To What Degree is Russia a Modern Reflection of the USSR?

[Lunar]

Well, let me take the pessimistic view since I think most people disagree with the premise:

Russia has, for the first time since its creation, crossed internationally recognized borders.  It's controlled by an ex-KGB agent who has adapted his country to hold inevitable elections (but they're elections!  it's modern!) as independent journalists mysteriously die as the state-owned media pumps out anti-American Propganda.  That same ex-KGB agent has instituted a fair amount of USSR national anthems and symbols into his propaganda machine.

Yet...

[Silent Hunter]

I'd personally say that it's more a reflection of Tsarist Russia.

Freedom of speech is still largely in existence, particularly on the internet.

[GMantis]

I would say between 5 and 10%, but that's probably too much. The very phrase "independent journalists" is completely incompatible with USSR.

[Matt Damon™]

Russia is a nation in the process of demographic implosion and isn't that far off from a muslim/white civil war. Russia will be lucky if it can maintain it's current borders let alone even consider anymore meddling overseas.

[Beet]

Westerners are always so critical of Putin & the current Russian government, but the truth of it is they are popular for a reason, which the late stage USSR government never was. When is the last time Russia had a really good leader? The last Russian leader who greatly expanded Russian power was Joseph Stalin, a monster! Before that who? Alexander I? Catherine?

Putin has been a really good leader in many ways. He cracked down on the crony capitalists and a small band of fringe terrorists. He centralized and strengthened the finances of the state and the state's ability to maintain order. Most of all during his tenure the Russian economy boomed for the first time in over a generation, and unlike the last boom, ordinary Russians, at least in certain regions of the country, saw their ability for personal consumption and disposable income skyrocket.

Granted, many of his moves have been problematic. Journalistic freedom is badly constrained. Relations with other nations are not spectacular. There is too much emphasis on nationalism; there is not a healthy opposition. There is too much reliance on oil revenues, and a speculative boom developed in equities which is now bursting.

But Western criticism of Russia during the past decade, which I have engaged in myself, looks at the very least like Westerners are not appreciative of Russia's accomplishments. We should at least thank Putin that he has prevented Russia from sliding into chaos or civil war.

[GMantis]

Russia is a nation in the process of demographic implosion and isn't that far off from a muslim/white civil war.

Poor Muslims.

Russia will be lucky if it can maintain it's current borders let alone even consider anymore meddling overseas.

You have a strange definition of overseas.

[Earth]

There's no sense in being an apologist for Putin. I get the strong feeling that Putin's actions, and others, coupled with their past, is in the long run damaging for the country. The FSB, while not being as strong as the KGB at it's height, is still a major force. The restraint journalism is under in Russia should be a strong indicator of Russian power's character.

[Matt Damon™]

You have a strange definition of overseas.

Russia has sold arms to Chavez's venezuela before. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure Caracas lacks land links to Moscow.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You have a strange definition of overseas.

Russia has sold arms to Chavez's venezuela before. I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure Caracas lacks land links to Moscow.

That's not meddling. Unless Belgium is meddling with Mexico (Belgian-made pistols are the most popular ones with Mexican drug cartels).

[Stranger in a strange land]

I'd personally say that it's more a reflection of Tsarist Russia.

I'd say it's a combination of the two. The Putin government completely lacks any ideology other than nationalism, which is where the USSR comparison breaks down.

[Lunar]

There's no sense in being an apologist for Putin. I get the strong feeling that Putin's actions, and others, coupled with their past, is in the long run damaging for the country. The FSB, while not being as strong as the KGB at it's height, is still a major force. The restraint journalism is under in Russia should be a strong indicator of Russian power's character.

Indeed.  The only thing sustaining the current boom in Russia is oil, and it's obvious that oil is a temporary source of wealth.  Once the total volume of energy exports goes down, bribes and corruption will be taking a higher toll, and will result in negative growth.

In my mind, a democracy is not a democracy unless it has competitive elections, regardless of how fair the voting process is (and the denial of media to one's opponents is pretty darn unfair).  I don't see any difference except aesthetics as far as democratic process between today and 1980.  The only difference is that successors are chosen by party leader instead of leaders...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Remember people there were "elections" in the USSR too.

Not to mention that while privatization has put things onto the market, the economic infrastructure isn't that different. There is also the strong legacy of pollution (Google "pollution in Lake Baikal" to see what I'm getting at.)

[GMantis]

Remember people there were "elections" in the USSR too.

Not to mention that while privatization has put things onto the market, the economic infrastructure isn't that different. There is also the strong legacy of pollution (Go ogle "pollution in Lake Baikal" to see what I'm getting at.)

Lol about economic infrastructure being the same. Privatization changed the system completely. Also, the economy switched from being largely  to one depended on exports.
The election results would be pretty much the same even if they were fully fair. The Soviet elections were empty formalities.
Considering also the significant societal changes, and the theory of today's Russia being a throwback to Soviet times seems even more hollow.
Pollution problems are in some ways better, mainly because the economic depression.

[2952-0-0]

I'd personally say that it's more a reflection of Tsarist Russia.

I'd say it's a combination of the two. The Putin government completely lacks any ideology other than nationalism, which is where the USSR comparison breaks down.

The USSR really did not have any ideology other than Russian nationalism, and acted just like any other world power: in this case it tried to assert itself over the Eurasian continent while buying support from basketcases in the Third World.

Red flags, mass parades, and slogans were just a sideshow.

[GMantis]

I'd personally say that it's more a reflection of Tsarist Russia.

I'd say it's a combination of the two. The Putin government completely lacks any ideology other than nationalism, which is where the USSR comparison breaks down.

The USSR really did not have any ideology other than Russian nationalism, and acted just like any other world power: in this case it tried to assert itself over the Eurasian continent while buying support from basketcases in the Third World.

Red flags, mass parades, and slogans were just a sideshow.

This is, if not completely, mostly untrue. Communist ideology was the main means of attracting support both at home and abroad. Russian nationalism gained ground during WW2 and after that, but it was certainly not dominant. Two prominent examples against your theory are the giving of the Crimea to the Ukraine and the ignoring of the protests of the Russian population in Chechnya