From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin

Will Russia Upend the World Order?

There is no doubt that the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 changed the world order. Trillions of dollars had been spent on armaments and strategies to defeat the USSR since the 1950s. Subsequently, this Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was replaced by 15 independent countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan as outlined by Britannica.

Since the de-amalgamation of the USSR, Russia has continued to play a key role in world affairs, as befits a country with 11 time zones. President Putin became Acting President on 31 December 1999, following the resignation of President Yeltsin and Putin has been in control since then, despite a small hiatus when he swapped roles with Dmitry Medvedev (who was Prime Minister) between 2008 and 2012.

Although the relationship with the US was often difficult, during President Obama’s presidency, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was dispatched to Moscow in March 2009 to promote a “reset” of the relationship. In a diplomatic disaster, Clinton presented the Russia Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov (still Foreign Minister today) with a red button (see Figure 1). Lavrov appeared confused and Inquisitr described the confusion as follows:

“When Clinton noticed that Lavrov was looking at the words with a confused expression on his face, she mentioned that they had worked hard to get the proper word in Russian.

“Do you think we got it?” she asked him.

Lavrov laughed as he said, “You got it wrong.”

He went on to inform Clinton that it should have read “perezagruzka,” which is the actual word for reset. Instead, Hillary Clinton had mistakenly inscribed a word that means “overcharged.”

It’s probably a good thing that he didn’t press the button!

Figure 1. Hilary Clinton presents Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with a red button in March 2009. Source.

There was a period when Russia was friendly with the West, particularly the Europeans. However, Russia entered Western consciousness most dramatically with the release of the “fake” Steele dossier. The salacious report by a former British secret service officer came to light in 2016 and was used by the Democratic Party (in effect, it commissioned the report) to portray Donald Trump as a stooge of President Putin.

In January 2017 (before Trump’s inauguration), Forbes Magazine, a reasonably independent publication wrote a report titled: The Trump Dossier is Fake - And Here Are the Reasons Why. Forbes reported:

“The PDF file of the 30-page typewritten report alleges that high Kremlin officials colluded with Trump, offered him multi-billion dollar bribes, and accumulated compromising evidence of Trump’s sexual escapades in Russia. That the dossier comes from former British intelligence officers appears, at first glance, to give it weight especially with Orbis’ claim of a “global network.” The U.S. intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them.”

The end result was a detailed almost two year investigation by a former US Attorney General, Robert Mueller, published in April 2019 - see details here. The 448 page report did not demonstrate any involvement of President Trump or his campaign with Russia.

Russia gradually faded into the background of world events but everything changed when Russia invaded Ukraine on 22 February 2022. As I wrote a few weeks later in my substack post of 19 March 2022:

“I went to collect some fruit and vegetables from my local wholesaler a few days ago and I remarked to the group assembled “Putin has got rid of the coronavirus”. Everyone was amazed at how powerful Putin was as they hadn’t heard of his remarkable powers until I explained that all our papers were full of coronavirus until Putin invaded Ukraine and then there was suddenly no problem. Thus – Putin “fixed” the China Virus!”.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine certainly pushed COVID-19 off the front pages and we hardly heard about it again as the narrative moved in support of Ukraine and against the “dictator Putin”. President Zelenskyy managed to drum up support for Ukraine while dressed in his battle fatigues and billions of dollars of support from the West appear to have gone missing. It seems likely that Ukrainian officials will turn up in far flung locations in the future with a lot of cash.

Ukraine, Putin and Trump

During his re-election campaign in 2024, Donald Trump repeatedly spoke about how he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. It was hard to see how he could do this and whether he had some secret key or whether it was hyperbole. However, now that Trump and Zelenskyy have met at the Vatican during the funeral for Pope Francis, it seems that President Trump has realised that President Putin may not be as easy to deal with and stop the war, as he had previously thought. We don’t know the cards that Trump holds and of course the key cards are military and financial support for Ukraine from the US. Without this support, the Ukraine can’t survive very long and Russia has a history of holding out in wars of attrition, most significantly during the Second World War.

I have realised that I had only a limited understanding of Russian history and have been listening to a range of talks by Professor Jeffrey Sachs who demonstrates that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a disaster that was provoked by the US and NATO deciding to expand east.

One of his recent videos is included below and is worthwhile viewing. Sachs clearly articulates the argument that the push by various US administrations to have Ukraine join NATO was a bridge too far for President Putin. The war seems to have been incited by the US and its Western allies and has been fought with the blood of young Ukrainian men - around 500,000 killed or wounded in three years of fighting.

