russia revolution essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Russian Revolution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: March 27, 2024 | Original: March 12, 2024

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was one of the most explosive political events of the 20th century. The violent revolution marked the end of the Romanov dynasty and centuries of Russian Imperial rule. Economic hardship, food shortages and government corruption all contributed to disillusionment with Czar Nicholas II. During the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks, led by leftist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, seized power and destroyed the tradition of czarist rule. The Bolsheviks would later become the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

When Was the Russian Revolution?

In 1917, two revolutions swept through Russia, ending centuries of imperial rule and setting into motion political and social changes that would lead to the eventual formation of the Soviet Union .

However, while the two revolutionary events took place within a few short months of 1917, social unrest in Russia had been brewing for many years prior to the events of that year.

In the early 1900s, Russia was one of the most impoverished countries in Europe with an enormous peasantry and a growing minority of poor industrial workers. Much of Western Europe viewed Russia as an undeveloped, backwards society.

The Russian Empire practiced serfdom—a form of feudalism in which landless peasants were forced to serve the land-owning nobility—well into the nineteenth century. In contrast, the practice had disappeared in most of Western Europe by the end of the Middle Ages .

In 1861, the Russian Empire finally abolished serfdom. The emancipation of serfs would influence the events leading up to the Russian Revolution by giving peasants more freedom to organize.

What Caused the Russian Revolution?

The Industrial Revolution gained a foothold in Russia much later than in Western Europe and the United States. When it finally did, around the turn of the 20th century, it brought with it immense social and political changes.

Between 1890 and 1910, for example, the population of major Russian cities such as St. Petersburg and Moscow nearly doubled, resulting in overcrowding and destitute living conditions for a new class of Russian industrial workers.

A population boom at the end of the 19th century, a harsh growing season due to Russia’s northern climate, and a series of costly wars—starting with the Crimean War —created frequent food shortages across the vast empire. Moreover, a famine in 1891-1892 is estimated to have killed up to 400,000 Russians.

The devastating Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 further weakened Russia and the position of ruler Czar Nicholas II . Russia suffered heavy losses of soldiers, ships, money and international prestige in the war, which it ultimately lost.

Many educated Russians, looking at social progress and scientific advancement in Western Europe and North America, saw how growth in Russia was being hampered by the monarchical rule of the czars and the czar’s supporters in the aristocratic class.

Russian Revolution of 1905

Soon, large protests by Russian workers against the monarchy led to the Bloody Sunday massacre of 1905 . Hundreds of unarmed protesters were killed or wounded by the czar’s troops.

The Bloody Sunday massacre sparked the Russian Revolution of 1905, during which angry workers responded with a series of crippling strikes throughout the country. Farm laborers and soldiers joined the cause, leading to the creation of worker-dominated councils called “soviets.”

In one famous incident, the crew of the battleship Potemkin staged a successful mutiny against their overbearing officers. Historians would later refer to the 1905 Russian Revolution as ‘the Great Dress Rehearsal,” as it set the stage for the upheavals to come.

Nicholas II and World War I

After the bloodshed of 1905 and Russia’s humiliating loss in the Russo-Japanese War, Nicholas II promised greater freedom of speech and the formation of a representative assembly, or Duma, to work toward reform.

Russia entered into World War I in August 1914 in support of the Serbs and their French and British allies. Their involvement in the war would soon prove disastrous for the Russian Empire.

Militarily, imperial Russia was no match for industrialized Germany, and Russian casualties were greater than those sustained by any nation in any previous war. Food and fuel shortages plagued Russia as inflation mounted. The already weak economy was hopelessly disrupted by the costly war effort.

Czar Nicholas left the Russian capital of Petrograd (St. Petersburg) in 1915 to take command of the Russian Army front. (The Russians had renamed the imperial city in 1914, because “St. Petersburg” sounded too German.)

Rasputin and the Czarina

In her husband’s absence, Czarina Alexandra—an unpopular woman of German ancestry—began firing elected officials. During this time, her controversial advisor, Grigory Rasputin , increased his influence over Russian politics and the royal Romanov family .

Russian nobles eager to end Rasputin’s influence murdered him on December 30, 1916. By then, most Russians had lost faith in the failed leadership of the czar. Government corruption was rampant, the Russian economy remained backward and Nicholas repeatedly dissolved the Duma , the toothless Russian parliament established after the 1905 revolution, when it opposed his will.

Moderates soon joined Russian radical elements in calling for an overthrow of the hapless czar.

February Revolution

The February Revolution (known as such because of Russia’s use of the Julian calendar until February 1918) began on March 8, 1917 (February 23 on the Julian calendar).

Demonstrators clamoring for bread took to the streets of Petrograd. Supported by huge crowds of striking industrial workers, the protesters clashed with police but refused to leave the streets.

On March 11, the troops of the Petrograd army garrison were called out to quell the uprising. In some encounters, the regiments opened fire, killing demonstrators, but the protesters kept to the streets and the troops began to waver.

The Duma formed a provisional government on March 12. A few days later, Czar Nicholas abdicated the throne, ending centuries of Russian Romanov rule.

Alexander Kerensky

The leaders of the provisional government, including young Russian lawyer Alexander Kerensky, established a liberal program of rights such as freedom of speech, equality before the law, and the right of unions to organize and strike. They opposed violent social revolution.

As minister of war, Kerensky continued the Russian war effort, even though Russian involvement in World War I was enormously unpopular. This further exacerbated Russia’s food supply problems. Unrest continued to grow as peasants looted farms and food riots erupted in the cities.

Bolshevik Revolution

On November 6 and 7, 1917 (or October 24 and 25 on the Julian calendar, which is why the event is often referred to as the October Revolution ), leftist revolutionaries led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin launched a nearly bloodless coup d’état against the Duma’s provisional government.

The provisional government had been assembled by a group of leaders from Russia’s bourgeois capitalist class. Lenin instead called for a Soviet government that would be ruled directly by councils of soldiers, peasants and workers.

The Bolsheviks and their allies occupied government buildings and other strategic locations in Petrograd, and soon formed a new government with Lenin as its head. Lenin became the dictator of the world’s first communist state.

Russian Civil War

Civil War broke out in Russia in late 1917 after the Bolshevik Revolution. The warring factions included the Red and White Armies.

The Red Army fought for the Lenin’s Bolshevik government. The White Army represented a large group of loosely allied forces, including monarchists, capitalists and supporters of democratic socialism.

