logo
Why is Stalin back in the Moscow metro?

Why is Stalin back in the Moscow metro?

AllAfrica17-06-2025
A statue of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was unveiled in the Taganskaya metro station in Moscow in May, recreating a mural that was dismantled decades ago. It is the first such statue to be erected in central Moscow since Stalin's death in 1953 and marks a disturbing new stage in Russia's authoritarian path.
Tens of millions of people died as a direct result of Stalin's policies between 1924 and his death. These policies included the forced collectivization of agriculture, the Gulag labor camp system and the 'great terror' – a wave of mass arrests between 1937 and 1938, including of key figures in the army.
Yet ultimate victory over Nazi Germany in 1945, with the support of Britain and the US, redeems Stalin in the eyes of Russia's current rulers. For the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, this victory was one of the crowning achievements of the Soviet Union and remains a unifying force in modern Russia.
De-Stalinization, which from 1956 to the late 1960s saw the dismantling of Stalin's policies and legacy, meant no statues of him were erected from his death until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. But 110 monuments have been built since then (as of the last count, in 2023), with 95 of them erected in the Putin era. The rate of construction multiplied after Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea.
These statues initially tended to be in peripheral parts of the Russian Federation, such as Yakutia, North Ossetia and Dagestan, and not in city centers. The renaming by presidential decree of the airport in Volgograd as Stalingrad in April 2025, to echo the city's wartime name, was thus a significant moment.
But the statue in the Moscow metro, an architectural gem in the centre of Russia's capital that is used by millions of people each day, is an even more important symbolic statement.
Stalin's reputation in Russia continues to recover. According to a poll from 2015, 45% of the Russian population thought the deaths caused by Stalin's actions were justified (up from 25% in 2012). By 2023, 63% of Russians had an overall positive view of his leadership.
This reflects the view promoted in schools and amplified by the Russian media, where criticism of Stalin is rare. Even the 2017 British comedy, The Death of Stalin, was banned in Russia for fear of popping the bubble of public approval.
The purpose of rehabilitating Stalin is about boosting support for Putin's regime, training Russians' conformity reflex and instilling pride in their history. But it also has external ramifications.
With the partial exception of Georgia, his birthplace, Stalin is widely reviled by Russia's neighboring countries, which were often the victims of Stalin's repressive policies. This is especially true of Ukraine. A famine known to Ukrainians as the Holodomor was deliberately imposed there between 1932 and 1933 as part of collectivization and killed as many as 3.8 million people.
As a result, his death unleashed de-Stalinization accompanied by the destruction of his statues all over eastern Europe. This began during the 1956 Budapest uprising and was followed by later such reactions in Prague and elsewhere. The statue of Stalin in Budapest was torn down by demonstrators in 1956. Fortepan adományozó / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA
After the uprisings were put down, Stalin's place was typically taken by the less controversial Vladimir Lenin, the revolutionary leader who founded the Soviet Union.
But since the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine, which culminated in the ousting of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych, Ukrainians have also been pulling down statues of Lenin. Other Soviet-era symbols have also been torn down in a wave of demonstrations known as Leninopad or Leninfall .
This is what has informed the latest intensification of Stalin-washing. The Ukrainian refutation of the symbolic heritage of the Soviet Union seems to have supercharged the Russian embrace of it, Stalin included.
Russia has restored statues of Lenin in the Ukrainian territories it occupies. And it has now also started erecting statues of Stalin, notably in the southeastern city of Melitopol, where a statue was unveiled in May to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union's victory in the second world war.
This is against the law in Ukraine, where there is a ban on pro-Communist (and pro-totalitarian) symbolism. Russian forces have meanwhile been destroying memorials to the Holodomor in a battle over the meaning of the Soviet legacy.
The re-elevation of Stalin promotes a narrow interpretation of his rule, stressing Russia's military strength. Modern statues typically portray Stalin in a military uniform and evoke a sense of him as a victorious wartime leader.
In fact, some of the appeal of the symbol of Stalin lies in welfare provisions of his leadership where, despite imposing an often cruelly authoritarian system, education and healthcare were free for all. The same can be said for his use of fear as a work incentive. Russians sometimes still denounce complacent or inept officials with the imprecation: 'If only Stalin was here to sort you out' ( Stalina na vas net in Russian).
Nevertheless, it is the imperial version of Stalin that dominates, vindicating Russia's refusal to reckon with its colonial past as the center of the Soviet Union. Stalin's record is sometimes defended within Russia on the basis that Winston Churchill, for instance, remains a British national hero despite a bloody past (such as his role in the Bengal famine of 1943).
While there is an element of truth in this, the difference is that Churchill's shortcomings and complicity in the death toll attributable to the British empire are publicly discussed. Such criticism of Stalin is not permitted in Russia. Even the new statue in Moscow was erected under cover of the night, evading public scrutiny and debate.
Jeremy Hicks is a professor of post-Soviet cultural history and film at Queen Mary University of London.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Oil prices slip as Russia supply concerns ease after Trump-Putin meeting
Oil prices slip as Russia supply concerns ease after Trump-Putin meeting