Now Trump is trying to bring fighting to an end but it is possible that he may not understand the precedents to this war and the last 100 years of Russian history.

From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin

For the last few weeks I have been reading a fascinating book: From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913-2023 by Dr Vladimir N Brovkin. Dr Brovkin grew up and studied in St Petersburg, after which he obtained a Masters degree for Georgetown University. He then completed a PhD at Princeton and has taught Russian history at Harvard.

Dr Brovkin’s book is described this way by the author:

“This book integrates Soviet and post-Soviet Russian history into a coherent whole by focusing on the culture, role models, habits and behavior patterns that provide continuity between various political regimes, systems, and rulers from Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin.

The unifying theme of all these periods is the central question of identity – how the Russians have defined themselves, their country, and their values. Why did the Bolsheviks try to erase any trace of Old Russia and with what did they try to replace it? Why did Stalin wipe out the kulaks and the old Bolsheviks? What were the political consequences of the Great Patriotic War on the Russians as people? When post-Stalin Russia slowly weakened and gave way to the humanism and Westernization that led to the collapse of the Soviet system, why did the 1990s generate a resurgence of anti-western nationalism? And how to explain the slow and steady break with the West under President Putin?”

Dr Brovkin’s unique insights into Russian history are helpful to understand Russia today and President Putin’s decision to invade the Ukraine. I have tried to give readers a taste of the book in this newsletter with some quotes and an outline.

The book is divided into 11 chapters and I have included the chapter titles below to provide an overview of the structure and how Dr Brovkin has divided up the 100 plus years:

1. Smashing the State, Its Culture and Institutions 1917-1918;

2. Constructing a New Political Order;

3. Old Cultural Practices in a New Form: NEP Russia 1921-1929;

4. The Rise of the Stalinist Dictatorship and of a New Soviet Identity;

5. The Great Patriotic War: The Fusion of the Russian and Soviet Identity;

6. Post-War Stalinism: 1945-1953;

7. Stalinism with a Human Face:The Kruschev Decade:1953-1964;

8. The Brezhnev Era: Re-emergence of the Independent Thought;

9. Back to European Values: Soviet Society under Gorbachev;

10. Disillusionment in Capitalism and Democracy: The Terrible 1990s;

11. The New Beginning: The Putin Years.

Lenin was the great disruptor and appeared to thrive on chaos. Out of the chaos emerged the firm hand of Stalin, who was literally a “take no prisoners” type of leader. No-one is really sure how many people Stalin liquidated but he was an extraordinarily suspicious and paranoid individual, who suspected all around him.

The most important event of the twentieth century for the Soviet Union was the “Great Patriotic War”, when so much of the country fell into Nazi hands. The Russian people showed themselves to have the capacity to bear a lot of pain and be prepared to commit men to the fight for as long as required.

The Soviet Union, with substantial US support, emerged stronger and more ideologically authoritarian after World War 2. This led to the Cold War that thawed only during the Gorbachev years, leading to the break up of the Soviet Union in December 1991.

Eight years later, Putin emerged from the leadership pack at the end of 1999 and has been elected and re-elected several times. He seems to have been effective in using a carrot and stick approach to leadership and those who oppose him have appear to have encountered some balancing difficulties when on the top of tall buildings.

Dr Brovkin outlined Putin’s formula for dealing with industry leaders, who held significant financial power when Putin came to the Russian presidency:

“In the summer of 2000, Putin held a meeting with the captains of industry and outlined the rules of the game. He assured them that there would be no rollback of privatization; they could keep their assets, and the tax rate would be very low compared to the EU only 13%, but in return, they had to bring back their capital to Russia and abstain from politics. Putin’s formula was: Keep your Money, Keep out of Politics.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (p. 255). (Function). Kindle Edition.).

Putin had existing power structures to take care of, particularly local governors. Dr Brovkin writes:

“Having redefined the power of the oligarchs and established control over the governors, Putin began implementing his domestic agenda. It can clearly be divided into several overlapping periods. The first was from 2000 to 2008, his first two terms in office. His priority was to attract foreign investment, expand industrial output, and restore research and development. To accomplish that he lowered taxes in Russia, inviting big energy companies to buy shares in the Russian oil and gas industry. In this field, he changed the rules of the game as well. He made sure that in key sectors foreign companies had profitable participation but not control. (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (p. 256). (Function). Kindle Edition.).

President Putin garnered strong support among the Russian people who were becoming more prosperous.

