Is Putin's Russia more like the Russian Empire or Soviet Union

[OSR stands with Israel]

Which predecessor is Putin's Russia more like: Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union

[Bootes Void]

Tsarist Russia though I wouldn’t say either one of them are a good fit for Putin’s Russia

[CumbrianLefty]

Of course there was lots of continuity between Tsarist Russia and the USSR as well.

[MATTROSE94]

More like Nazi Germany.

[Santander]

Rome

[Hope For A New Era]

I think he's aiming for exactly in the middle.

[Aurelius]

I've read things that indicate Putin is much more of an ethnic Russian nationalist, with a dash of pan-Eurasianism, than a neo-Soviet.

[nicholas.slaydon]

I don't think Putin's Russia is really like either of them. I think it bears a lot more similarity to Yugoslavia in its final days, with Putin being a type of Milosevic who can't stand that countries which once made up their countries no longer wish to associate with the largest partner of their respective former federations, and seeks to establish the dominance of the largest country within the former federations by force.

[Mr. Smith]

Neither.

[Benjamin Frank]

The Soviet Union was mostly like the Russian Empire.

[Boobs]

One consistent theme in Russian history is the exploitation of peripheral states and nations around Russia for the benefit of the Muscovite heartland, and Putin’s actions are no different.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Soviet Union was mostly like the Russian Empire.

In which ways:

-The Russian Empire was controlled by aristocrats while the Soviet Union was run by the communist party with heads of the parties not being related to each other as well.

- The Russian Empire had an official  state religion while  the Soviets tried to stamp out religion

- Due to being an aristocracy the Russian Empire basically had almost all its classes stuck in stone while in the USSR status in society was based on where you were in the party and which position in government you had

- Even their goals in world affairs were very different. The Soviets were far more interested in world domination and with the exception of WW2 all of its allies were pretty much puppet regimes of the USSR. The Russian Empire on the other hand was far less aggressive and was far more willing to work with world powers at the time such as the British and French.

[Benjamin Frank]

The Soviet Union was mostly like the Russian Empire.

In which ways:

-The Russian Empire was controlled by aristocrats while the Soviet Union was run by the communist party with heads of the parties not being related to each other as well.

- The Russian Empire had an official  state religion while  the Soviets tried to stamp out religion

- Due to being an aristocracy the Russian Empire basically had almost all its classes stuck in stone while in the USSR status in society was based on where you were in the party and which position in government you had

- Even their goals in world affairs were very different. The Soviets were far more interested in world domination and with the exception of WW2 all of its allies were pretty much puppet regimes of the USSR. The Russian Empire on the other hand was far less aggressive and was far more willing to work with world powers at the time such as the British and French.

I appreciate that the Russian Empire lasted for over 300 years while the Soviet Union lasted for about 70 years so there is a possibility to pick and choose similarities and differences, but in broad strokes I disagree on all counts, except somewhat for the religious part.

1.The Russian civil service was very similar under both the Imperial Empire and the Communists.  The civil service under Czar Nicholas II largely carried over to the Lenin Administration.

In addition, many civil servants engaged in personal fiefdom building under the Czar, this became even more so under Communism where they also had greater control of previously private businesses.

The brutal attempt to advance Russian economically under Stalin was not that different than the methods used by Peter The Great.  Both Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union were primarily concerned with keeping up with the West, and frequently with adopting Western methods.

2.The Communists gave up trying to stamp out the Russian Orthodox Church.  They also continued to engage in discrimination against other religions.

3.See above on personal fiefdoms.  Most people who were members of the Communist Party were not necessarily supporters.

4.I disagree that the Soviet Union was all that interested in world domination.  I think George Kennan was accurate in his explanation of Soviet interests.  You are correct that Imperial Russia engaged in balance of power politics with the rest of Europe, but Russia always wanted a 'buffer zone.'  To the degree that Stalin extended this buffer zone after World War II, I think it was because the technologies had advanced: the Czars didn't have to deal with rapid transportation like automobiles and trucks.  There was rail very late on, but even though automobiles existed before the start of World War I, the generals still thought that the cavalry would be the main weapons of war.

[Benjamin Frank]

To add to my last post: I disagree that either Lenin or Stalin were genuinely communist.  I think the part of the 'vanguard of the proletariat' that appealed to them was 'vanguard.'  

I think that what appealed to them most about communism was the realization that it could easily be transformed into a totalitarian system where there were no other sources of power, in the way that wealthy business owners can challenge government leaders.  I think, stripping aside all of Lenin's B.S rhetoric, that he was a power hungry authoritarian dictator, no different than the czars before him, or all the power hungry dictators throughout history around the world.  So, I especially don't think either really cared about expanding communist ideology around the world.

The only Soviet Leader who may have been a genuine believer in communism was Krushchev who was an impressionable 23 during the Russian Revolution of 1917.

After him was Brezhnev who was essentially a conservative bureaucrat who maintained the state through corruption from on top and especially through allowing the civil service fiefdoms that I mentioned above.

Stalin probably stamped out this corruption during his reigns of terror, but there have been papers written on late Stalin era (1943-1953) civil service corruption. 

For instance: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20060294

[OSR stands with Israel]

The Soviet Union was mostly like the Russian Empire.

In which ways:

-The Russian Empire was controlled by aristocrats while the Soviet Union was run by the communist party with heads of the parties not being related to each other as well.

