It's not that the Russians have no thought of Stalinist crimes or that they deny them. On the contrary. In general, awareness of the criminal nature of the "red Tsar" governments is rather large. Only that the Russians justify, relativize, sometimes even praise. any say Stalin murdered Russians, but only murdered bad Russians. In their opinion, he was this "good tsar" that eliminated the "bad fighters" – that is, the degenerate, sold-out, treacherous elite – the "Lenin Guard". Especially since many of her representatives had judaic roots. So it is easy for Stalin to justify modern anti-Semites, chauvinists, nationalists who see almost "a right-wing hammer on Jews and cosmopolites" in Gensek – says Dr Maciej Pieczyński, Russianist, Ukrainianist, political scientist, doctor of literature, writer and writer of the weekly “To Things”.
Dear Doctor, “Stalin is always alive” – this is the title of your latest book. Why Stalin and not Lenin? After all, Lenin was to live forever as the father of the revolution, as the father of the founder of the internationalist, stateless, communist movement. Stalin was “only” a continuation of his thoughts... any even consider him a counter-revolutionary traitor to the revolution...
The key word is “revolution”. This word is fundamentally prohibited in modern Russia. Russia is afraid of the revolution due to the fact that it is simply a distortion of the past of Russian statehood, which is based on a strong state with a strong ruler at the head. Then there's order. The revolution in turn is chaos. During the revolution, a strong state breaks down and falls, and this is for most Russian "patriots", or more specifically: imperialists, the top nightmare.
Now that Putin is trying to build a strong state, a strong expansionary empire, erstwhile he deals with political opponents, Lenin is uncomfortable. The personification of specified strong power for him is Stalin – a leader who “ordered post-revolutionary chaos”. And I must stress: I am not talking about what Stalin truly did, I am talking about how he enrolled in Russia's history, how he enrolled himself in the consciousness of most Russians.
Lenin is now seen as a destructive, cosmopolitan, revolutionary force, and Stalin as a ordering force, as the 1 who, colloquially speaking, grabbed the Russians by the face and led them with an iron hand to triumph over fascism, which this triumph is the top national pride of the Russians.
In addition, the word revolution is now banned in Russia in a sense, as it is associated with colorful revolutions, or grassroots pro-Western protests in post-Soviet and post-communist states, which Moscow perceives as artificially created by Western peculiar services.
Putin fears that 1 day specified a colorful revolution will besides come to Russia and he himself will be overthrown. Returning to Lenin, we must remember, of course, that he did not overthrow the Tsar, but the governments created by the overthrow of the Tsar. Nevertheless, Lenin, as the “leader of the revolution”, is associated with the demolition of the Russian Empire. Furthermore, he enjoys the opinion of an internationalist – a man who cared more about winning communism in Russia than any triumph of Russia. Finally, Putin criticises the "water of the revolution" for creating a russian Ukrainian republic with the right to leave the USSR, thus putting the "mine" under Russian statehood. Ukraine calls “Ukraine the name Lenin”. And here he carefully praised Stalin, who had different optics – he advocated that the russian state be uniform and Russian on the ground. The winner was the "internationalist" option – Lenin option. Putin frequently reminds of that.
Stalin, on the another hand, is associated with Greater Russian chauvinism, or – speaking more positively – with Russian patriotism – i.e. as the 1 who focused on Russianism and not on communism...
But I'm sorry. Stalin was Georgian.
True, but he felt Russian, just as Napoleon was not French, and he felt French, and Hitler felt German, even though he was Austrian. This is rather a frequent case that “great” leaders came from another countries. Stalin, as Georgian, knew that he had to decision to lead Russia. Yes, Russia – the “red tsar” understood that it must be more “car” than “red”. And this is because, as he erstwhile said, Russians are specified a nation which must be ruled by 1 person, by the Tsar just. Stalin understood this intellectual request of Russians better than Lenin.
Clearly, it hasn't changed until today. The Russians request a cruel, yet at the same time in their view a good and just Tsar who will take them by their face. If the Tsar hits his face, they'll say they deserve it.
