Unlike Stalin, Putin will Leave Behind Not a Strong State but Only ‘Ruins,’ Shelin Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, Jan. 22 – In a new book, Amusing Russia. 228 Answers, Sergey Shelin argues that Vladimir Putin is concerned only with himself and his own survival and as a result is not so much building a new political system as destroying its existing institutions. He will thus leave behind him not a strong state as Stalin did but only “ruins.”
That fear, Shelin continues, has put Putin on a very different trajectory than Stalin followed despite the frequent comparisons with the late Soviet dictator that are often made. “Stalin,” he writes, “adapted the state system of the USSR to himself and then worked to protect it.”
“Putin in contrast hats the state institutions of the Russian Federation” as constraints and has “managed to destroy them all.” That has consequences for the future: “After Stalin, a totalitarian dictatorship remained; after Putin, only ruins will be left” with the need to rebuild almost everything.
According to Shelin, “Stalin viewed the USSR as his ceation, but Putin looks at the Russian Federation as an instrument for his hobbies. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. That is why his state adventurism knows no bounds: he is not responsible to anyone for anything not even in his imagination.”
Putin’s exclusive focus on himself is not unique to Russian leaders, but it is an extreme form of that disease and one that shows what can happen when institutions designed to limit such people instead are destroyed by them and then have to be rebuilt from the ground up, Shelin’s book suggests.
Greenland has 60% of the world's fresh water reserves, massive amounts of rare earth minerals and lithium. These are all needed to run Trump's massive AI Data Centers that will enslave and control us. Imo, it's a death sentence for us.
The US acquiring Greenland will create geopolitical tension with Russia, and frankly with Europe and even Canada as well.
To know that one only needs to look at a map of the Arctic.
Whether those tensions would spill over into actual war depends in large measure on Russia's capacity to wage war in the future.
Whether Russia will be able to even contemplate a war in the future is debatable. The amount of Russian blood and treasure Putin has expended in Ukraine is appalling, and NATO's strategy of using Ukraine forces as cannon fodder in an attritional war strategy, while morally despicable, may actually prove successful.
Putin's biggest challenge right now is figuring out how to turn off the war he started. If there's a peace deal that doesn't give Putin a clear claim for "victory", there are going to be a lot of wounded veterans, disabled veterans, and families of the killed in Ukraine wondering why they fought and died.
There was a measure of discontent in Soviet Russia in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. With Chernobyl a colossal disaster at home and what felt like a defeat in Afghanistan, Gorbachev and the Communist Party leadership quickly lost favor with the Russian people, to the point where the Soviet Union had no real option but to dissolve itself in 1992.
Putin doesn't even have that luxury. There's no animating political ideology to his government the way there was with Stalin, Kruschev, or Brezhnev. He can't jettison ideology to preserve Moscow as the seat of political power.
About the only thing going for him politically is that the ultra-nationalist faction in Russia believes Putin is not committed ENOUGH to the conflict. As long as the war is ongoing, that keeps the ultra-nationalists at bay and they keep everyone else at bay.
With Russia now on a wartime economy and inflation running at 9.5% over there, when Putin does strike a peace deal he's looking at a GDP shock of potentially 20-30% or more.
With a declining population, Russia does not appear to have much of a future ahead of it.
By purchasing it, through a series of contracts. You fulfill the contract you get the land. A whole lot of initiatives would go into it, but not limiting our defence.
Unlike Stalin, Putin will Leave Behind Not a Strong State but Only ‘Ruins,’ Shelin Says
Paul Goble
Staunton, Jan. 22 – In a new book, Amusing Russia. 228 Answers, Sergey Shelin argues that Vladimir Putin is concerned only with himself and his own survival and as a result is not so much building a new political system as destroying its existing institutions. He will thus leave behind him not a strong state as Stalin did but only “ruins.”
