• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Central Asia",
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Europe

Missing the USSR

To mention the Soviet Union on most of its former territory evokes pleasant nostalgia, not revulsion. However, no one, beginning with President Putin, is planning its second coming.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Jan 15, 2014

What is there to miss about the Soviet Union? "Nothing," say those who live west of the old Soviet border. "The day the USSR ended was a day of liberation."

Hence the gravity intended in the warnings of Western politicians that Vladimir Putin’s Eurasian Union project is a new Soviet Union in disguise. Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton set the trend when she commented in December 2012 that the union was "a move to re-Sovietise the region."

Those same leaders should pause to take a look at a Gallup poll taken last month in 11 of the 15 former Soviet republics (Uzbekistan and the Baltic States were left out).

It showed that in seven of the 11 countries more people believe that the break-up of the Soviet Union harmed their country more than it benefited them.

This answer comes from people of all ages and all corners of the former union. In Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Ukraine barely 20 per cent of those polled voicing positive thoughts about the end of the USSR. (The highest rate of approval for the demise of the Soviet Union actually came in authoritarian Turkmenistan, which is a little suspicious—this surely is one place which was actually more free and open 25 years ago than today.)

Of course the Soviet Union people are missing for is a figment of the imagination. It is not that of Stalin or the late 1980s but most likely that of Brezhnev's 1970's consumer boom, an era recalled as one of innocence and prosperity at home and respect and fear abroad.

Vladimir Putin is often quoted as having called the end of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century." The actual quotation, made in his speech to parliament in April 2005, is more ambiguous and could equally be translated as "the tremendous geopolitical catastrophe of the age."

Either way, it was not a programmatic speech. Putin has also more than once approvingly quoted a phrase from the 1990s made popular by the strongman of that era, Alexander Lebed, "Whoever does not regret the destruction of the Soviet Union doesn't have a heart, whoever wants to recreate it doesn't have a head."

Most Russians, it would seem, agree. To mention the Soviet Union on most of its territory evokes pleasant nostalgia, not revulsion. But, fortunately no one, beginning with President Putin, is planning its second coming.

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

De Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Taking the Pulse: Is It Time for Europe to Reengage With Belarus?

      Thomas de Waal, ed.

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
Foreign PolicyCentral AsiaCaucasusRussiaEastern Europe

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

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Are China and Russia Not Rushing to Help Iran?

    Most of Moscow’s military resources are tied up in Ukraine, while Beijing’s foreign policy prioritizes economic ties and avoids direct conflict.   

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev, Temur Umarov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Georgia’s Fall From U.S. Favor Heralds South Caucasus Realignment

    With the White House only interested in economic dealmaking, Georgia finds itself eclipsed by what Armenia and Azerbaijan can offer.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What Does War in the Middle East Mean for Russia–Iran Ties?

    If the regime in Tehran survives, it could be obliged to hand Moscow significant political influence in exchange for supplies of weapons and humanitarian aid.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Trump’s Wars Are Boosting Russian Oil Exports

    The interventions in Iran and Venezuela are in keeping with Trump’s strategy of containing China, but also strengthen Russia’s position.

      • Mikhail Korostikov

      Mikhail Korostikov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How Far Can Russian Arms Help Iran?

    Arms supplies from Russia to Iran will not only continue, but could grow significantly if Russia gets the opportunity.

      Nikita Smagin

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.