The observation by British historian E.H. Carr that history is a dialogue between the past and the present resonates deeply when examining the leadership of Vladimir Putin through the lens of Josef Stalin. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has amplified the parallels between these two figures, prompting a re-evaluation of Putin’s regime and its echoes of the Stalinist era. While initially hesitant to draw direct comparisons, the growing similarities have become undeniable, forming a powerful historical dialogue that demands attention.
Having experienced pre-war Russia under Putin, with its relative freedoms of expression and a burgeoning civil society, it was easy to believe in a progressive trajectory for the nation. Personal experiences of living and working in Moscow, publishing critical works on Soviet history, and enjoying the cultural vibrancy of the city fostered a sense of optimism. The hope for a “better Russia” after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 seemed within reach as the new century dawned.
However, persistent parallels between Putin and Stalin have emerged, particularly in their roles as wartime leaders. Observing Putin firsthand at events like the Valdai Discussion Club revealed a leader capable of commanding attention, articulate and comprehensive in his discourse. While disagreeing with his perspectives, his forceful and self-assured demeanor, coupled with subtle humor, was undeniable. In terms of public speaking and interviews, he surpassed even many US presidents, a stark contrast to Stalin’s often dull oratory and predictable, albeit intelligent, interviews.
Stalinist Russia was undeniably a place of fear and oppression. The Great Terror and purges cast a dark shadow over society. Despite this, people found ways to experience joy – embracing new music, cinema, and a burgeoning consumer culture, especially after World War II. Yet, the pervasive presence of the Gulag, executions, torture, mass murder, and deportations, all orchestrated by a fearsome and absolute leader, created an atmosphere vastly different from the relatively open Russia experienced before the recent war.
Despite these differences in context and scale of repression, striking similarities in leadership styles and approaches to governance emerge when comparing Putin and Stalin, especially in the context of war.
Wartime Leadership in the Image of Strength
Both Putin and Stalin project an image of unwavering control, particularly during wartime, despite potential realities to the contrary. Neither may always be in complete command, nor fully grasp the unfolding complexities, yet both cultivate the persona of leaders who are certain of their course, guiding their armies with a firm hand, and deeply valuing military service. Just as Stalin routinely replaced generals who failed to secure victories and reprimanded those who faltered in supplying the front lines, Putin has shown similar decisiveness in reshuffling his military command. Putin’s calls for military valor echo Stalin’s wartime addresses to the Soviet people and troops. The central themes of self-sacrifice for the homeland and the honor of shedding blood for the perceived greater good of the Russian people are prominent motifs in the rhetoric of both leaders.
Putin’s symbolic actions, such as erecting a statue of Stalin in Volgograd to commemorate the Battle of Stalingrad, temporarily renaming the city Stalingrad, and publicly praising Stalin as a great military leader, further underscore this connection. Conversely, the deliberate omission of Stalin’s name at the 2017 dedication of a memorial for victims of terror highlights the selective invocation of Stalin’s legacy – emphasizing his role as a symbol of wartime victory and state power, while downplaying the darker aspects of his rule.
Disregard for Casualties and Echoes of War Crimes
A disturbing parallel lies in the apparent disregard for human life and the immense casualties inflicted during wartime under both Stalin and Putin’s leadership. Both leaders have been accused of using non-Russian ethnic groups within their respective empires as expendable “cannon fodder.” Minimizing casualties does not appear to be a primary concern for either leader. This echoes historical patterns of Russian warfare, but is also amplified by the leadership’s apparent lack of empathy. Tactically, both Stalin’s World War II strategy and Putin’s approach in Ukraine share unsettling similarities: heavy reliance on artillery and tanks, a grinding war of attrition reminiscent of trench warfare, and the bombardment of civilian areas, blurring the lines between military and civilian targets.
The documented war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by Russian forces in Ukraine today sadly mirror the brutal Soviet advances against German forces during World War II. Despite the abhorrent nature of the Nazi regime, the historical record cannot ignore the widespread atrocities committed by Soviet troops against German civilians, including the rape of hundreds of thousands of women and girls, the murder of innocent civilians attempting to flee, and the widespread looting. Similar accounts of such actions are emerging from the conflict in Ukraine.
While not necessarily a direct command from Putin or Stalin, this pattern of brutality is an indirect consequence of their leadership. Neither leader seems to prioritize policies that would minimize harm to civilians, evidenced by the destruction of schools, hospitals, and residential areas through indiscriminate bombing and shelling. Instead, both prioritize shaping the narrative of the war – focusing on public relations to maintain domestic support for their military campaigns and political objectives. The instrumentalization of religion, with the church blessing military endeavors, further blends religious, cultural, historical, and political motifs to legitimize their actions.