The murder of Muamar Qaddafi shocked Putin and led him to conclude that the West was after him and that he must do everything possible to save himself regardless of the consequences for Russia or for the international system, the Russian commentator says (severreal.org/a/posle-putina-ostanutsya-razvaliny-228-otvetov-na-vse-voprosy-o-rossii/33283990.html).
That fear, Shelin continues, has put Putin on a very different trajectory than Stalin followed despite the frequent comparisons with the late Soviet dictator that are often made. “Stalin,” he writes, “adapted the state system of the USSR to himself and then worked to protect it.”
“Putin in contrast hats the state institutions of the Russian Federation” as constraints and has “managed to destroy them all.” That has consequences for the future: “After Stalin, a totalitarian dictatorship remained; after Putin, only ruins will be left” with the need to rebuild almost everything.
According to Shelin, “Stalin viewed the USSR as his ceation, but Putin looks at the Russian Federation as an instrument for his hobbies. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. All his feelings and interests are focused on himself. That is why his state adventurism knows no bounds: he is not responsible to anyone for anything not even in his imagination.”
Putin’s exclusive focus on himself is not unique to Russian leaders, but it is an extreme form of that disease and one that shows what can happen when institutions designed to limit such people instead are destroyed by them and then have to be rebuilt from the ground up, Shelin’s book suggests.
And depending on the source, support for Putin is increasingly dwindling among the Russian people.
The United States had a military presence in Greenland during the second World War that did nothing to corrupt our relations with the Russian people.
I believe we need Greenland, it's a wise move on our part.
Greenland has 60% of the world's fresh water reserves, massive amounts of rare earth minerals and lithium. These are all needed to run Trump's massive AI Data Centers that will enslave and control us. Imo, it's a death sentence for us.
lol
Our top strategic priority should be detente with the Russian Federation and peace in Ukraine.
Ummm good
The US acquiring Greenland will create geopolitical tension with Russia, and frankly with Europe and even Canada as well.
To know that one only needs to look at a map of the Arctic.
Whether those tensions would spill over into actual war depends in large measure on Russia's capacity to wage war in the future.
Whether Russia will be able to even contemplate a war in the future is debatable. The amount of Russian blood and treasure Putin has expended in Ukraine is appalling, and NATO's strategy of using Ukraine forces as cannon fodder in an attritional war strategy, while morally despicable, may actually prove successful.
https://newsletter.allfactsmatter.us/p/the-waste-of-putins-war
Putin's biggest challenge right now is figuring out how to turn off the war he started. If there's a peace deal that doesn't give Putin a clear claim for "victory", there are going to be a lot of wounded veterans, disabled veterans, and families of the killed in Ukraine wondering why they fought and died.
There was a measure of discontent in Soviet Russia in the early 1990s after the Soviet Union pulled out of Afghanistan. With Chernobyl a colossal disaster at home and what felt like a defeat in Afghanistan, Gorbachev and the Communist Party leadership quickly lost favor with the Russian people, to the point where the Soviet Union had no real option but to dissolve itself in 1992.
Putin doesn't even have that luxury. There's no animating political ideology to his government the way there was with Stalin, Kruschev, or Brezhnev. He can't jettison ideology to preserve Moscow as the seat of political power.
About the only thing going for him politically is that the ultra-nationalist faction in Russia believes Putin is not committed ENOUGH to the conflict. As long as the war is ongoing, that keeps the ultra-nationalists at bay and they keep everyone else at bay.
With Russia now on a wartime economy and inflation running at 9.5% over there, when Putin does strike a peace deal he's looking at a GDP shock of potentially 20-30% or more.
With a declining population, Russia does not appear to have much of a future ahead of it.
My response to Yevstafyev: So, are you saying Russia has already claimed the Arctic? Hahahahahahahaha!!! Good luck with that!
Hahahahahahahaha!!
How does one "acquire" a country? By vote? By threat? By war?
By purchasing it, through a series of contracts. You fulfill the contract you get the land. A whole lot of initiatives would go into it, but not limiting our defence.
Interesting, I didn't know this.
Thank for the restack, Gary.