On July 16, 1918, the Romanovs were executed by the Bolsheviks. The Russian Civil War ended in 1923 with Lenin’s Red Army claiming victory and establishing the Soviet Union.

After many years of violence and political unrest, the Russian Revolution paved the way for the rise of communism as an influential political belief system around the world. It set the stage for the rise of the Soviet Union as a world power that would go head-to-head with the United States during the Cold War .

The Russian Revolutions of 1917. Anna M. Cienciala, University of Kansas . The Russian Revolution of 1917. Daniel J. Meissner, Marquette University . Russian Revolution of 1917. McGill University . Russian Revolution of 1905. Marxists.org . The Russian Revolution of 1905: What Were the Major Causes? Northeastern University . Timeline of the Russian Revolution. British Library .

Photo Galleries

HISTORY Vault: Vladimir Lenin: Voice of Revolution

Called treacherous, deluded and insane, Lenin might have been a historical footnote but for the Russian Revolution, which launched him into the headlines of the 20th century.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

• Modern History

What happened in the 1917 Russian Revolution?

In the year 1917, Russia experienced two political revolutions that resulted in the overthrow of the Romanov monarchy, which had ruled Russia for centuries: from 1613 to 1917, ruling for a little over 300 years.

The causes of the Russian Revolution had existed for over a century in Russian society, but the economic and social stresses were increased by the length and severity of World War One.

At the beginning of the First World War in 1914, Russia was a monarchy, which meant it was ruled over by a Tsar called Nicholas II.

For a long time before the war, the Russian people were growing angry with the power the Tsar held over them and how little the imperial family seemed to care about their poverty.

In the fifty years before the war, Tsars had been attacked by their own people in an effort to force change in society.

Some of the most active political groups calling for change were those that followed the ideology of communism. 

Communists argued that Russia should not be controlled by a monarchy and, instead, should be controlled by the Russian people themselves.

These groups encouraged the peasants to stage an armed take-over of the country to get rid of the Tsar all together.

In its place, they wanted to set up a government that focused on the needs of the peasants and the regular workers in society. 

However, despite the encouragement by communist political groups, the Russian population did not rise up and overthrow the Tsar, as most people still felt a loyalty to the imperial family. 

That was until the First World War occurred. Russia had not fared well in the conflict and there was growing resentment at home.

The Russian army continued to suffer defeats and peasants were growing hungrier due to restrictions placed on food.

The popularity of communist political groups increased as they called for Russia to leave the war.

The Tsar, however, refused to let Russia quit from the conflict, no matter how much his people were starving or suffering.

This finally led some people within Russian society to call for the overthrow of the Tsar.

The revolution finally occurred in 1917. However, it was a revolution that occurred in stages over the course of the year.

It can be a complex topic to study, but this article will try and keep things simple, by explaining the three broad stages that took Russia from a monarchy to a communist country. 

Stage 1: The February Revolution

The first stage of the Russian Revolution occurred in February 1917, and it was the event that finally removed the Tsar and the imperial family from power.

This stage began on February 23rd, when women workers in the city of Petrograd walked away from their factory jobs to march onto the streets in protest.

This day was important for them to protest upon, because it was International Women's Day.

Around 90,000 women marched in this protest, calling for more food, the removal of the Tsar and an end to the war. 

On the very next day, over 150,000 men and women protested again. Then, on the 25th of February, the city of Petrograd was again filled with protestors as more people walked off their jobs.

Even the military units that were sent in by the Tsar to control the protests quit their own jobs and joined the crowds.

Tsar Nicholas II knew that the protests were occurring, but he was not in Petrograd at the time, so he did not respond to the calls for change.

However, by March 1st, the protests and anger were becoming a national security threat and the Tsar finally admitted that it was time to step down.

On March the 2nd, Tsar Nicholas II signed the official abdication forms, which meant that he was no longer in power.

He and his family no longer controlled Russia, and power was handed over to the Russian people. 

Stage 2: The Provisional Government

The second stage of the Russian Revolution covers the months between March to October 1917.

During this time, Russia tried to create a government that could effectively replace the Tsar.

However, what people quickly found was that running a country was a far more difficult thing to do than they first realised, and different versions of governments were quickly created and disbanded.

Once the Tsar had stepped down, it wasn't immediately clear who now made the decisions about what should happen in Russia.

Two main political groups became the most influential. The first group was composed of former members of the government body known as the duma and was made up of people from the wealthy middle class of Russian society, rather than by the peasants or workers.

The second group was a collection of people who claimed to represent the workers of the city of Petrograd and was known as the 'Petrograd Soviet'. 

It was the duma that created the first government to replace the Tsar, and it is known as the Provisional Government.

It was considered to be a 'provisional' government, as its main job was to ensure that an election would be held later in the year for the people to vote for a permanent government.

However, instead of planning for an election, the Provisional Government essentially decided that they were the permanent government instead. 

During the first few weeks in power, the Provisional Government did implement some changes to Russian society, but refused to end Russia's involvement in World War One.

This meant that very little changed for the Russian peasants and workers. There were still food shortages, people were still being recruited for the army and Russia was still losing battles in the war.

Instead of solving the problems that caused the revolution, the Provisional Government was making the same problems worse. 

Lenin arrives in Russia

One of the most important people in Russian history was a man called Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

He was the leader of a political group known as the Bolsheviks, which promoted communist ideals.

While Lenin was born in Russia, he had been living in exile elsewhere in Europe when the February Revolution occurred.

He believed that the Provisional Government had not done enough to help the Russian people, and he travelled back to Russia on a train to raise enthusiasm for a more radical government.

He was transported through Germany in a sealed train. By doing this, Germany hoped that Lenin's return would create further instability in Russia, which would help them in the war.

Lenin arrived in the city of Petrograd on April 3, 1917. Crowds of workers and soldiers were there to meet him, waving red flags.

The colour red would become associated with the third stage of the Russian Revolution. 

Lenin gave a speech to his supporters, in which he called for the end of the Provisional Government because it had not given the Russian people 'peace, bread or land'.

As the Russian people grew more discontent with the Provisional Government, the popularity of Lenin's Bolshevik party began to grow.

Also, Lenin's call for another revolution, a more violent one, also grew in popularity.

Stage 3: The October Revolution

The third and final stage of the Russian Revolution occurred in October 1917, and it was when the communist Bolsheviks took control of Russia.

On the 10th of October, the Bolshevik party held a secret meeting where Lenin drew up plans for his followers to stage an armed revolution and seize control of the country.

Once agreed upon, the Bolshevik leadership began planning.