- The Russian Empire had an official  state religion while  the Soviets tried to stamp out religion

- Due to being an aristocracy the Russian Empire basically had almost all its classes stuck in stone while in the USSR status in society was based on where you were in the party and which position in government you had

- Even their goals in world affairs were very different. The Soviets were far more interested in world domination and with the exception of WW2 all of its allies were pretty much puppet regimes of the USSR. The Russian Empire on the other hand was far less aggressive and was far more willing to work with world powers at the time such as the British and French.

I appreciate that the Russian Empire lasted for over 300 years while the Soviet Union lasted for about 70 years so there is a possibility to pick and choose similarities and differences, but in broad strokes I disagree on all counts, except somewhat for the religious part.

1.The Russian civil service was very similar under both the Imperial Empire and the Communists.  The civil service under Czar Nicholas II largely carried over to the Lenin Administration.

In addition, many civil servants engaged in personal fiefdom building under the Czar, this became even more so under Communism where they also had greater control of previously private businesses.

The brutal attempt to advance Russian economically under Stalin was not that different than the methods used by Peter The Great.  Both Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union were primarily concerned with keeping up with the West, and frequently with adopting Western methods.

2.The Communists gave up trying to stamp out the Russian Orthodox Church.  They also continued to engage in discrimination against other religions.

3.See above on personal fiefdoms.  Most people who were members of the Communist Party were not necessarily supporters.

4.I disagree that the Soviet Union was all that interested in world domination.  I think George Kennan was accurate in his explanation of Soviet interests.  You are correct that Imperial Russia engaged in balance of power politics with the rest of Europe, but Russia always wanted a 'buffer zone.'  To the degree that Stalin extended this buffer zone after World War II, I think it was because the technologies had advanced: the Czars didn't have to deal with rapid transportation like automobiles and trucks.  There was rail very late on, but even though automobiles existed before the start of World War I, the generals still thought that the cavalry would be the main weapons of war.

Maybe the civil service was similar but wasnt the divisions of society themselves very different with the Russian Empire hierarchy set in stone with a very feudal style of heirachy:


Source: http://fallofromanovs.weebly.com/change-and-continuity-in-russia.html

Now the USSR also had a hierarchy but it was based more on where you were in communist party leadership:



Source: https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f45bb26f62cc0d8cd9a0542cc2350f4e


For example Brezhnev didnt come from a "wealthy" background but his rise to power was more based on his relationship with whoever the leaders of the communist party was at the time.

[SInNYC]

I'll add a reason for why Putin is more like the Russian empire even though I think its relatively minor compared to the great reasons above.

In the Soviet Union, leaders generally alternated between reformists (Lenin, Krushchev, Andropov, Gorbachev) and conservatives/establishment (Stalin, Brezhnev, Chernenko). Post-USSR and especially during Putin, this pattern doesn't hold and its been more like a monarchy, though non-hereditary.

I do think that the Soviet era alternation owed at least partly to the way one-party states make decisions, since each choice was made to negate what was considered the excesses of the previous era. Then again, China under Xi is following the same pattern as Putin (though their alternation wasnt as stark).

[The Mikado]

The defining advantage of hereditary monarchy (maybe it's sole advantage?) is making succession clear and in fact a focal point of the regime.

"Who runs Russia when Putin dies" is a very real question and Putin's gonna turn 70 in a few months and isn't getting any younger, and every year that goes by without a firm answer to that question builds up the idea that Russia is facing a brewing really, really nasty crisis.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A smaller, weaker mix of the Empire and the late-stage USSR

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

More like Nazi Germany.

Are you really implying that Putin is more authoritarian than Stalin?

[Lord Halifax]

More like Nazi Germany.

Are you really implying that Putin is more authoritarian than Stalin?

When it comes to totalitarianism Stalin's Soviet Union was more complete than Nazi Germany, which retained more vestiges of the old social order, so being "like Nazi Germany" doesn't make you "more authoritarian than Stalin", only "slightly less authoritarian than Stalin". Of course Putin is neither, but his regime (and in particular its relationship with oligarchs) is more like a "milder" version of Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union.

[Meclazine for Israel]

I don't think any comparison is applicable.

Previous wars in the Ukrainian region lost millions of lives.

This conflict (or perceived conflict) has no death toll. In 2022, we are soft as butter in comparison to the previous incarnations of Russia.

[MATTROSE94]

More like Nazi Germany.

Are you really implying that Putin is more authoritarian than Stalin?

When it comes to totalitarianism Stalin's Soviet Union was more complete than Nazi Germany, which retained more vestiges of the old social order, so being "like Nazi Germany" doesn't make you "more authoritarian than Stalin", only "slightly less authoritarian than Stalin". Of course Putin is neither, but his regime (and in particular its relationship with oligarchs) is more like a "milder" version of Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union.

I agree. Putin’s Russian has a lot more in common with Nazi Germany than with the Soviet Union ideologically and policy-wise. It wouldn’t surprise me if Putin has death camps set up all throughout Russia and in the occupied territories like Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia.

[Santander]

The defining advantage of hereditary monarchy (maybe it's sole advantage?) is making succession clear and in fact a focal point of the regime.

It is also God's intended form of government.

[PSOL]

I am cringing so much my eyes hurt.