“Industrial output grew by 50% by 20101 from 100 to 500 billion. Russian export grew by a factor of five times, the share of oil and gas in exports diminished and the export of grain and other food products skyrocketed, as Russia became one of the largest exporters of grain in the world. The revenue from the export of oil and gas made up 27% of the state budget, whereas under Yeltsin they made up almost 100%. By 2012 Russia became the third most attractive country for foreign direct investment after the USA and China. At the end of 1999, the Russian GDP stood at 200 billion dollars, ten years later it was two trillion, a growth of 1,000%. (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (p. 257). (Function). Kindle Edition.)

The Europeans warmly embraced Russia with its great natural resources. Joint projects were undertaken with Italy and France, and notably Germany.

“Putin’s domestic agenda favoring business, investment, development, and growth had its natural counterpart in his seeking warm relations with the Western powers. In fact, in the period from 2000 to 2007, each of the leaders of major Western powers called Putin a friend. Perhaps the warmest personal relations were established between Putin and Chancellor of Germany Schroeder. They both spoke of the joint responsibility of the two nations for peace in Europe. Putin gave a speech at the Bundestag and spoke of a new era in Russian-German relations. At that time, gas pipelines Nord Stream One and Two were agreed upon and construction commenced. German investment in the Russian industry grew from year to year.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 257-258). (Function). Kindle Edition.).

“The climate of rapprochement changed with the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. France, Germany and Russia joined together in speaking against the invasion at the UN Security Council.

Former Soviet satellites and the Baltic countries wanted to join NATO as a guarantee of their security. So in 2004, President Bush went ahead with the next phase of NATO expansion which included former Soviet republics, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Likewise, plans were made for the construction of anti-missile defense systems in Poland and Romania.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 258-259). (Function). Kindle Edition.)

These changes alarmed the Russians and seemed to be the start of a phase of Putin pushing back against what he saw as an expansion east to the doorstep of Russia. Military action in the Donbas and Crimea around 2014-2015, with the annexation of Crimea by Russia were a shock to the West. This was followed by Russian involvement in the conflict in Syria to prop up the Assad regime. Russia was not going to allow unilateral action by Western powers in the Middle East and Russia showed that they were prepared to use military support for their interests in Syria, which involved access to a deep water port.

Prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Putin also gave various speeches addresses what he saw as the destruction of moral life in the West. Dr Brovkin writes:

“Putin’s sharpest critique concerned the assault on the family in the West. Under the guise of the struggle for tolerance, intolerance was promoted in the so-called identity policies. Gay culture is taught at schools regardless of the preference of the parents. A one-man one-woman family was under assault. The names mama and papa are being discarded said Putin and replaced by parent one, and parent two. Christian values are thrown out. The new neo-Bolshevik intolerance is enforced. Anybody who disagrees is labeled a racist or a homophobic reactionary. Intolerance is promoted, the press censored, and compliance enforced. Russia saw all that and is immune to Bolshevism. Russia was not going to follow that path. What Putin has called for was: Healthy conservatism, traditional family, and Christian morality. From Putin’s perspective, the Russian Christian Orthodox values were a foundation for a healthy society.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 267-268). (Function). Kindle Edition.).

President Putin was re-elected in 2018 for his fourth term and this time it was “no more Mr Nice Guy”. Dr Brovkin notes:

“By that time he served longer than even Angela Merkel and there appeared new notes in his speeches and demeanor. It was a newly found confidence or as critics put it arrogance. He refused to debate his Communist challenger. The Tax authorities found all kinds of issues with the opposition leader’s properties. He also began to curtail the freedom of the press. Critical newspapers were fined and all kinds of violations were found. Activities of Western-sponsored NGOs were slowly and surely curtailed and squeezed out. The organizations that received funds from abroad were now required to stop accepting these funds or declare themselves as foreign agents. Partly this was in response to Western measures against Russia Today TV channel that was banned in most Western countries.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (p. 269). (Function). Kindle Edition.).

The US in particular appeared to be have decided upon a provocation program that inevitably seems to have led to the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, despite warnings given by President Putin since the early 2000s. Dr Brovkin writes:

“In July 2021 Putin was confronted with NATO’s increasing presence in Ukraine. There were joint maneuvers, visits of British ships, violations of Russian territorial waters, military instructors, and supply of arms. In all official statements, NATO leaders repeated that Ukraine was free to join any military alliance it wished. Putin responded that Ukrainian membership implied US military presence in Ukraine which was unacceptable to Russia. In December 2021 Putin sent what became known as an ultimatum that a treaty had to be signed denying NATO membership to Ukraine and to any new members, as it was a threat to Russian security. NATO chair and US and EU leaders flatly refused to even discuss this issue. Putin responded that if NATO insisted on expansion he would have to use “military-technical means.” At the security conference in Munich in February 2022, President Zelensky spoke about NATO bases in Ukraine and expressed his willingness to re-establish Ukraine as a nuclear power. That was the crucial moment. Putin made a decision to strike first and the Special Military Operation began.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 270-271). (Function). Kindle Edition.)

