Commentary
Nikolay Petrov
{
"authors": [
"Nikolay Petrov"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
The Children of Stalin
Stalin’s growing popularity in Russia is less a function of an organized state propaganda effort to promote him than it is a result of the government’s lack of interest in setting the historical record straight on Stalin. Attention is increasingly focused on the greatness of the country and its achievements under Stalin’s rule.
Published on Sep 1, 2009
Source: the Moscow Times
The second was the opening of Moscow’s newly renovated Kurskaya metro station, whose walls once again bear a verse from the 1944 version of the Soviet anthem: “Stalin raised us to be loyal to the nation; He inspired us to work and be heroic.”
This phrase had been plastered over during Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev’s campaign against Stalin’s personality cult. On the eve of commemorations marking the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II, both events can be viewed as elements of Russia’s domestic and foreign policies.
Praising Stalin on the walls of the Kurskaya metro station can be seen as an excellent test. But it is not so much a test for the public as it is a test for the political elite. It is telling that so far not a single official has taken personal responsibility for allowing the public praise of Stalin. Politicians are biding their time. They are in no rush to touch this hot potato. This especially applies to members of the main political parties who are currently engaged in an election campaign for seats in the Moscow City Duma. Only the Yabloko party has come out with a clearly defined position. It issued a harsh evaluation of Stalin and condemned the decision to by the Moscow authorities to adorn the Kurskaya station with words of praise for Stalin.
It is no secret that Stalin enjoys enormous popularity in Russia, as was demonstrated a year ago by the television project titled “The Name of Russia.” The fact that he is so popular is less a function of an organized state propaganda effort to promote Stalin than it is a result of the government’s lack of interest in setting the historical record straight on Stalin.
It is also a manifestation of the primacy of state interests over the interests of individuals — even when those individuals number in the millions. In recent years, the authorities have persistently cultivated the Stalinist myth in the public mind. Attention is increasingly focused on the greatness of the country and its achievements under Stalin’s rule — primarily the rapid modernization of the economy and the Soviet victory in World War II.
Even the occasional harsh criticism of Stalin refer only to his crimes and repressions in domestic affairs, while foreign policy was always viewed as peaceful. The cornerstone of post-Soviet ideology is the myth of the Soviet people — liberators who through their colossal sacrifices brought the world salvation from the “brown plague” of Nazism.
During his visit to Poland on Tuesday, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin — who in many ways propagates the spirit of the Stalin myth — is expected to articulate the latest version of the role the Soviet Union and Stalin played in World War II. Putin’s account of the Soviet role in World War II runs counter to that of all other leaders of countries that participated in the war.
History has given Putin a new chance to offer a more balanced and honest picture of Moscow’s role in World War II. On Tuesday, let’s hope he takes advantage of this opportunity.
About the Author
Nikolay Petrov
Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center
Nikolay Petrov was the chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Society and Regions Program. Until 2006, he also worked at the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences, where he started to work in 1982.
- Moscow Elections: Winners and Losers
- September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' CoevolutionCommentary
Nikolay Petrov
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Will Russia–Armenia Relations Improve Following Pashinyan’s Re-Election?Commentary
For all the menacing rhetoric, the Armenian prime minister remains a leader with whom Putin is prepared to interact: not as an ally, but as a partner, albeit a problematic one.
Alexander Atasuntsev
- The World According to Putin: No Deal on Ukraine in SightCommentary
The issue is not that the president only has selective information at his disposal, but that the decision-making process consists of one person with an unshakeable vision of how the world works.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- Who Does Azerbaijan Want to See Win Armenia’s Elections?Commentary
By fueling the arguments of both supporters and opponents of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijan wants to ensure he is re-elected with a weaker mandate.
Bashir Kitachaev
- Russia’s Elite Conflict Over Internet Restrictions Does Not Herald Regime CollapseCommentary
A much-discussed disagreement over internet restrictions in Russia was never an existential threat for Putin: It was about elite groups protecting their interests.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Is Belarus Really Set to Return to the Ukraine War?Commentary
By reminding the world that Lukashenko is a threat to NATO and Ukraine, Kyiv is trying to return the focus to why the Belarusian regime needs to be contained rather than rewarded.
Artyom Shraibman
