Russian President Vladimir Putin’s new term is just beginning, but it increasingly looks like the beginning of the end. Whenever Russia’s people pour into the streets en masse, as they currently are doing, from that point on, things never work out well for the authorities.
In 1917, Russian Emperor Nicholas II had to abdicate in the wake of mass street protests, clearing the way for the Bolshevik Revolution. In 1991, the Soviet Union — then seemingly an unbreakable monolith — collapsed in just a few months. Hundreds of thousands went into the streets to confront the hardline coup against then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika.
Now it is Putin’s turn. Moscow boasts Occupy Abai, modeled on the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US (and located on a boulevard next to a statue of Kazakh poet Abai Kunanbaev, whose work has gone from regional obscurity to one of the top Russian Internet downloads in a month). Other cities are witnessing protests as well, all echoing the same call: Putin must go.
Russians are famously patient and slow to rebel. And who would blame them? If protests have turned out badly for Russian governments over the centuries, they have ended even more disastrously for the protesters. In 1917, liberation from absolute monarchy ushered in an even more despotic form of absolutism. After 1991, then Russian president Boris Yeltsin’s unruly privatization reduced millions of people to penury and elevated a corrupt oligarchy into virtual rulership.
However, despite being well aware of their history, once Russians turn on the man at the top, they do not stop until he is out.
History debunks Putin’s myth that the majority of the country supports him because they want “stability” and that the protests, headed by “Western stooges,” are about to subside.
They will not abate and the appointment of Igor Kholmanskikh — a tank factory foreman who had offered to come to Moscow with a burly cohort of his fellow assembly-line workers to defend Putin’s regime — to rule the vast Ural region will not scare them. Soft power has the upper hand today and tanks cannot shut down the Internet.
In nominating his new Cabinet (which he deemed so important that he could not attend the G8 summit), Putin’s Soviet origins could not be more obvious. Former Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev used to have his culture and agriculture ministers swap places, as if — bound by the word “culture” — they were one and the same field of expertise. Putin’s new Cabinet is a similar reshuffling of the incompetent with the unqualified.
This debunks another myth — that Putin, now back in charge, will abandon his vulgar anti-Western rhetoric and become a reformer, understanding that only a democratic Russia can maintain its territorial integrity and sovereignty. The reason of course that he will not embrace reform is that he cannot, because that old truism — absolute power corrupts absolutely — has proven itself once more. After more than a decade in power, Russia’s leaders are no longer capable of pursuing better policies. Their personal interests and riches, are too dependent on maintaining the status quo.
Of course, Russia has seen this pattern before as well. I will never forget what my great-grandmother Nina used to say about the corrupting nature of power in our own family.
“Regrettably, the Khrushchev of 1962 wasn’t the Khrushchev of 1956,” she said.
My great-grandfather denounced Stalin’s cult of personality, only to be worshiped — for example, in the over-the-top documentary Our Nikita Sergeevich (1961) — for his “super vision” of how to diminish imperialism and “catch up with West.”
Khrushchev’s self-eulogizing flatly contradicted his earlier de-Stalinization campaign, the point of which was that Joseph Stalin betrayed communism by doing all that he could to resemble the royals of the past. Everything officially said about him was superior and superlative: “best friend of Soviet athletes,” “father of all children on earth,” etc.
That is the bombastic language of absolute monarchy.
Later, Yeltsin, upon assuming office as Russia’s leader in 1990, denounced all nomenklatura privileges as his first order of business.
In his book A Confession, he wrote: “As long as [Russians] are so poor and dismal, I can’t eat sturgeon and caviar, I can’t race cars, ignoring traffic lights, I can’t take imported super-pills, knowing that a neighbor has no aspirin for a child. Because I am ashamed.”
When he left the Kremlin in 2000, his secret fortune, from real estate, yachts, horses and other properties, was estimated to be worth at least US$15 million.
In January 2000, the novice Putin gave a slew of persuasive interviews to Russian TV networks, praising the rule of law and promising not to remain in office a day beyond his two constitutional terms, or if he lost popular support.
These are the “rules of the game, of democracy,” he said.
After two presidential terms, followed by a stint as prime minister and now a third presidency, Putin is entering his 13th year in power with 40 percent of the population desperately wanting him out. If history is any indication, that number will only grow.
Nina Khrushcheva teaches international affairs at The New School and is a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
RSS