Ideological Warfare and the Ukrainian Question
Both Stalin and Putin have leaned heavily on “military-patriotic education,” promoting militarism, nationalism, and unquestioning obedience among the populace, particularly the youth. This includes instilling martial values, athletic prowess, and weaponization of youth culture, emphasizing unquestioning obedience and suppression of dissent.
The perspective on Ukraine as integral to the Russian/Soviet empire is another significant point of convergence. Both leaders view Ukraine as essential to Russian strength and imperial ambitions, yet simultaneously diminish its identity, portraying it as “Little Russia,” a subordinate entity to be controlled. This paternalistic view underpins the dismissal of Ukrainian sovereignty and self-determination.
However, the fundamental reality that Ukrainians are not Russians and do not desire to be part of Russia is a point of contention and perceived threat for Moscow. This sentiment was evident during the Holodomor, the devastating famine of 1932-33, when Stalin attributed Ukrainian resistance to Polish influence. Similarly, Putin claims Ukraine is controlled by the West, its leaders mere puppets of the United States.
Putin’s accusations echo Stalin’s rhetoric regarding Polish ambitions in Ukraine, where Ukrainians were labeled “Petliurites.” Today, Ukrainians are branded as “Nazis,” “neo-Nazis,” “fascists,” and “Banderites,” mirroring the historical demonization of Ukrainian national identity and resistance to Russian dominance.
The psychological reaction of both leaders to Ukrainian aspirations for independence is also strikingly similar. Both perceive Ukrainians as ungrateful for Russian “protection” and “nurturing,” viewing their desire for self-determination as betrayal.
Their shared historical narratives further solidify this perspective. Both Stalin and Putin assert that Kyivan Rus’ was inherently Russian, not Ukrainian. The Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654 is portrayed as Russian protection of Ukrainians, not an agreement between equals. The Holodomor is downplayed or denied as genocide. World War II is framed as a victory of the “Great Russian People,” minimizing Ukrainian contributions and highlighting collaboration with Nazi Germany.
Private and “Pitiless”: Personal Parallels
Intriguingly, the personal biographies of Stalin and Putin reveal unexpected parallels. Both emerged from humble, lower-class backgrounds. Stalin had a religious upbringing, while Putin, though seemingly embracing Orthodoxy later in life, did not. Both ascended to positions of power through bureaucratic competence – Stalin within the Bolshevik party, and Putin within the St. Petersburg city administration under Anatoly Sobchak.
Their paths to supreme power involved skillful political maneuvering to eliminate rivals. Both demonstrated effectiveness in internal political struggles. While Stalin employed mass murder to eliminate opposition, Putin’s methods, while less extreme in scale, are arguably aligned in principle – a ruthlessness justified by the interests of the state. As Stalin chillingly stated, “The state demands that we are pitiless.”
Both leaders are intensely private individuals, revealing little about their personal or family lives. Both appear to be isolated figures, lacking genuine friendships. A pronounced security consciousness, bordering on paranoia, and distrust of those around them and the outside world, are also shared traits.
The reliance on secret police is another significant parallel. Stalin utilized the OGPU and NKVD, while Putin has employed the KGB and FSB. While Stalin wasn’t a secret policeman himself, Putin’s background in the KGB deeply shaped his worldview and approach to governance. Both leaders understood the power of the secret police, the “Sword and Shield,” to exert control over society. Putin, like Stalin, has reportedly used the FSB to consolidate power both domestically and in occupied territories.
Realism, Mistakes, and Missed Opportunities
Ultimately, both Stalin and Putin operate as realists in foreign policy. While ideological frameworks inform their worldviews, their decisions are ultimately driven by a calculation of perceived national interest, which they often conflate with their own personal interests and the maintenance of their power.
Both leaders, however, are not infallible and have made significant miscalculations. Stalin’s underestimation of Hitler’s intentions to attack the Soviet Union is a prime example. Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, arguably his most significant blunder, reflects a similar misjudgment. These miscalculations can be attributed to paranoia, fear, and xenophobia – factors that cloud clear judgment and undermine rational realism.
In conclusion, the parallels between Vladimir Putin and Josef Stalin are increasingly difficult to ignore. From their leadership styles and wartime strategies to their ideological convictions and personal traits, the echoes of Stalinism in Putin’s Russia are profound and disturbing. Understanding these historical parallels is crucial for comprehending the current trajectory of Russia and its place in the world.
