Alexander’s character, highlighting his sense of superiority rooted in his royal lineage. As time passes, Anna, like many young actresses, loses her status as the Party’s favorite due to her age. By this point, her relationship with Alexander is deeply established, and she transitions into a maternal role for Sofia. Though still a respected actress, Anna grows disillusioned with the socialist and communist ideals that promise equality for all, but fail to deliver. She recognizes that the state exploits citizens’ unique talents to benefit the Party and its powerful elite, neglecting the needs of the broader population.
Her years with Alexander and as Sofia’s mother reveal the harsh realities of the regime. Anna witnesses the oppressive surveillance within the hotel and the state’s unjust restrictions on personal freedoms, targeting perceived threats without legitimate cause. After all of these experiences she along with Alexander successfully plan the escape of their adoptive daughter from the Soviet Union.
A Warning for America
Anna Urbanova’s story serves as a poignant critique of communism and socialism, reflecting a conservative perspective that emphasizes individual liberty, the dangers of centralized power, and the hypocrisy of collectivist ideologies. Her journey from a celebrated actress favored by the Soviet elite to a disillusioned figure witnessing the regime’s failures underscores the inherent flaws of these systems.
Anna begins as a privileged beneficiary of the socialist state, her fame exploited by the Party to bolster its image. In return, she secures prominent film roles, illustrating how communism often rewards those who serve the ruling class rather than fostering true equality. This transactional dynamic exposes the myth of a classless society, a critique that socialism merely replaces one elite with another, more hypocritical one.
As Anna ages out of her favored status, her established relationship with Alexander and her role as a mother to Sofia shift her perspective. She recognizes that the state’s promise of equality is a facade, as it exploits citizens’ talents for the Party’s benefit while neglecting their needs. This realization aligns with principles that champion individual merit and distrust centralized systems that prioritize political loyalty over fairness. Anna’s disillusionment mirrors the argument that socialism stifles personal freedom and innovation, reducing people to tools of the state.
Her observations of the regime’s surveillance within the hotel and its baseless infringements on personal freedoms further cement her critique. The spy state’s paranoia and control reflect a conservative view that socialist governments inevitably become authoritarian, crushing dissent under the guise of protecting the collective. Anna’s maternal role amplifies this, as she witnesses the state’s betrayal of future generations, a nod to concerns about preserving freedom for posterity.
Ultimately, Anna’s arc serves as an indictment of communism and socialism, exposing their failure to deliver equality and their tendency to foster oppression and hypocrisy. Her journey underscores the value of individual agency and the perils of entrusting personal liberties to a state that prioritizes power over people, resonating with ideals of limited government and personal accountability.
The Ultimate Warning
A Gentleman in Moscow delivers a searing lesson through its characters’ shattered lives: socialism and communism, even for their most devoted followers, render every individual expendable. Loyalty to the state offers no protection when personal merit or perceived privilege clashes with the whims of party elites. These ideologies crush humanity, charity, and decency, demanding unwavering allegiance while silencing dissent to preserve a hollow utopian facade. Traditions of excellence are dismantled, friendships turn to betrayal, and spies live in dread of their masters’ downfall. As socialist rhetoric gains ground in America, with openly collectivist candidates rising to prominence, this series stands as a vivid warning. It lays bare the emotional devastation and moral decay wrought by systems that prioritize power over people, urging young Americans to reject these seductive promises and fiercely defend the individual liberties that define our nation.
