11 Comments
User's avatar
Marc Handelsman's avatar

President Putin was correct by saying, "Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."

Nicholas Reed's avatar

Thank you for reading, indeed he took a measured approach and didn't give in to blanket nostalgia, perhaps a wise move.

A Skeptic's avatar

Thanks for your great work Nicholas!

We've restacked and shared this link on 'The Stacks'

https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-stacks

John Brophy's avatar

The Sobchak saga is another interesting story for another day. Putin´s ex-boss was destined for greatness until he was taken down and had his campaign funding cut off.

Nicholas Reed's avatar

Too liberal maybe.

V900's avatar

Why Stalin is popular? Because he’s the great Russian nation builder obviously.

Who reversed the territorial humiliations of WW1/The Russian civil war and turned the country into a super power.

He was in more than one sense a Red Czar. (Though leadership in principle was collective.)

They had to lie about Stalin and make up stories about “40-60.000.000 dead, in order to slander him. That really says it all.

Nicholas Reed's avatar

Thank you for reading! I agree with your points.

V900's avatar
Jan 24Edited

Btw: All the nonsense about tens of millions of dead was exposed when the archives of the USSR were opened for a while in the 90ies.

The total number of dead in the Gulag system over THIRTY YEARS was around 1,5 million. The vast majority of whom was during the war years when even regular Russians sometimes were starving.

Will R.'s avatar

This is a compelling synthesis of material conditions and political memory, particularly in how you frame Stalin not as an ideological revival, but as a functional symbol of order and continuity.

The point about the 1990s as a formative trauma is especially persuasive. It helps explain why figures like Stalin can be reinterpreted less through the lens of repression and more through state capacity and national restoration.

What I find most interesting is the distinction you imply between bottom-up nostalgia and top-down instrumentalisation. The piece suggests Putin didn’t invent Stalin’s rehabilitation so much as recognise and stabilise an existing psychological and political demand within Russian society.

One question that comes out of this: to what extent does this kind of historical synthesis (tsarist + Soviet + modern state) actually resolve ideological tension, and to what extent does it just defer it?

I’ve been exploring similar themes around political legacy on Stalin in my podcast - since you have a deep understanding of this topic I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts if you get a spare few minutes.

John Varoli's avatar

Bravo! Extraordinary article. Insightful, erudite and balanced. This should be required reading in universities and for officials in western governments.