This is the top paradox of Stalin's cult we see in present-day Russia. It's not that the Russians have no thought of Stalinist crimes or that they deny them. On the contrary, the general awareness of the criminal nature of the "red Tsar" governments is rather large. Only that the Russians justify, relativize, sometimes even praise. any say Stalin murdered Russians, but only murdered bad Russians. In their view, Stalin was this "good tsar" that eliminated the "bad fighters" – that is, the degenerate, sold-out, treacherous elite, the "Lenin Guard". Especially since many of her representatives had judaic roots. So it is easy for Stalin to justify modern anti-Semites, chauvinists, nationalists who see almost "a right-wing hammer on Jews and cosmopolites" in the Gensek.
Another communicative says that Stalin frequently murdered wrongly, but it was essential to do so to "harden the steel of the Russian people." If Stalin hadn't toughened the Russians, the russian Union wouldn't have defeated Hitler. Interestingly, this kind of thesis is said, for example, by liberal, absolutely anti-communist, anti-stalinist and pro-Western in his beliefs by writer Dmitry Bykov, according to whom Stalin created a "Soviet superman". In his opinion, had it not been for this Stalinist terror, the “Soviet people” would not have endured the war against Hitler.
Another view of the substance assumes that the period of Stalinism was nothing different due to the fact that in Russia it has always reigned and reigned violence. You can't avoid her. You can only choose 1 of 2 types. force can so be either chaotic or orderly. In the first case, we are dealing with many different force centers, as in the 1990s, erstwhile Russia was ruled by oligarchs and gangsters. specified bloody chaos is especially dangerous, due to the fact that unpredictable. Therefore, mostly the only acceptable alternate is to accept orderly force – a state dictatorship. Then, of course, people get killed, too, but at least you know by whose hand. And mostly those who openly argue this power are killed. Of the 2 evil, naturally humble and passive Russians choose the latter.
Such force embodies Stalin. Is that why Vladimir Vladimir Putin has to him, so to speak, an ambivalent attitude, that is, neither condemns his worship nor glorifies him at the same time? Not much: in your book you pay attention to Putin's historical speeches. If they are aimed at Western states and media, Stalin's name appears in them either erstwhile or not at all. In turn, if we read the content of the same Russian speeches, it turns out that Putin summons Stalin five, ten, 15 times.
Putin is well aware that the West does not realize Stalin's cult...
I'm sorry, but how does he not understand? After all, the West understands the cult of the French Revolution, during which the genocide of the Christians of Wandea occurred. The West in its own way understands the worship of Mao Zedong and promotes it to a affirmative revolutionary who loved culture. specified examples can be cited more. The West understands, justifies, even promotes criminals, and does not realize Stalin's cult?
Paradoxically, this argument, in a sense rightly, frequently uses Putin against the West. erstwhile he hears that Stalin was a cruel criminal, he replies: “But the West besides worships tyrants specified as Cromwell.” And that's mostly true. However, it is besides worth noting another aspect of the matter. Well, the West, worshiping various morally questionable characters, is silent about their crime. Putin admits that Stalin's panic occurred. but this panic doesn't bother him to praise Stalin for, for example, abroad policy. Another thing is that the West frequently fails to realize how the Russians can worship triumph over the 3rd Reich, since it was achieved at specified a large cost. It's so unpragmatic! So ridiculous! Pyrrus victory! – 1 would like to say. But the Russians look at it differently. For they are arrogant of victory, the more they are ransomed by dense losses. They worship battles, won “at the touch”, at the expense of losing the sea of blood of their own soldiers. In this they remind us – Poles. But we worship defeat, occupied by the sea of blood. At least they won...
This is what the West cannot understand. “How can this failure Stalin, who led to the death of millions, who so ineptly led this Red Army to worship?” asks the West. “Perhaps Stalin was bloody and inept, but yet led Russia to triumph and that is the most important”, the Russians answer.
We know that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact is widely recognised in the West as the event that led to the outbreak of planet War II. We know that the more Russia confronts the West with historical arguments, the more the West condemns Hitler's alliance with Stalin. We yet know that the West of Stalin does not love, but the Russians love it and request it not as a communist, but a strong leader for hard times.
And it can't be said that Putina Russia is any kind of russian museum. specified a russian museum is Belarus Lukashenko, where it refers in rule exclusively to russian heritage. Putin's Russia is synchronic in historical memory, historical policy. That is why Putin in Stalin's case is cautious and has an ambivalent attitude towards him. It is not that all Russians love Stalin. It is simply a personification of the dreams and intentions of the Russians, but at the same time it creates controversy and Putin has to do everything in his power to combine it all.