Then, in the early morning of October 25, the Bolshevik revolution began. Soldiers who supported the Bolsheviks quickly took control of the telegraph systems, power stations, roads, post offices, railways, and even the banks in the city of Petrograd.

These were the most important pieces of infrastructure that governments and militaries needed to function.

By taking these first, not only could the Bolsheviks claim to be the government, but they also stopped anyone else fighting back against their control.

By midday, the Bolsheviks controlled Petrograd. The only place left to fall to them was the former home of the Tsar, called the Winter Palace, where the members of the Provisional Government were. 

It would not be until the next day that troops entered the palace and finally removed the last of the politicians.

The final stage of the revolution was not as bloody as many had feared. Ultimately, it was a quick overthrow, and the Bolsheviks took control of Russia.

Once in power, Lenin began a more radical change to Russian society. 

The Russian Civil War

Very soon after the October Revolution, the new government ended Russia's participation in World War One.

However, to achieve this, Russia had to surrender a significant amount of land to Germany.

This meant that there was less farmland to grow crops for the starving Russian people. As a result, very few of the problems were solved.

Then, in June 1918, Russia went to war with itself, in what is known as a 'civil war'. One army formed which was called 'The Whites', which wanted the Bolsheviks out of power.

The Whites were a coalition of anti-Bolshevik forces with varying goals, including monarchists, republicans, and others. 

The other army that fought against them was known as 'The Reds', which was the army of the Bolshevik government.

Afraid that the Whites wanted to return the Tsar to Power, the Reds killed Nicholas II and his entire family on July 16-17, 1918.

The Russian Civil War lasted for over three years and resulted in a huge loss of life. Ultimately, the Reds won, and the Bolsheviks would create the Soviet Union, which would last until 1991. 

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

World History Project - Origins to the Present

Course: world history project - origins to the present   >   unit 7.

• READ: What Caused the First World War
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Britain and World War I
• WATCH: Britain and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• WATCH: Southeast Asia and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• WATCH: The Middle East and World War I
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: How World War I Started
• WATCH: How World War I Started
• READ: The First World War as a Global War
• READ: World War I — A Total War
• READ: The Mexican Revolution
• READ: The Power of One — The Russian Revolution
• BEFORE YOU WATCH: Armenian Genocide

Friday essay: Putin, memory wars and the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution

Professor of History, The University of Western Australia

Disclosure statement

Mark Edele receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

University of Western Australia provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

One hundred years ago, the Romanov dynasty fell in the February Revolution of 1917. This centenary haunts Russia’s current government. “In the Kremlin,” wrote journalist Ben Judah in his important analysis of Vladimir Putin’s “Fragile Empire”, “they have nightmares about Nicholas II”.

In the middle of a terrible war with Germany, a revolutionary crisis had started in late February (according to the Julian calendar then in force in Russia). The Tsar, under pressure from the street, the parliamentary opposition, his own ministers, and the army command, abdicated on 2 March. A Provisional Government of liberals and moderate socialists took over the affairs of state and the war effort.

Eventually, the revolution radicalized in the Red October. Historians continue to debate if this uprising of the Bolshevik party was a “revolution” or a “coup.” The former interpretation stresses the fact that Lenin’s party had significant support among the working class, in particular among workers and soldiers of the capital, Petrograd (today St Petersburg).

The takeover of power was relatively unbloody, with only few victims initially. And Bolshevik slogans (land to the peasants, peace to the soldiers, and political power to the working class), were popular far beyond the immediate constituency of the party. At the same time, the Bolsheviks had little support among the peasantry, still the overwhelming majority of the population. The uprising was not spontaneous like its February equivalent, but planned by a small group of conspirators around Lenin. And once in power, the Bolsheviks built a one-party dictatorship, which quickly alienated even many of its initial followers. Lenin’s government had to fight armed resistance in what soon escalated into a complex but devastating civil war.

Together, the two revolutions of 1917 led to military defeat, the destruction of the state, and disintegration of the empire. Many non-Russian regions broke away, often forming precursors to nation states which would only come into their own after the breakdown of the Soviet Union in 1991. Nicholas II would not survive the incredibly brutal civil and international wars of succession that followed in 1918-22: the Bolsheviks executed him together with his family in 1918.

These high-profile executions were only the most prominent examples of the “Red Terror” Lenin unleashed to frighten his many enemies into submission. Members of the former upper classes, clergy, nationalists fighting for the independence of non-Russian successor states, and real or presumed defenders of the old regime (“Whites”) were singled out for imprisonment or execution.

In the end, by 1922, the Bolsheviks had won this many sided war, presiding over an exhausted and mutilated country set back for decades by the destruction of war, revolution, and civil war. Eventually, under the brutal leadership of Joseph Stalin, the Soviet Union would win the Second World War in Europe and establish itself as one of the two Superpowers to rule the world during the Cold War.

Putin’s dilemma

Putin’s government faces a dilemma regarding this past. The Revolution can neither be fully embraced nor fully disowned. Revolutions are anathema to Putin, who does not want to be swept away by a successful uprising similar to the Ukrainian Euromaidan in 2013-14. At the same time, Russia both legally and ideologically claims to be the successor state to the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union’s founding event happens to be a revolution. The centenary cannot be simply ignored.

History, in Putin’s Russia, is not a mere academic pursuit. It is part of what La Trobe political scientist Robert Horvath calls “preventive counter revolution” : an attempt to nip in the bud any potential for a popular uprising. The past which Putin and his Minister of Culture, the maverick historian Vladimir Medinsky, most frequently deploy to this end is the “Great Patriotic War” against Nazi Germany.

As I argue in an article forthcoming in the journal History & Memory , their self-confident, patriotic rendering of the Soviet Second World War serves as ideological glue attaching the population to the government.

Could one do the same with the Revolution: write it into a positive history of contemporary Russia? It would be possible to embrace the February revolution as a legitimate, potentially democratic uprising, which also freed the nations of the empire from imperial control: a decolonizing as well as democratizing event. The Bolshevik revolution could then become an illegitimate coup bringing a criminal regime to power, which re-erected by force of arms the old empire under a new guise.

Such a narrative de-legitimizes much of the Soviet period, while celebrating the breakdown of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states in 1991 as the historical fulfillment of the promises of February 1917.

Such a version of the past finds few enthusiasts in today’s Russia. As historian Geoffrey Hosking has written , most formerly Soviet peoples experienced 1991

as national liberation. For Russians, however, who had lived in all republics and thought of the Soviet Union as ‘their’ country, it was deprivation.