South China Morning Post

time3 hours ago

  • South China Morning Post

Oil prices slip as Russia supply concerns ease after Trump-Putin meeting

Oil prices slipped in early Asian trade on Monday as the United States did not exert more pressure on Russia to end the Ukraine war by implementing further measures to disrupt Moscow's oil exports after presidents from both countries met on Friday. Brent crude futures dropped 32 cents, or 0.49 per cent, to US$65.53 a barrel while US West Texas Intermediate crude was at US$62.57 a barrel, down 23 cents. US President Donald Trump met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday and emerged more aligned with Moscow on seeking a peace deal instead of a ceasefire first. Trump will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and European leaders on Monday to strike a quick peace deal to end Europe's deadliest war in 80 years. 'What was primarily in play were the secondary tariffs targeting the key importers of Russian energy, and President Trump has indeed indicated that he will pause pursuing incremental action on this front, at least for China ,' RBC Capital analyst Helima Croft said in a note.

Time for Europe to show courage
Time for Europe to show courage

AllAfrica

time4 hours ago

  • AllAfrica

Time for Europe to show courage

The Alaska summit was a great success for Vladimir Putin and for Donald Trump's love of theater, but a potential disaster for Ukraine and Europe. The most obvious feature was that Russia made no commitment to a ceasefire. But the most important was that America put no pressure at all on Russia to end the war, despite Trump having promised Europe that he would do so. It is true that few details have been revealed about what was discussed, still less agreed, between the Russian dictator and the American president, although some have leaked, confirming Europeans' worst fears about Putin's demands and about Trump's unwillingness to challenge him. More will doubtless emerge when Ukraine's President Volodymr Zelenskyy flies to Washington on Monday to meet Trump, and from conversations both men have with European leaders. Yet meanwhile we should reflect carefully and soberly on two revealing and menacing vignettes from the summit. The first was the arrival on American soil of Russia's long-serving foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, wearing a sweatshirt bearing the Cyrillic initials CCCP, which stood historically for the USSR. This was a brazen televisual means to assert that Russia still intends to rebuild the empire that was lost when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Russia is undaunted, consistent and, by this symbolic moment of triumph in the former Russian imperial territory of Alaska, emboldened. The second vignette came in the one media interview Trump gave after the summit, to his sycophantic Fox News friend, Sean Hannity. In that interview, Trump put the onus back on Ukraine to make peace and exposed his true view of the conflict by emphasising that the Ukrainians are a small country facing what he called Russia's 'war machine.' Zelenskyy would be wise to capitulate now, was the implication, and America is not going to do anything serious to help it. What these vignettes also reveal is that Putin and Trump share a view of the world as consisting of a lot of weak countries but of three superpowers, to which special rules apply. It is the world as described more than two millennia ago by the Greek historian Thucydides, in which 'the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.' While such realpolitik never completely went away, the whole point of the United Nations Charter of 1945, the body of international law which followed and the collective efforts of the West was to constrain the use of military power and to protect smaller countries against bigger ones. Trump has now confirmed, for anyone who had yet to realize it, that he is a great-power guy, and one who thinks that great powers should treat each other with a special respect. For him, the West is dead. Ukraine, along with others on Europe's frontline such as Poland, the Baltic States and Finland, was already well aware of Russia's imperial ambitions and of Trump's contemptuous view of smaller countries. However, for the two other groups that are still capable of exerting pressure on Trump and on the Ukraine war, the Alaska summit could prove to be a valuable wake-up call. Those two groups are Trump's own Republican supporters in the US Congress and the leaders of Europe's most powerful countries: Germany, France, Italy and Britain. Out of a mixture of loyalty and fear, the Republicans in Congress who care about Ukraine have up until now given Trump the benefit of the doubt. In the weeks before the summit, they chose to believe him when he threatened Russia with 'severe consequences' if Putin did not agree to a ceasefire. Now, unless information quickly emerges showing that Trump has in fact made new and credible threats privately to Putin, they are going to have to choose whether to speak out or to stay silent. The initial reaction from Republicans in Washington to the news from Alaska was quite negative. Their