Empty words? How Putin takes advantage of Soviet memory as a rhetorical tool

In 2005, Vladimir Putin, starting his second term as president of the still-young Russian Federation, declared that the collapse of the Soviet Union was “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the last century.” This statement likely provoked various reactions across different sociopolitical strata. Some saw in the declaration a remote possibility of socialism returning to power in Russia, while others worried that this chance for Russia’s resurgence as a major player on the international stage might come as a quest for revenge against the counter-revolution that catered to the neoliberal wave of the late 1980s, which seduced Gorbachev.

Photo: Putin receiving command of the country from Boris Yeltsin in 1999. AFP/Getty Images

In practice, the end of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) left Russia with numerous problems. The economic base, previously linked to a planned economy promoted by the integration of the Soviet Republics, was in tatters in 1991, and this disintegration significantly contributed to another issue: the loss of Russian identity. In short, at that moment, it was unclear what Russia represented, nor what its goals would be beyond ensuring its survival and territorial integrity, as explored in Putin’s 2005 speech to the parliament:

“First and foremost, it is worth recognizing that the demise of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century. For the Russians, it became a real tragedy. Tens of thousands of our compatriots found themselves beyond the borders of Russian territory. And the epidemic of collapse even reached Russia itself.”

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia attempted to align with potential Western partners, including the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Putin himself recounted in 2015 that decades earlier, during Bill Clinton’s visit to Moscow, there was the idea that a Russian union with the remaining Cold War bloc could be beneficial. However, this integration did not materialize.

Moreover, Western powers were unwilling to risk a possible (re)ascension of Russia along the lines of the old USSR, which is why keeping it out of NATO seemed the best decision in the geopolitical context of the time. The question remains whether this was indeed the best solution and if ignoring Russia, which was undergoing domestic reconstruction, could have avoided some of the problems that culminated in the current Ukraine War.

Nevertheless, Vladimir Putin reinforces the perception of international observers that he is preparing the ground for the restructuring of a Soviet Union 2.0. In June 2020, he published an article calling for the necessity of a “new Yalta.” Yes, the same Yalta Conference where Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin met. Such declarations evoke bitter memories in the West and demonstrate Putin’s rhetorical skill, by alluding to the city of Yalta itself, located in Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014.

It is a fact that for Russia, keeping NATO as far away from its borders as possible is a matter of national security. Despite the organization denying that it had promised not to expand, reality shows an evolution from 12 original members to 32 member countries, with Sweden being the most recent to join this year.

At the start of the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine, U.S. President Joe Biden stated in a speech in February 2022 that Putin intended to “re-establish the Soviet Union.” However, this assertion lacks a concrete material basis. Despite Russia trying to position itself on the international stage as an antagonist to the United States, reminiscent of the dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, internally, Putin’s government is aligned with the dominant elites who respond to conservative and reactionary forces. These forces, in fact, would prefer a return to Tsarism rather than see the resurgence of the Soviet flag.

The Soviet Memory in the public square

Photo: Alexander Nemenov

On May 9, Russia celebrated the 79th anniversary of Victory Day over Nazi fascism, an event whose most emblematic image is the Soviet flag raised over the Reichstag, the building that housed the former German parliament. Despite the end of the Soviet Union, the Victory Parade in Red Square continues to be held annually, symbolizing a moment of great historical and emotional importance for the Russian people. While some see this celebration as a mere apology for the Soviet period, in the Russian collective memory, the victory over the Third Reich represents, without exaggeration, a victory over death. It is crucial to remember that the human sacrifices of the Soviet Union during the Great Patriotic War (a term used in Russia to refer to the period of World War II) exceeded, according to some estimates, the mark of 20 million souls.

Photo: Sergei Bobylov/POOL/AFP

However, it has become increasingly evident that Vladimir Putin is attempting to use this date and other Soviet historical milestones in his rhetoric to justify actions against Ukraine and insinuate a willingness to expand Russian borders, as long as this ensures the country’s security and integrity.

To reinforce Putin’s words, not only Ukraine but many of the countries that were part of the Soviet Union have embarked on a campaign to remove (at best) some of the memorabilia that referred to the Soviet period or remodel some of the historical monuments that had the triad: red star, sickle, and hammer. Beyond that, some of these countries, especially Ukraine and the Baltic states (Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia), have greatly relaxed the limits of “freedom of expression” concerning Nazi memory.

Therefore, this narrative choice, when it suits the Russian leader, blurs many of the perceptions that an inattentive external observer might have of the Kremlin’s behavior over the last four years. Nevertheless, it is important to realize that these are not purely autocratic decisions. As we understand from a realist perspective of international relations, states must ensure their survival above all else, while dealing with power struggles in the anarchic international system. Thus, it is crucial to understand that despite any disagreements and estrangement, Russia is still making rational political choices, as it is necessary to cater to certain social strata to sustain the existing government.

The attempt to reconfigure the Soviet legacy is seen not only in internal rhetoric but also in concrete actions, such as the annexation of Crimea and the initiatives to keep NATO away from Russian borders. While the West views these actions with concern, fearing a resurgence of Soviet influence, Putin manages these perceptions to consolidate his power and present Russia as a defender of its own security and sovereignty. Therefore, it is essential to recognize that the Kremlin’s actions result from a rational political strategy, based on the need to ensure the survival of the Russian state in a competitive and anarchic international system. Even if Putin’s decisions generate controversy, they must be understood within the context of ensuring the continuity and stability of the Russian government. Thus, the use of Soviet memory serves both as a tool for internal legitimization and as a means to project power and influence on the global stage.