Then protesters chased Yanukovych out of the country, and Putin saw his ideal of Eurasian greatness fall to pieces. After Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych ditched the EU and signed an economic-cooperation agreement with Moscow last fall, it seemed like he had succeeded. Drawing Ukraine into the club was meant to be Putin’s ultimate triumph. So far the economic union set to launch in 2015 only includes Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan. Surrounded by what he perceives to be a hostile West, Putin’s vision of a powerful Russia centers on the Eurasian Union. While Stalin wanted to turn Western European states communist – and then into Soviet satellites – Putin has been working hard at winning over post-Soviet countries. But much like Stalin, his system depends on gaining allies abroad. Putin is no communist, and never wanted to export a revolution. We can apply this lesson to Putin’s invasion of Crimea. With the benefit of hindsight, we know that Stalin’s autarkic vision was doomed to failure. This isolation bred stagnation, decline, and then collapse. But the world’s largest economies remained capitalist, and the Soviet Union became more or less isolated from a growing world market. Stalin’s autarkic model worked more or less for a few decades, and he won over a number of satellites in Eastern Europe. The treaty was an acknowledgement of his failure to export the Bolshevik revolution.Įventually, this failure doomed the Soviet project. By agreeing to the pact the pact, Stalin gained some territory east of the so-called Molotov-Ribbentrop line, but he also gave up all hope of turning Poland or Germany communist – a hope that had all but faded anyway. A secret clause divided Poland up between the two states.Ĭontemporaries saw the pact and eventual Soviet invasion of Eastern Poland, the Baltic States, and Moldova as a sign of Soviet strength. This philosophy culminated in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany shocked the world by pledging mutual non-aggression. Its best shot at growing more powerful was rapid industrialization at home and gradual growth by annexing territories at its borders. Instead of trying in vain to subvert other countries, Stalin argued, the Soviet Union should focus on securing its borders and becoming autarkic. He called it “socialism in one country” – a maxim first put forth in 1924 and then gradually adapted. This presented its leaders with a monumental conundrum: how could a system whose success seemed to depend on world revolution survive alone amid a hostile world? Stalin, who assumed power in the late 1920s, found an answer. Instead, fascist takeovers in Italy (Mussolini), Germany (Hitler) and Spain (Franco) left the Soviet Union increasingly isolated. They founded the latest Communist International and supported socialist movements in a number of foreign countries.īut the world revolution never happened. Comparing the two invasions not only helps us make sense of a complicated situation, but it also offers clues on how Putin’s expansionism can eventually be defeatedĪfter storming the winter palace in 1917, the Bolshevik leaders set out to export communism across the globe. In fact, he invaded Crimea for much the same reasons that Stalin invaded eastern Poland in 1939. Along the way, he has also adopted a way of thinking that is strikingly similar to his Soviet predecessors. Putin has long tried to recreate Soviet greatness by invading neighbors (think Georgia 2008) and building a Eurasian economic union. To him, Russia’s immediate past is not just a tool to foster patriotism. Much has been written about how the Soviet Union shaped Putin’s thinking. Replace Putin with Stalin and you get a good sense of what Russia’s leader is doing and, more importantly, how he can be stopped. But what world exactly is this? As the Crimean crisis drags on, it is becoming clear that Putin’s thinking is somehow stuck in 1930s Europe. Konrad Putzier reveals the comparisons between Putin’s foreign policy and those of Stalin to show how Russia’s aggressor may and must be stopped.Īngela Merkel is right: Russia’s President Vladimir Putin is living in another world. Putin’s hostile actions in Crimea are reminiscent of another leader of the not-so-distant past. Today we venture where few Russian reporters can-into anti-Putin territory. Welcome back to the World Policy “Best of” blog series.
0 kommentar(er)