So, in relation to the Ukraine-Russia conflict, here we are three years later with a strengthening of the Russia-China-Iran alliance and an attempt by President Trump to bring about peace. One would hope that Trump has some real aces up his sleeve because it is hard to see President Putin complying with Trump’s demands for peace.

Dr Brovkin provides this helpful assessment of the Russian perspective:

“The Russian narrative maintained that Russia had no choice but to defend Donbas from an imminent assault. Putin claimed that not only Ukraine was treated as a de-facto member of NATO but that it received more arms than any NATO country ever. Russian pundits maintained that Ukraine was hijacked by the neo-Nazis who were trying to force the Russian population in Ukraine to submit to their forcible Ukrainization. The Russian language was banned and any display of sympathy for Russia was suppressed. In his speeches and interviews, Putin has become much more outspoken. His assessment of History has become balder. Things that he phrased carefully in the past were now spelled out firmly. Ukraine, according to Putin was a part of the Russian nation, that has been linked to Russia by hundreds of years of joint history, culture, traditions, and religion. He expressed his determination to restore the unity between Ukraine and Russia.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 271-272). (Function). Kindle Edition.)

Dr Brovkin also has a very useful assessment of what the war with Ukraine is actually about. He writes:

“This war is about the international world order. The United States acquired a geo-political asset in 2014: neutral Ukraine became an American satellite. Putin’s Russia is trying to restore the status quo antebellum. At the same time, this war is the delayed follow-up to the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russia has always regarded Ukraine as a part of its geo-political domain. The loss of Ukraine to NATO is unacceptable to any Russian leader. Twenty years ago Samuel Huntington wrote about Ukraine as a country that had a fault line running through it, with one part belonging to the Western civilization and the other part belonging to the Eastern Orthodox civilization. From that perspective, the war in Ukraine is an example of the clash of civilizations Huntington predicted.” (Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (p. 274). (Function). Kindle Edition.)

Conclusions

Dr Brovkin ties the era from Lenin to Putin together as follows:

“Both Lenin and Putin failed to create a law-based system for the transition of political power. Power seduces leaders. In 2018, he changed the constitution to prolong his hold on power indefinitely. The longer Putin stayed in power, the more self-confident he became, not bothering anymore to even debate his opponents. Vanity, ambition, and narcissism have wrecked the political careers of many famous leaders in the past. Both Lenin and Putin put their vanity and desire to hold on to power above the law they had originally created.”

“The bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the expansion of NATO to former republics of the USSR in 2004, and the open invitation of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO in 2008, generated a nationalist resurgence in Russian society, which Putin could not ignore. In the course of the following years, step by step, a parting of the ways between Russia and the West took place, culturally, politically, economically, and militarily.”

“So far President Putin has been able to preside over the different aspirations, withstand Western sanctions and maintain his popularity. However, the clash between Westernizers and Nationalists may produce unanticipated upheavals. Putin seems to be favoring a compromise and a deal with Western powers. Angry Patriots want an outright victory. Putin might find himself forced to suppress either one of the other faction. In pursuit of greatness, Russia may lose everything, including her territorial integrity or even statehood if it splits up. If Russian armies prevail in Ukraine and the question will be how far they would advance and what kind of agreement would be made. Russia may face another escalation and a direct clash with NATO with unpredictable consequences for the world.”

Brovkin, Vladimir N.. From Vladimir Lenin to Vladimir Putin: Russia in Search of Its Identity: 1913–2023 (pp. 274-277). (Function). Kindle Edition.

I found Dr Brovkin’s book fascinating and helpful in understanding how we in the West have come to the current situation - viewing Russia as an implacable enemy and Putin as an evil dictator. However, as Dr Sachs has proposed, much of the fault for the Russian invasion of Ukraine lies with the West and particularly the US neoconservatives.

President Putin will not give up his aspirations for a greater Russia easily, and President Zelenskyy appears to have a high arrogance:ability ratio. It will be a test of President Trump’s “Art of the Deal” to see if he can pull of peace and harmony on the Ukraine-Russian border. If he does - he should be presented the Nobel Peace Prize immediately!