Putin, as I noted, praises Stalin for abroad policy. As far as panic is concerned, he admits that Stalin murdered people, but that's due to the fact that he was a kid of his own time – violent, demanding cruelty from the leaders. Putin tries to blur that responsibility, Stalin tries to explain it, relativize his guilt.
We will not hear from Putin that Stalin was a knight without blemish, but we will hear that he created a large empire reaching to the Swan and defeated Fascism, or "the top evil in the past of the world." So if Russia has defeated fascism, and all triumph – especially in Russia – must have its leader, then Stalin cannot be completely eliminated, and even his respect should be respected.
At the same time Putin or contemporary Russia besides mention to the tsaric times. That's continuity. This is something that the Polish recipient is hard to understand. It is simple here: a patriot is an anti-communist. In Russia, communism was not an business strategy due to the fact that it was not imposed from outside. Communism was actually created by the Russians themselves. Of course, this ideology was born in the west. The communists themselves came to power in Russia as a consequence of civilian war. It was the Russians themselves who created the communist state and this communist state truly is another version of the imperial Russian state. It is not crucial whether Russia is red, white, pink or rainbow. The crucial thing is that Russia is simply a powerful country.
Putin in his historical policy combines themes of a powerful Tsar state, a powerful State of Stalin, etc. A powerful country that besides has good contacts with the church. Let us remind you who opened the church during planet War II...
Stalin did this, of course, in 1943. He actually rehabilitated the Orthodox church. But he did so only to submit to it, to make it an ideological tool to fight the German invasion, a tool essential in conditions of aggression. People did not want to die solely for communism. .
Stalin referred mostly to the tradition of czars. He knew that the Russians needed to believe in any mix of communism with Russian patriotism, not just in communism. But it is besides absurd to claim that Stalin was any kind of protector of Christianity. And unfortunately, specified narratives besides appear in modern Russia. There was even a movement called “the Orthodox Stalinism”. It is the emanation of the red-brown alliance, or the alliance of the far right with the far left. An alliance whose common denominator is the thought of strong inside and aggressive outside the state, whatever – communist or capitalist. As part of this movement, even the alleged Stalin icon was created. More specifically, the icon of “The parent of God’s Power”, on which Stalin is depicted. The “religious” justification is as follows: since Nazism was the most terrible evil in the past of the world, and besides threatened the existence of Russia, which is sacred to Russians, Stalin, the leader of the triumph over Nazism, is besides holy.
Whether it is for the Orthodox Russians, or for the atheistic Russians, the state is the most sacred and so the 1 who rules a strong, powerful state is simply a holy man. That is why we can even talk in Russia about a phenomenon specified as Orthodox Stalinism.
At 1 time, Polish media informed about the unveiling of further monuments of Stalin in Russia. Is Stalin just on the memorials, or is he besides a literary, television, movie hero, etc.?
Stalin's character appears, of course, in culture, in public science. It is worth mentioning Alexander Prochanów. He's an ideologist of the red-brown alliance, a stalinist. In his publications, he coined the explanation of 5 Stalins. According to her, the past of Russia is simply a communicative of a large empire ruled and ruled by 5 large leaders. And the large leader is Stalin. The first Stalin was Vladimir the Great, the second Ivan the Terrible, the 3rd Peter the Great, the 4th Stalin himself, and the 5th only late became Putin. Recently, after the invasion of Ukraine. Only then, in the eyes of Prochanov, did he deserve the name Stalin.
Fortunately, there are moments erstwhile Russian culture tries to exposure Stalin's cult. It is worth mentioning the loud performance by Kirił Sieriebriennikov “The Stalin's Funeral”. It is simply a documentary show whose creators effort to bury not even the dictator anymore, what its cult. The play features both witnesses of Stalin's ceremony and contemporary cultural creators who bitterly announcement that present the russian tyrant is one more time adored by their countrymen.
Does Putin want to be the fresh Stalin himself?
He would, but he won't admit it yet.
Maybe he's ashamed after all.
He's not ashamed, he's afraid.
Stalin in Russia is simply a very crucial figure, but it is not that everyone loves him. Russian historical policy is syncretic – it combines russian and Tsarical themes. It frequently combines mutually exclusive traditions. Stalin is most likely the most beloved figure (as the investigation results indicate), but besides creates strong controversy, not only in the West – besides in Russia. Putin must so lay between these different environments. In my opinion, he would like to put Stalin on a pedestal, and he would surely like to be the fresh Stalin in this sense, who will defeat the West. The West is, in the eyes of many Russians, evil incarnate. Evil, due to the fact that it threatens the existence of Russia. Throughout history, this evil had various manifestations of the identity of the West – Catholicism, Protestantism, liberalism, later fascism, Nazism, now leftist Europe, NATO and the U.S. hegemony.
Hitler in the memory and consciousness of the Russians was and is the personification of another "bad West" personification who tried to conquer Russia. It utilized to be Poland, which occupied the Kremlin in the early 17th century. Later in the 19th century it was Napoleon, and in the 1940s it was Hitler. By analogy Putin would surely want to defeat the West – in this case, above all, defeat NATO – so Stalin erstwhile defeated the 3rd Reich.
It is besides worth remembering that the beginnings of Putin’s regulation were not so radical. In the first years of the 21st century, he hoped to scope an agreement with the West. He hoped to be invited to the conversation table as an equal partner, to attend any fresh power concert. And thus, that the West will let it to conduct an imperial policy towards “near foreign” will let it to keep its own sphere of influence.
Stalin, as the Doctor has already said here, is promoted by any as a defender of Orthodoxy. Putin in turn is promoted to catechone and defender of all Christianity. Here, however, I am reminded of the video you posted on the X platform. We see Putin at the mosque. The president of Russia kisses the Koran, takes pictures with him, and smiles friendlyly at Islamist Kadyrov. How is this the defence of Christianity by Putin?
This is simply a very interesting subject, very crucial and very controversial. The West right frequently succumbs to the illusion that Putin is any kind of foreground of Christianity that it is any Orthodox tsar.
The key word, erstwhile it comes to Putin's ideology, is syncretism, which means that Putin combines different themes, e.g. Stalin with Ivan the Terrible, with Nicholas II, with Dmitri Donski or Alexander Newski etc. The same is actual of spiritual matters.
The patriarch Cyril is his footstool. The Orthodox church is primarily a propaganda center and an instrument of ideology for Putin. Of course, not the full church, but a crucial part of it.
At the same time, Russia, which we must remember, is not a national state. Russia is simply a multinational empire, an crucial component of which is Islam.
An example is Chechnya. How did Putin conquer Chechnya? How was that possible? After all, the militant highlanders have resisted powerful Russia for centuries – both white and red. What did Putin do? He conquered Chechnya with the hands of the Chechens themselves, specifically with the hands of the Kadyrov clan.
Putin gave Chechnya autonomy. It is simply a state of the Russian Federation, de facto It is governed by the law of Sharia, whose “iron hand” is guarded by Kadyrov.
In general, Chechnya is simply a state in the state; a practically Muslim state.
Kadyrov from the beginning of the alleged peculiar military operation spoke of Chechnya in Ukraine leading their jihad that they were fighting the enemies of Islam. Let us not be surprised, then, that Putin is kissing the Quran erstwhile he sends Muslims to Ukraine.
But that is not all. Putin besides puts on specified a thesis that Russia fights in the name of the multipolar world. Kremlin propaganda says that the planet is truly ruled by 1 camp, 1 civilization. It is simply a Western civilization. A single-polar planet whose only pole is Washington.
And what does Putin do? He announces lice and that he wants to break through this hegemony so that not everyone has to submit to Washington's will. It does not, of course, say that it is about Russia's taking over the full planet or the creation of a Russian sphere of influence worldwide. He says he wants to build a multipolar world, or start a fresh performance of powers, that he wants a planet composed of many regional empires. Who would be curious in creating specified a multipolar planet too Russia? The muslim world, which is besides conflicted with the Western world.
Putin so favors himself, trying to communicate with many regional powers that simply hatred the West. This West for Putin is like the most crucial enemy, which is again traditionally Russian. So the point is to break the West's hegemony by all possible means. erstwhile it will wear the mask of a friend of Islam, another time – defenders of Christianity. Many fall for it by becoming consciously or unconsciously his allies.
Thank you for talking to me.
