logo
#

Latest news with #RedSquare

Lenin's tomb to get $250k makeover
Lenin's tomb to get $250k makeover

Russia Today

time3 days ago

  • Business
  • Russia Today

Lenin's tomb to get $250k makeover

Russia's Ministry of Culture has signed a contract to restore Lenin's Mausoleum on Red Square for nearly 20 million rubles (about $250,000), according to official tender records. The restoration will address structural damage and update the site for modern use, project documents show. Work is expected to be completed by mid-2027. The mausoleum, which houses the embalmed body of Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin, is one of the most recognizable landmarks in Russia. It has undergone regular maintenance and has been closed on several occasions in recent years, including for public events. An inspection found several parts of the building to be in poor condition, with some areas requiring urgent repairs. The report also cited crumbling surfaces and mold caused by inadequate ventilation. Lenin remains a divisive figure in Russian history. While some view him as a visionary who led the 1917 October Revolution to establish a fairer society, others regard him as a tyrant responsible for mass repression and death. The revolution sparked a civil war, after which the Bolsheviks consolidated control over much of the former Russian Empire. These territories were united in 1922 to form the Soviet Union. Lenin died two years later, in 1924. The mausoleum's red granite and black labradorite structure was constructed between 1929 and 1930. Lenin's body has remained on public display since shortly after his death. According to a 2024 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM), one-third of respondents support keeping Lenin in the mausoleum. Thirty percent favor immediate burial, while 27% believe reburial should occur only if it would not cause controversy. Debate over Lenin's interment resurfaces periodically. While some public figures have called for burial and alternative uses of the site, officials have consistently stated there are no current plans to rebury him. In 2021, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow had no intention of relocating Lenin's remains, citing other national priorities.

Russia recreates giant Stalin monument in Moscow metro
Russia recreates giant Stalin monument in Moscow metro

Times

time16-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Times

Russia recreates giant Stalin monument in Moscow metro

A replica of a monument to Joseph Stalin removed more than 50 years ago has been unveiled in a Moscow metro station in the latest move by President Putin's government to encourage the veneration of the Soviet dictator. The original of the life-sized bas-relief was called 'the People's Gratitude to the Leader and Commander' and was unveiled at Taganskaya station in 1950, before being dismantled as part of de-Stalinisation efforts in the 1960s. It is believed to have been destroyed along with the overwhelming majority of Stalin statues that were built during his long rule. The reconstruction of the monument at the same station in Moscow, less than two miles from Red Square, was not announced in advance. • Vladimir Putin's flat mirrors life of

Fyodor Lukyanov: Russia doesn't need Western approval to shape global history
Fyodor Lukyanov: Russia doesn't need Western approval to shape global history

Russia Today

time13-05-2025

  • Politics
  • Russia Today

Fyodor Lukyanov: Russia doesn't need Western approval to shape global history

The 9th of May Victory Day celebrations in Moscow once again captured international attention – despite the many other global events vying for the headlines. This wasn't simply about pageantry or military symbolism. The Red Square parade was, as always, a statement: a public expression of one country's position in the evolving global environment. Whether critics will admit it or not, events like this provoke reactions – and that in itself signals relevance. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, the memory of that conflict is being viewed through new lenses. It was, undeniably, a world war – its consequences reshaped the international order. The creation of the United Nations was its most formal legacy, but the broader historical impact extended far beyond. The war marked the beginning of the end for the colonial system. From the late 1940s onward, decolonization accelerated rapidly. Within three decades, colonial empires had all but disappeared, and dozens of new states emerged across Africa, Asia, and elsewhere. Their paths varied, but they fundamentally changed the structure of global politics. Looking back from 2025, one could argue that this wave of decolonization – driven by the global South – was no less historically important than the Cold War or the bipolar superpower confrontation. Today, the role of the so-called 'global majority' is expanding quickly. These nations may not dominate the international system, but they increasingly form a vibrant, influential environment in which all global actors must operate. The presence of guests from Asia, Africa, and Latin America at this year's parade in Moscow was a symbolic confirmation of that shift. It signaled that the world has definitively moved beyond the Cold War structure, which framed international life around a North Atlantic-centric axis. Equally important was the fact that this reconfiguration was highlighted in Moscow – through Russia's own initiative. It reflected not just commemoration, but transformation. A similar event is expected in Beijing in September to mark the end of the war in the Pacific theater. Together, these ceremonies highlight how the geopolitical center of gravity is gradually shifting away from its traditional Western base. As time distances us from the largest war in human history, its meaning doesn't diminish. On the contrary, it reappears in new forms. Like it or not, memory has become a political force. It increasingly defines which community a country belongs to. Each nation has its own version of the war – and that's to be expected. This isn't revisionism. It's the natural result of different historical experiences shaped under different conditions. There will never be a single unified narrative of the past, and attempts to impose one are not only unrealistic but dangerous. The focus should be on finding compatibility between differing interpretations, not enforcing uniformity. Using memory as a political weapon erodes the foundations of peaceful international coexistence. This issue is particularly relevant for the global majority, which may one day voice its own historical claims more loudly – especially against former colonial powers in the West. In this context, the growing divergence between Russia and Western Europe over the legacy of the Second World War cannot be ignored. Efforts to preserve and defend Russia's interpretation of the conflict are vital – not to convince others, but for domestic coherence and national identity. Other countries will write their own histories, shaped by their own interests. That cannot be controlled from the outside. The real issue is whether differing historical narratives can coexist. And on this front, it turns out that Russia has a far more productive engagement with many countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America than with most in Europe. Many of these countries have their own war stories – ones that align more naturally with the Russian perspective. Unlike in the West, particularly in Europe, where the memory of the war has become a political wedge, countries in the global South tend to see history less ideologically and more as a shared human experience. Even parties in Western Europe that are ostensibly more sympathetic to Russia, such as the Alternative for Germany, are likely to hold radically different positions when it comes to questions of historical memory. If we simplify the picture, the previous world order was built on the shared memory and outcomes of the Second World War. That order is now gone – and so is the consensus that supported it. The current global situation doesn't amount to a new order in the traditional sense, but perhaps a new equilibrium can emerge. This equilibrium won't be based on universal values or unified narratives, but rather on peaceful coexistence among diverse interpretations and interests. Irreconcilable historical differences will remain a source of tension – particularly between Russia and the West – but differing perspectives need not always lead to conflict. With the global majority, Russia finds more space for mutual respect and constructive interaction. These countries do not seek to overwrite Russian memory; they have their own, and they don't clash. That opens the door to new relationships and partnerships, grounded not in conformity but in compatibility. What we are witnessing is the slow dissolution of the Western-centric worldview. In its place is emerging something far more complex and diversified. This shift is not merely the result of the current geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West, but a reflection of deeper structural changes. It is an objective process – and, for Russia, a potentially advantageous one. As a transcontinental power, Russia has more flexibility than any other state to operate in a multidirectional, multi-civilizational world. The new international environment – whatever form it ultimately takes – will not be shaped by a single hegemonic center. And that reality will force everyone, including Russia, to adapt. But adaptation is not the same as subordination. On the contrary, Russia's unique historical identity and geopolitical position may allow it to thrive in this emerging world – not by conforming to a Western blueprint, but by helping to build something more balanced, inclusive, and representative of the world as it actually is.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store