dismal record during Trump's so-far seven months in office nonetheless suggests they will soon quieten down. But with Trump's own poll ratings looking weak and next year's mid-term congressional elections on the horizon, there is a small chance that some might feel brave enough to stand up for Ukraine and to lobby him hard in the only place he really cares about, the United States itself. That said, the greater hope lies, as always, in Europe. For months now the main European strategy has been to try to persuade Trump to put pressure on Putin, while militaries make plans for how to give Ukraine security guarantees to reinforce a ceasefire once one has been agreed. They adopted this strategy because of their own military weakness, and paid a big price for it by meekly accepting the tariffs Trump imposed on the European Union and the United Kingdom rather than seeking to fight back by threatening trade retaliation. They will now have to decide whether this strategy has definitively failed. The cowardly but politically tempting option will be to say that the strategy needs to be given more time. Yet Trump himself, in his Hannity interview and in other remarks, has essentially indicated that this strategy has failed. He has continued to hint that he thinks Ukraine will have to cede more territory to Russia, which both Ukraine and the European leaders have rightly said is a non-starter. It really is time for the Europeans to take over the leading role in strengthening Ukraine's bargaining position and in forcing Russia to bring this war to an end. Doing so will be hard, for the Europeans' weakness is sadly genuine. Yet they do have tools at their disposal, if only they could muster the political courage to deploy them. Above all, Europe needs to show that it is willing to hurt Russia. The best way to do that would be to confiscate the estimated €200 billion of Russian central bank reserves that have been frozen in EU bank accounts for the past three years, and hand the funds to Ukraine. Doing so would grab Putin's attention and might even impress the highly transactional Trump. At the same time, Germany could start supplying Ukraine with its ample stock of long-range Taurus missiles, to take the place of the weapons America is no longer sending. All could send more missile defense systems and shorter-range missiles, even at the cost of leaving themselves vulnerable in the short term. The willingness to take such risks and to call opponents' bluff is one of the things that marks out a strong country from a weak one, and a political leader who has values from one who has none. For goodness sake stand up, Europe, before it is too late. Formerly editor-in-chief of The Economist, Bill Emmott is currently chairman of the Japan Society of the UK, the International Institute for Strategic Studies and the International Trade Institute. First published on his Substack, Bill Emmott's Global View, this is the English original of an article published on August 17 in Italian by La Stampa. It is republished here with kind permission.

'Russia will not give Ukraine security guarantee'
'Russia will not give Ukraine security guarantee'

RTHK

time11 hours ago

  • RTHK

'Russia will not give Ukraine security guarantee'

'Russia will not give Ukraine security guarantee' Volodymyr Zelensky (left) will meet US President Donald Trump in Washington on Monday, accompanied by Ursula von der Leyen (right) and other European leaders. Photo: Reuters Ukraine leader Volodymyr Zelensky on Sunday rejected the idea of Russia offering his country security guarantees, after US and EU officials promoted the possibility. White House envoy Steve Witkoff earlier said US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin agreed to "robust security guarantees" for Ukraine during a meeting in Alaska on Friday. EU chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday hailed the proposal as an offer of NATO-style security guarantees from the United States. "We welcome President Trump's willingness to contribute to (NATO) Article 5-like security guarantees for Ukraine, and the coalition of the willing, including the European Union, is ready to do its share," von der Leyen said. Zelensky also welcomed the idea of US security guarantees -- but was less positive about Russia's intentions. "What President Trump said about security guarantees is much more important to me than Putin's thoughts, because Putin will not give any security guarantees," he told a press conference in Brussels alongside von der Leyen. "Security means a strong army, which only Ukraine can provide. I believe that only Europe can finance this army." Von der Leyen and Zelensky also shared their thoughts on a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and the Ukrainian leader. "So far, Russia gives no sign that the trilateral will happen and if Russia refuses, then new sanctions must follow," Zelensky said. Von der Leyen had said she wanted to see the three-way meeting happen "as soon as possible". Zelensky will meet Trump in Washington on Monday, accompanied by von der Leyen and other European leaders. (AFP)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store