Unlike Stalin, Putin Will Leave Behind Not A Strong State But Only ‘Ruins’ – OpEd

By

In a new book, Amusing Russia. 228 Answers, Sergey Shelin argues that Vladimir Putin is concerned only with himself and his own survival and as a result is not so much building a new political system as destroying its existing institutions. He will thus leave behind him not a strong state as Stalin did but only “ruins.”

The murder of Muamar Qaddafi shocked Putin and led him to conclude that the West was after him and that he must do everything possible to save himself regardless of the consequences for Russia or for the international system, the Russian commentator says (severreal.org/a/posle-putina-ostanutsya-razvaliny-228-otvetov-na-vse-voprosy-o-rossii/33283990.html).

That fear, Shelin continues, has put Putin on a very different trajectory than Stalin followed despite the frequent comparisons with the late Soviet dictator that are often made. “Stalin,” he writes, “adapted the state system of the USSR to himself and then worked to protect it.”

“Putin in contrast hats the state institutions of the Russian Federation” as constraints and has “managed to destroy them all.” That has consequences for the future: “After Stalin, a totalitarian dictatorship remained; after Putin, only ruins will be left” with the need to rebuild almost everything.

According to Shelin, “Stalin viewed the USSR as his ceation, but Putin looks at the Russian Federation as an instrument for his hobbies. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. That is why his state adventurism knows no bounds: he is not responsible to anyone for anything not even in his imagination.” 

Putin’s exclusive focus on himself is not unique to Russian leaders, but it is an extreme form of that disease and one that shows what can happen when institutions designed to limit such people instead are destroyed by them and then have to be rebuilt from the ground up, Shelin’s book suggests.  

Paul Goble

Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia. Most recently, he was director of research and publications at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy. Earlier, he served as vice dean for the social sciences and humanities at Audentes University in Tallinn and a senior research associate at the EuroCollege of the University of Tartu in Estonia. He has served in various capacities in the U.S. State Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the International Broadcasting Bureau as well as at the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Goble maintains the Window on Eurasia blog and can be contacted directly at [email protected] .

5 thoughts on “Unlike Stalin, Putin Will Leave Behind Not A Strong State But Only ‘Ruins’ – OpEd

  • January 27, 2025 at 2:19 pm
    Permalink

    Yes, Putin’s administration has been marked by increasing authoritarianism, suppression of political dissent, and control over the media. Such actions by most strong leaders generally stifle democratic freedoms within their country. Experts over the years have warned that combination of economic hardship and political repression has created an environment of potential social unrest or political instability in Russia. However, Putin has faced these economic and internal challenges with China’s President Xi bailing him out.
    If the Ukraine war comes to an end Putin will definitely address these issues on Priority. Views on Putin appear to be over exaggerated. In reality the West and Zelensky have led Ukraine into ruins by forcing Ukraine to fight their Proxy War to weaken Russia.

    Reply
  • January 28, 2025 at 12:25 am
    Permalink

    I am bemused by Patial RC’s observation that ‘the West and Zelensky have led Ukraine into ruins by forcing Ukraine to fight their Proxy War to weaken Russia’.

    The only thing forcing Ukrainians to fight this war is the invasion by Russia of their homeland. The alternative to Ukrainians fighting this ‘Proxy War’ is submission to a Russian dictatorial model that promotes violence as a virtue, will lead to the evisceration of free speech and thought and the extinction of Ukrainian culture and language.

    According to Patial RC the people facing a Ukraine like situation should just go belly up and that other countries should not interfere. If this ‘Patial RC model’ was followed, Europe including Russia would be dominated by a ruthless Nazi state as would Asia by a ruthless fascist state.

    Reply
  • January 28, 2025 at 2:06 pm
    Permalink

    Boris Johnson Pressured Zelensky to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper “The British government has become an obstacle to peace in Ukraine,” said the Stop the War Coalition. “The conflict there is developing into a proxy war between Russia and NATO and it is the Ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences.”
    The negotiations held in Istanbul, Turkey, in March 2022 were a significant attempt to mediate peace between Ukraine and Russia. These talks raised hopes for a potential breakthrough. The deal was ultimately rejected in April 2022. The world populace feels sorry for Ukraine for the war that could have been avoided and widely believes that former UK PM Boris Johnson flew in to convince President Zelensky to leave the negotiations and promised sufficient Western support to Ukraine to win the war.

    Reply
    • January 29, 2025 at 11:50 pm
      Permalink

      Patial RC’s fails to mention, that the peace talks with Russia in March 2022, which Zelensky supposedly ditched, on Boris Johnson’s encouragement, were in reality, a demand for Ukrainian capitulation. It would have required that Ukraine become a state submissive to Russia, not unlike Belarus, to cede all the eastern provinces and pay reparations for war damages.

      Boris Johnson’s support for Ukraine was in response to Zelensky’s appeal; ‘I need weapons, not a ride”! It was more akin to Churchill’s appeal to America in 1941; ‘give us the tools and we will finish the job’.

      The suggestion that the British Government, led by Johnson was an obstacle to peace in Ukraine is an absurdity. Britain didn’t start this war, just like they didn’t start WW2. Both wars were started by powers with ruthless aspirations for imperial domination.

      If Ukraine had been unable to oppose the Russian invasion it would have seen the extinction of Ukrainian statehood, culture and language, plus, millions of refugees fleeing westward. But according to Patial RC, that was OK, because at least there would be peace!

      Reply
  • January 31, 2025 at 6:04 am
    Permalink

    Dear Derrick Baragwanath what I had stated is from the media .You may like to take note of the role of former UK PM Johnson , “The West isn’t ready for the war to end”: Johnson’s meeting with Zelensky on 10 April 2022, proved to be rather important. During their bilateral meeting, Johnson apparently advised Zelensky not to entertain a compromise peace nor to offer Russia Ukrainian neutrality to end the war. Instead, Johnson encouraged Zelensky to continue fighting to decisively defeat Russia. Subsequently, Johnson was blamed for having encouraged Zelensky to ignore the opportunity to end the war within two months of Moscow’s invasion.([6] The Times & The Sunday Times, January 11, 2024)
    The Ukrainian news outlet Ukrayinska Pravda reported Thursday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used his surprise visit to Kyiv last month to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia, even after the two sides appeared to have made tenuous progress toward a settlement to end the war.
    “I really don’t see how the Ukrainians can easily sit down and come to some kind of accommodation,” he added. “How can you negotiate with a crocodile when it’s got your leg in its jaws?”(The Guardian)
    “Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement,” wrote Fiona Hill and Angela Stent. The news highlights the impact of former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s efforts to stop negotiations, as journalist Branko Marcetic noted on Twitter. The decision to scuttle the deal coincided with Johnson’s April visit to Kyiv, during which he reportedly urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to break off talks with Russia for two key reasons: Putin cannot be negotiated with, and the West isn’t ready for the war to end. No more future comments from my end on the subject .

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *