In an unprecedented move, the license for the film “The Death of Stalin” was revoked by Russia’s Culture Ministry just two days before its release on Jan. 25.

It is impossible to argue the film was banned because of aesthetics. The only explanation is that it was banned for political or ideological reasons.

The most bizarre aspect of the ban is that the appeal to Culture Minister Vladimir Medinsky came from the very same Culture Ministry’s Public Council, meaning that the ministry itself initiated the ban — a fact that nobody is even trying to hide.

Officials, apparently, did not mind that literally yanking the film out of distributors’ hands just hours before its scheduled release might embroil the ministry in yet another scandal.

Only last week, the ministry postponed, then moved forward, the release date of the children’s film “Paddington 2.”

What appeared to be an obvious blunder by officials now looks like a cunning maneuver in the spirit of Field Marshal Kutuzov – a deceptive blow to “Paddington” followed by a rapid and unexpected knockout blow to “The Death of Stalin.”

That tactic mostly worked: Theater owners raised almost no fuss over lost proceeds from the fuzzy bear film and knew to keep quiet over the clearly political decision to ban “The Death of Stalin.”

Apparently, the Culture Ministry does not fear damaging its own image or taking political risks.

In the run-up to presidential elections, the Kremlin arguably had more to gain from letting the comedy about Stalin appear in theaters than from imposing another ban – the move is both predictable and it reinforces the country’s generally negative prognosis for the future. Still, the authorities went for the ban.

They only assume so many risks all at once when they believe the alternative is even more dangerous. Which begs the question: What did they fear would happen if they released “The Death of Stalin”?

In their appeal to Culture Minister Medinsky, cultural figures accused the film of “lampooning the history of our country” and “blackening the memory of our citizens who conquered fascism.” The action of the film, however, takes place in 1953 and makes no mention of the war — it takes a great deal of imagination to link the two.

The only people who could actually take offense at a comedy about Stalin are those who support him, meaning that the Culture Ministry banned the film out of a sense of personal insult.

What’s more, the authors of the letter were not concerned about the crimes committed by Stalin’s regime, which have been detailed both in Russia and abroad. It was the positive image of the dictator that current Russian leaders perpetuate that worried them.

But even the explanation that officials banned the film to prevent Stalinists from staging protests similar to those that followed the release of the film “Mathilde” – that cast Tsar Nicholas II in a less than divine light – seems far-fetched.

Russian film director Nikita Mikhalkov was among those who expressed indignation over the comedy written and directed by Scottish satirist Armando Iannucci.