This perception “still rankles today” and “underlies the current Ukrainian crisis.”

‘Reconciliation’

Nostalgia for the good old Soviet times is better served by a different version of this past: the February revolution as treason. In such an alternative narrative, liberals and other elites were stabbing the legitimate government in the back at times of war. Imperial breakdown and defeat in war followed.

The Bolshevik revolution, then, was the start of a re-building of the state and the re-gathering of the empire. According to this way of telling the story, the Bolsheviks were state builders who fixed what others had broken. The Soviet Union was the legitimate successor of the Romanov empire and the 1991 breakdown a geopolitical catastrophe, another setback for “Russian statehood”.

This second narrative implies a neo-imperialist stance guaranteed to alienate Ukrainians or Latvians, or any other non-Russian successor nations to the Soviet Union. It will also prove unpopular with a significant minority of Russians at home and abroad: monarchists and those who embrace the anti-Bolshevik “White” movement as their historical ancestry. Hence, the government performs something of a fudging act: “reconciliation”.

“Reconciliation” implies that the warring sides in revolution and civil war can be remembered as parts of a positive history of the fatherland. This move requires reducing the revolutionary process to a “Russian” event.

Rather than multi-national wars of succession to the Romanov empire, what happened in the period 1917-1922 becomes a struggle between “White” and “Red” Russians. Ukrainian, Polish, Baltic, or Central Asian actors are either ignored, assigned to the one or the other side in this conflict, or declared pawns of foreign interventionists. Popular resistance to both Whites and Reds by Russian rebels in peasantry, army, and working class is waved away as an inconvenient complication.

Attempting to construct such a narrative has kept Putin’s history warrior Medinsky busy. In 2013, he stated that it was “meaningless” to decide which party of the civil war was “right” or who was “guilty.”

Instead, one needed to understand that both Reds and Whites “loved Russia.” Both sides had their own truth and were ready to die for it. “We have to approach this with respect,” he added. Monuments to Whites had the same legitimacy as monuments to Reds. They were both needed.

In 2015 Medinsky built on this beginning in a lecture to students of the elite Moscow State Institute for International Relations. We have two versions of what he said, both distributed through semi-official websites. Different in some details, they both make an attempt to come to terms with this revolution by taking a philosophical view of events.

Both Reds and Whites, Medinsky stated, were subjects of the same historical moment of catastrophic breakdown of “Russian statehood in the Romanov version” which led to a time of “troubles” . He lined up the Whites with the February revolution on the one end and liberal post-1991 Russia on the other – a breathtaking simplification, but a useful one, as we shall see.

The historical role of the Reds is central in Medinsky’s account. Independent of their own radical socialist motivations, they ended up re-building Russian statehood (and implicitly, the Russian empire). It was “the logic of history” which worked through the Bolsheviks, and led to the re-creation of “the united Russian state, which they started to call USSR.”

Thus, the real victor of the revolutionary upheavals was

a third force, which did not participate in the civil war: historical Russia, the same Russia which existed for a thousand years before the revolution and which will continue to exist in the future.

So far, so sophisticated: By declaring “Russia” the real subject of history and the human beings who fought over it the mere executors of a higher will they did not know themselves, Medinsky seems to have found a way out of the polarizing interpretations of the revolution.

Upon closer inspection, however, his is just a well-camouflaged version of the second interpretation outlined above: February as destruction, October as re-creation, the Bolsheviks the virtuous state builders implicitly linked to the current government. Medinsky’s fusion of the Whites with post-1991 liberalism is instructive. While the Bolsheviks re-built the Russian state in 1918-22, the liberals triggered, in 1991, the “destruction of the united historical-cultural and economic space… the breakdown of the Soviet Union.”

It appears to be this negative assessment of the Whites that has kept Vladimir Putin from fully embracing his Minister of Culture’s historical scheme. The President accepted reconciliation but rejected Medinsky’s supporting interpretation of events.

A divisive event for Russians

Putin’s reluctance could be seen as careful tactics in a historiographical minefield. The history of the revolution is much more divisive among Russians than the history of World War II.

As University of Sydney historian Sheila Fitzpatrick points out in a forthcoming essay, the “real problem” of the centenary for Putin’s government is the lack of consensus about the meaning of this event among the population of Russia.

Despite all its authoritarianism, the Putin regime is very alert to popular opinion, and given the divisiveness of the memory of 1917-22, the best possible solution is to fudge the issue. In his annual speech to Parliament on 1 December 2016, the President refused to take sides, asking his compatriots to let sleeping dogs lie. The “lessons of history” were needed:

first of all for reconciliation, for the strengthening of the social, political, and civil harmony we have achieved today. It is not permissible to drag the schisms, malice, insults and bitterness of the past into our contemporary life, to speculate on the tragedies which have engulfed practically every family in Russia, in order to advance one’s own political or other interests. It does not matter on what side of the barricades our ancestors found themselves. Let us remember: we are a united people, we are one people, and we have only one Russia.

Putin’s position on the revolution, however, might be rooted in more than just tactics. During a meeting of the All-Russian People’s Front (an organization uniting the ruling party with selected pro-government NGOs), the President was asked for his opinion about Lenin, the Bolshevik leader during the Revolution and civil war, who led the Soviet Union until his death in 1924.

The question does not appear to have been scripted: it was so rambling that Putin needed to ask for clarification, and his answer was no less convoluted. It seemed improvised, ambiguous and contradictory.

First, the President recalled his past membership in the Communist Party and that he “liked and still like[s] communist and socialist ideas.” He listed the successes of the planned economy, most importantly the victory over Nazism in World War II.

At the same time he mentioned mass repressions under the Soviets. Did the children of the Tsar really have to be executed? Or the Romanovs’ family doctor? Why did the Soviets kill clergymen? And what about the role of the Bolsheviks in disorganizing the front in World War I? The revolution, in effect, made Russia lose the war to the losing side (Germany had to capitulate less than a year after the Bolsheviks signed a punishing peace treaty), “a unique event in history.” Clearly, the Bolsheviks’ role was not all positive.

Putin kept his most biting comments to the end of his monologue. By creating the Soviet Union as a federation made up of republics with the formal right to secession, Lenin (against the advice of Stalin) planted “a mine under the building of our state:” in 1991, the Soviet Union would break down along the borders of the republics. Ultimately, then, Lenin was responsible not only for the defeat of the Romanov empire in World War I, but also for the breakup of the Soviet empire in 1991 – hardly a positive evaluation.

These rambling remarks stand in sharp contrast to Putin’s well developed and unambiguous line on World War II as well as Medinsky’s sophisticated pro-Bolshevik dialectics. It appears that the President, like the country as a whole, is much more confused about what to make of the revolution. The President has much more time for the Whites than his Minister of Culture. In the memory wars, as elsewhere, he is an independent actor in a complex political game.

There is another interpretation of the dissonances between Medinsky and Putin, however. What better way to unify the country over this contentious past than to give slightly different emphases to the reconciliation message?

Effectively, the President appeals to monarchists and White forces while his Minister of Culture caters to Red nostalgia.

We shall see throughout the centenary year, if this division of labour continues or if the one or the other line will prevail. The first test will be if and how the anniversary of the February Revolution will be commemorated; the second will be what public events will mark October. By the time of writing, it is unclear what these events will look like. It will be fascinating to watch.

La Trobe University’s Ideas & Society Program will host a conversation between historian Sheila Fitzpatrick, one of the world’s leading historians of the Soviet Union, and Mark Edele on February 23 at 6:15 pm . Their conversation will concern the role the Russian Revolution of 1917 played in shaping the history of the 20th century. It will be live streamed here

• Vladimir Putin
• Russian revolution
• Vladimir Lenin
• Russian history
• Imperial Russia

Project Officer, Student Volunteer Program

Audience Development Coordinator (fixed-term maternity cover)

Lecturer (Hindi-Urdu)

Director, Defence and Security

Opportunities with the new CIEHF

The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes Essay

The Russian Revolution refers to one of the most significant historical events in the world history. It left a print on the territory of Europe and USA and influenced social life of the whole Russian Empire. This event covered two revolutions rooted in Russia: the February Revolution and the October Revolution of 1917. Both of them appeared to be influential and global covering almost all the spheres of life and activities.

The February Revolution a spontaneous movement concentrated around Petrograd. The effects of this event were suppressive though not so unbearable as those caused by the Bolshevik Revolution happened in October 1917. It gave a start to the communism spread fulfilled by the Bolsheviks or the Bolshevik Party. They represented the interests of the working class. The leader of the Revolution was Lenin whose actions were directed against Provisional Government which appeared to be ineffective. This revolution influenced social, political and economic relations in the society.

In order to define the methods of revolution prevention it is important to stress its main causes:

• Political insufficiency and backwardness covering weak position of the leadership;
• Economic instability covering the whole Empire at that period;
• Warlike relationships of the country with other lands and national participation in the war events.

It can be seen that all the reasons for the revolutionary events are too global to solve them simultaneously. Nevertheless the weak position of the Provisional Government is considered to be one of the main causes of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

The representatives of the Government could prevent the events of the revolution. They worked out wrong program to follow which was aimed against the interests of the society, to be more exact against the working class which contained the majority of the population.

The first step was to improve the economical position of the Empire. Poor working conditions for people were followed by little salary. The government should have taken under control all the aspects of social life and invested more means into the working and living conditions of people to satisfy their needs and provide better general norms.

The second step aimed at the revolution prevention concerns constant international conflicts of Russia Empire which made people live in the conditions of warrior atmosphere. Czar’s politics was aimed at personal interests’ satisfaction. The conditions for life were terrible because people had to live and work in constant fear of global war. The government should have worked out political strategies which could help to establish piece and stability in the country.

Further on, Provisional Government had to take a row of labor reforms in order to avoid global conflict. It was necessary to find a half way with the leader of the Bolshevik Party and meet all possible requirements of the rebellions. Such position could help to avoid suffering losses caused by the Russian Revolution. The Government was to sign an agreement which would satisfy both parties.

Thus, it was possible to prevent the events of the Russian Revolution which changed all the aspects of social life of that time. Bolshevik Revolution became the important event in the life of Russian Empire.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, September 27). The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/

"The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." IvyPanda , 27 Sept. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes'. 27 September.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Russian Revolution 1917: Causes and Outcomes." September 27, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-russian-revolution-1917/.

• Bolshevik Propaganda in the Russian Revolution
• The Down Fall of the Russian Revolution
• Russian Revolution: What Went Down?
• History of Russian Revolution in 1917
• The History of Russian Revolution
• Russian Revolutions Since 1905: Background and Consequences
• Provisional Irish Republican Army
• Long-term impact of the revolution on economic development
• Imperialism and Its Negative Consequences
• Mexican and Russian Revolution: Comparative Analysis
• War Purposes and Possibility of Its Eradication
• The Development of Europe Burial Practice
• Conflicts of the 20th Century: Roles of Civilizations
• Comparisons Between the Assyrians, Persians, and Athenian Armies
• The Dispute Over Israel

Home — Essay Samples — History — World History — The Russian Revolution in 1917

The Russian Revolution in 1917

• Categories: Russia World History

About this sample

Words: 644 |

Published: Mar 1, 2019

Words: 644 | Page: 1 | 4 min read

Works Cited:

• Ahmed, S. (2014). Understanding Pakistani Culture: A Comparison with Western Culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(5), 1-7.
• Ali, S. S., Khalid, M., & Zaman, K. (2017). Understanding Pakistani culture through Hofstede's cultural dimensions. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 22(3), 63-76.
• Bukhari, A., & Khan, H. R. (2018). Cultural Differences between Pakistan and the United States: A Comparison. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 9(1), 39-48.
• Choudhry, S., & Akram, S. (2018). Comparison of Pakistani and American Cultures in Light of Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 10(1), 25-40.
• Farooq, M. (2019). A Comparative Study of Pakistani and American Culture. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 19(2), 1-10.
• Hameed, I., & Bhatti, M. A. (2016). A Comparative Study of Pakistani and American Culture. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(2), 62-74.
• Kausar, R., Mahmood, S., & Cheema, S. (2019). Cultural Differences between Pakistan and the United States: A Literature Review. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 9(4), 37-47.
• Khan, N. U. (2015). The impact of culture on Pakistani immigrants in the United States. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 54(2), 225-237.
• Shahzadi, I. (2018). Pakistani and American Culture: A Comparison. Journal of Language and Literature, 9(2), 71-75.
• Ziauddin, A., & Hussain, M. (2017). Cultural Differences between Pakistan and the United States: A Review of Literature. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(9), 101-110.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Geography & Travel History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

7 pages / 3152 words

2 pages / 866 words

2 pages / 1059 words

7 pages / 3333 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on World History

Moscow is the capital and largest city of Russia as well as the. It is also the 4th largest city in the world, and is the first in size among all European cities. Moscow was founded in 1147 by Yuri Dolgoruki, a prince of the [...]

The final battle of the American Revolution, the war that proved the thirteen colonies were fierce fighters, the war that proved young and weak could beat old and strong. The Battle of Yorktown showed and proved all of these [...]

Religion. Ferdinand II attempted to impose Roman Catholic absolutism on his domain. The protestant nobles of Austria and Bohemia rose up in rebellion. Ferdinand II won after five years of struggling. King Christian of Denmark [...]

In ancient Greek Society women were not regarded as equals with men, they were viewed as inferior and incapable of doing what a man could. They had to act submissive and be under a man’s control and oftentimes could not do or [...]

The antiquated Egyptian and old Greek developments are two of the most seasoned known human advancements in history. The Egyptian human progress, situated in the eastern piece of North Africa, is accepted to have begun around [...]

The Front de Liberation du Quebec, shortened as the FLQ Crisis, (known as October Crisis) was created in 1963. The leader of this group is Paul Rose. FLQ was considered to be the second worst attack, by fact that they killed 8 [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay on Russian Revolution

Students are often asked to write an essay on Russian Revolution in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Russian Revolution

What was the russian revolution.

The Russian Revolution was a series of events that led to the overthrow of the Russian monarchy and the establishment of the Soviet Union. It began in 1917 with a series of strikes and protests against the government. The Tsar, Nicholas II, abdicated his throne in March 1917. A provisional government was formed, but it was soon overthrown by the Bolsheviks, a radical socialist party led by Vladimir Lenin.

The Bolsheviks seized power

Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in November 1917 in a coup known as the October Revolution. They established a new government, the Soviet Union, and began to implement their socialist policies. These policies included the nationalization of industry and land, the abolition of private property, and the creation of a centrally planned economy.

The Russian Civil War

The Bolsheviks’ seizure of power led to a civil war in Russia. The White Army, supported by the Western powers, fought against the Red Army, supported by the Bolsheviks. The Red Army eventually won the civil war in 1921.

The Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was a one-party state ruled by the Communist Party. It was a totalitarian state, with the government controlling all aspects of life. The Soviet Union became a major world power during the Cold War, but it eventually collapsed in 1991.

250 Words Essay on Russian Revolution

Introduction to the russian revolution.

The Russian Revolution was a major event that changed Russia forever. It happened in 1917 and led to the end of the monarchy. This meant the king and queen were no longer in charge. Instead, the country tried to set up a government where the people had more power.

Causes of the Revolution

Many people in Russia were unhappy because they were poor and life was hard. The country was also doing badly in a big war called World War I. This made even more people upset. They wanted changes, like better working conditions, more food, and a fairer system.

The Two Parts of the Revolution

The revolution had two main parts. The first part was in February 1917, when the king gave up his throne. This was because many people, including soldiers, protested in the streets. Then, in October, another group called the Bolsheviks took control. They were led by a man named Lenin who wanted to set up a government based on the ideas of a man named Karl Marx.

After the Revolution

After taking power, the Bolsheviks made big changes. They took land from rich people and gave it to the poor. They also tried to make sure everyone had enough to eat and work. But, these changes led to a civil war, which was a very hard time for Russia.

The Russian Revolution was a turning point for Russia. It led to the end of the monarchy and the start of a new type of government. This event is still important today because it shows how people can come together to try and change their country.

500 Words Essay on Russian Revolution

The spark that ignited a revolution: bloody sunday.

In 1905, a peaceful protest in St. Petersburg, Russia, turned into a bloodbath. The Tsar’s soldiers opened fire on the crowd, killing hundreds of innocent people. This event, known as Bloody Sunday, became the catalyst for the Russian Revolution.

Seeds of Discontent: Economic and Social Inequality

Russia in the early 20th century was a land of stark contrasts. While the aristocracy and the wealthy lived in luxury, the vast majority of the population, including peasants and factory workers, lived in poverty. The gap between the rich and the poor was vast, and the people were yearning for change.

A Call for Change: Lenin and the Bolsheviks

In the midst of this discontent, a revolutionary group known as the Bolsheviks emerged. Led by Vladimir Lenin, the Bolsheviks preached the overthrow of the Tsar and the establishment of a socialist state. They promised land to the peasants and control of factories to the workers.

The 1917 Revolution: Two Revolutions in One

The Russian Revolution of 1917 was not a single event, but rather a series of two interconnected revolutions. The first revolution, known as the February Revolution, led to the overthrow of the Tsar and the establishment of a provisional government. The second, the October Revolution, brought the Bolsheviks to power.

The Reign of the Bolsheviks: A New Era of Repression

Once in power, the Bolsheviks quickly consolidated their control over the country. They established a one-party state and ruthlessly suppressed any opposition. Their rule was marked by widespread violence and terror, as they sought to eliminate their political enemies.

Legacy of the Revolution: A Mixed Bag

The Russian Revolution had a profound impact on Russia and the world. It led to the creation of the Soviet Union, the first communist state in the world. The Soviet Union would become a global superpower and play a major role in the Cold War. The revolution also inspired other communist movements around the world. However, the revolution came at a great cost. Millions of people died in the violence that accompanied the revolution and the subsequent civil war. The Soviet Union, while achieving great economic and scientific advancements, also suppressed individual liberties and dissident voices. The legacy of the Russian Revolution remains a complex and debated topic, with both positive and negative aspects.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Public Speaking
• Essay on Public Smoking Ban
• Essay on Public Health Issues

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Animal Farm

George Orwell

• Literature Notes
• The Russian Revolution
• Animal Farm at a Glance
• Book Summary
• About Animal Farm
• Character List
• Summary and Analysis
• Character Analysis
• Character Map
• George Orwell Biography
• Critical Essays
• Major Themes
• Full Glossary
• Essay Questions
• Practice Projects
• Cite this Literature Note

Critical Essays The Russian Revolution

One of Orwell 's goals in writing Animal Farm was to portray the Russian (or Bolshevik) Revolution of 1917 as one that resulted in a government more oppressive, totalitarian, and deadly than the one it overthrew. Many of the characters and events of Orwell's novel parallel those of the Russian Revolution: In short, Manor Farm is a model of Russia, and old Major , Snowball , and Napoleon represent the dominant figures of the Russian Revolution.

Mr. Jones is modeled on Tsar Nicholas II (1868-1918), the last Russian emperor. His rule (1894-1917) was marked by his insistence that he was the uncontestable ruler of the nation. During his reign, the Russian people experienced terrible poverty and upheaval, marked by the Bloody Sunday massacre in 1905 when unarmed protesters demanding social reforms were shot down by the army near Nicholas' palace. As the animals under Jones lead lives of hunger and want, the lives of millions of Russians worsened during Nicholas' reign. When Russia entered World War I and subsequently lost more men than any country in any previous war, the outraged and desperate people began a series of strikes and mutinies that signaled the end of Tsarist control. When his own generals withdrew their support of him, Nicholas abdicated his throne in the hopes of avoiding an all-out civil war — but the civil war arrived in the form of the Bolshevik Revolution, when Nicholas, like Jones, was removed from his place of rule and then died shortly thereafter.

old Major is the animal version of V. I. Lenin (1870-1924), the leader of the Bolshevik Party that seized control in the 1917 Revolution. As old Major outlines the principles of Animalism, a theory holding that all animals are equal and must revolt against their oppressors, Lenin was inspired by Karl Marx's theory of Communism, which urges the "workers of the world" to unite against their economic oppressors. As Animalism imagines a world where all animals share in the prosperity of the farm, Communism argues that a "communal" way of life will allow all people to live lives of economic equality. old Major dies before he can see the final results of the revolution, as Lenin did before witnessing the ways in which his disciples carried on the work of reform.

old Major is absolute in his hatred of Man, as Lenin was uncompromising in his views: He is widely believed to have been responsible for giving the order to kill Nicholas and his family after the Bolsheviks had gained control. Lenin was responsible for changing Russia into the U.S.S.R., as old Major is responsible for transforming Manor Farm into Animal Farm. The U.S.S.R.'s flag depicted a hammer and sickle — the tools of the rebelling workers — so the flag of Animal Farm features a horn and hoof.

One of Lenin's allies was Leon Trotsky (1879-1940), another Marxist thinker who participated in a number of revolutionary demonstrations and uprisings. His counterpart in Animal Farm is Snowball, who, like Trotsky, felt that a worldwide series of rebellions was necessary to achieve the revolution's ultimate aims. Snowball's plans for the windmill and programs reflect Trotsky's intellectual character and ideas about the best ways to transform Marx's theories into practice. Trotsky was also the leader of Lenin's Red Army, as Snowball directs the army of animals that repel Jones.

Eventually, Trotsky was exiled from the U.S.S.R. and killed by the agents of Joseph Stalin (1979-1953), as Snowball is chased off of the farm by Napoleon — Orwell's stand-in for Stalin. Like Napoleon, Stalin was unconcerned with debates and ideas. Instead, he valued power for its own sake and by 1927 had assumed complete control of the Communist Party through acts of terror and brutality. Napoleon's dogs are like Stalin's KGB, his secret police that he used to eliminate all opposition. As Napoleon gains control under the guise of improving the animals' lives, Stalin used a great deal of propaganda — symbolized by Squealer in the novel — to present himself as an idealist working for change. His plan to build the windmill reflects Stalin's Five Year Plan for revitalizing the nation's industry and agriculture. Stalin's ordering Lenin's body to be placed in the shrine-like Lenin's Tomb parallels Napoleon's unearthing of old Major's skull, and his creation of the Order of the Green Banner parallels Stalin's creation of the Order of Lenin. Thanks, in part, to animals like Boxer (who swallow whole all of their leader's lies), Stalin became one of the world's most feared and brutal dictators.

Numerous events in the novel are based on ones that occurred during Stalin's rule. The Battle of the Cowshed parallels the Civil War that occurred after the 1917 Revolution. Jones ; Frederick represents Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), who forged an alliance with Stalin in 1939 — but who then found himself fighting Stalin's army in 1941. Frederick seems like an ally of Napoleon's, but his forged banknotes reveal his true character. The confessions and executions of the animals reflect the various purges and "show trials" that Stalin conducted to rid himself of any possible threat of dissention. In 1921, the sailors at the Kronshdadt military base unsuccessfully rebelled against Communist rule, as the hens attempt to rebel against Napoleon. The Battle of the Windmill reflects the U.S.S.R.'s involvement in World War II — specifically the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, when Stalin's forces defeated Hitler's (as Napoleon's defeat Frederick). Finally, the card game at the novel's end parallels the Tehran Conference (November 28-December 1, 1943), where Stalin, Winston Churchill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt met to discuss the ways to forge a lasting peace after the war — a peace that Orwell mocks by having Napoleon and Pilkington flatter each other and then betray their duplicitous natures by cheating in the card game.

Previous George Orwell Biography

Next Major Themes

Essay: Russia Is Back to the Stalinist Future

Create an FP account to save articles to read later and in the FP mobile app.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

• World Brief
• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief
• China Brief
• Latin America Brief
• South Asia Brief
• Situation Report
• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

The Crisis in Haiti

The new idea of india, ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Spring 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

Her Power 2024

The atlantic & pacific forum, principles of humanity under pressure, fp global health forum 2024, fp @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

Russia Is Back to the Stalinist Future

With a Soviet-style election, Vladimir Putin’s Russia has come full circle.

• Human Rights

In 1968, the American scholar Jerome M. Gilison described Soviet elections as a “ psychological curiosity ”—a ritualized, performative affirmation of the regime rather than a real vote in any sense of the word. These staged elections with their nearly unanimous official results, Gilison wrote, served to isolate non-conformists and weld the people to their regime.

Last Sunday, Russia completed the circle and returned to Soviet practice. State election officials reported that 87 percent of Russians had cast their vote for Vladimir Putin in national elections, giving the Russian president a fifth term in office. Not only were many of the reported election numbers mathematically impossible , but there was also no longer much of a choice: All prominent opposition figures had been either murdered , imprisoned , or exiled . Like in Soviet times, the election also welded Russians to their regime by serving as a referendum on Putin’s war against Ukraine. All in all, last weekend’s Soviet-style election sealed Putin’s transformation of post-Communist Russia into a repressive society with many of the features of Soviet totalitarianism.

Russia’s return to Soviet practice goes far beyond elections. A recent study by exiled Russian journalists from Proekt Media used data to determine that Russia is more politically repressive today than the Soviet Union under all leaders since Joseph Stalin. During the last six years, the study reports, the Putin regime has indicted 5,613 Russians on explicitly political charges—including “discrediting the army,” “disseminating misinformation,” “justification of terrorism,” and other purported crimes, which have been widely used to punish criticism of Russia’s war on Ukraine and justification of Ukraine’s defense of its territory. This number is significantly greater than in any other six-year period of Soviet rule after 1956—all the more glaring given that Russia’s population is only half that of the Soviet Union before its collapse.

In addition to repressive criminal charges and sentences, over the last six years more than 105,000 people have been tried on administrative charges, which carry heavy fines and compulsory labor for up to 30 days without appeal. Many of these individuals were punished for taking part in unsanctioned marches or political activity, including anti-war protests. Others were charged with violations of COVID pandemic regulations. Such administrative punishments are administered and implemented rapidly, without time for an appeal.

On March 4, 2022, a little over a week after the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, Russia’s puppet parliament rapidly adopted amendments to the Russian Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code that established criminal and administrative punishments for the vague transgressions of “discrediting” the Russian military or disseminating “false information” about it. This widely expanded the repressive powers of the state to criminally prosecute political beliefs and activity. Prosecutions have surged since the new laws were passed, likely leading to a dramatic increase in the number of political prisoners in the coming years. In particular, punishments for “discrediting the army” or “justification of terrorism”—which includes voicing support for Ukraine’s right to defend itself—have resulted in hundreds of sentences meted out each year since the war began. The most recent such case: On Feb. 27, the 70-year-old co-chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning human rights group Memorial, Oleg Orlov, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison for “discrediting” the Russian military.

As the Proekt report ominously concludes, “[I]n terms of repression, Putin has long ago surpassed almost all Soviet general secretaries, except for one—Joseph Stalin.” While this conclusion is in itself significant, it is only the tip of the iceberg of the totalitarian state Putin has gradually and systematically rebuilt.

A man votes in Russia’s presidential election in the Siberian city of Novosibirsk on March 15. ladimir Nikolayev/AFP via Getty Images

As in the Soviet years, there is no independent media in Russia today. The last of these news organizations were banned or fled the country after Putin’s all-out war on Ukraine, including Proekt, Meduza, Ekho Moskvy, Nobel Prize-winning Novaya Gazeta, and TV Dozhd. In their place, strictly regime-aligned newspapers, social media, and television and radio stations emit a steady drumbeat of militaristic propaganda, promote Russian imperialist grandeur, and celebrate Putin as the country’s infallible commander in chief. In another reprise of totalitarian practice, lists of banned books have been dramatically expanded and thousands of titles have been removed from the shelves of Russian libraries and bookstores. Bans have been extended to numerous Wikipedia pages, social media channels, and websites.

Human rights activists and independent civic leaders have been jailed, physically attacked, intimidated into silence, or driven into exile. Civic organizations that show independence from the state are banned as “ undesirable ” and subjected to fines and prosecution if they continue to operate. The most recent such organizations include the Andrei Sakharov Foundation, Memorial, the legendary Moscow Helsinki Group, and the EU-Russia Civil Society Forum . In their place, the state finances a vast array of pro-regime and pro-war groups, with significant state resources supporting youth groups that promote the cult of Putin and educate children in martial values to prepare them for military service. Then there are the numerous murders of opposition leaders, journalists, and activists at home and abroad. Through these various means, almost all critical Russian voices have been silenced.

Private and family life is also increasingly coming under the scope of government regulation and persecution. The web of repression particularly affects the LGBT community, putting large numbers of Russians in direct peril. A court ruling in 2023 declared the “international LGBT movement” extremist and banned the rainbow flag as a forbidden symbol, which was quickly followed by raids and arrests . Homosexuality has been reclassified as an illness, and Russian gay rights organizations have shut down their operations for fear of prosecution. Legislation aimed at reinforcing “traditional values”—including the right of husbands to discipline their wives—has led to the reduction in sentences and the decriminalization of some forms of domestic violence.

Russia’s Military Is Already Preparing for Its Next War 

Moscow is rebuilding its military in anticipation of a conflict with NATO in the next decade, Estonian officials warn.

It’s Time to Declare Putin an Illegitimate Leader

Russia’s sham elections next month—with voting on occupied Ukrainian territory—should not be recognized.

Ukraine Isn’t Putin’s War—It’s Russia’s War

Jade McGlynn’s books paint an unsettling picture of ordinary Russians’ support for the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.

Many of the techniques of totalitarian control now operating throughout Russia were first incubated in territories where the Kremlin spread war and conflict. Chechnya was the first testing ground for widespread repression, including massive numbers of victims subjected to imprisonment, execution, disappearance, torture, and rape. Coupled with the merciless targeting of civilians in Russia’s two wars in Chechnya, these practices normalized wanton criminal behavior within Russian state security structures. Out of this crucible of fear and intimidation, Putin has shaped a culture and means of governing that were further elaborated in other places Russia invaded and eventually came to Russia itself.

In Russian-occupied Crimea and eastern Ukraine since 2014, there has been a widespread campaign of surveillance, summary executions, arrests, torture, and intimidation—all entirely consistent with Soviet practice toward conquered populations. More recently, this includes the old practice of forced political recantations: A Telegram channel ominously called Crimean SMERSH (a portmanteau of the Russian words for “death to spies,” coined by Stalin himself) has posted dozens of videos of frightened Ukrainians recanting their Ukrainian identity or the display of Ukrainian symbols. Made in conjunction with police operations, these videos appear to be coordinated with state security services.

In the parts of Ukraine newly occupied since 2022, human rights groups have widely documented human rights abuses and potential war crimes. These include the abduction of children, imprisonment of Ukrainians in a system of filtration camps that recall the Soviet gulags, and the systematic use of rape and torture to break the will of Ukrainians. Castrations of Ukrainian men have also been employed.

As Russia’s violence in Ukraine has expanded, so, too, has the acceptance of these abominations throughout the state and in much of society. As during the Stalin era, the cult of cruelty and the culture of fear are now the legal and moral standards. The climate of fear initially employed to assert order in occupied regions is now being applied to Russia itself. In this context, the murder of Alexei Navalny ahead of the presidential election was an important message from Putin to the Russian people: There is no longer any alternative to the war and repressive political order he has imposed, of which Navalny’s elimination is a part.

All the techniques and means of repression bespeak a criminal regime that now closely resembles the totalitarian rule of Stalin, whom Putin now fully embraces. After Putin first came to power in 1999, he often praised Stalin as a great war leader while disapproving of his cruelty and brutality. But as Putin pivoted toward war and repression, Russia has systematically promoted a more positive image of Stalin. High school textbooks not only celebrate his legacy but also whitewash his terror regime. There has been a proliferation of new Stalin monuments, with more than 100 throughout the country today. On state-controlled media, Russian propagandists consistently hammer away on the theme of Stalin’s greatness and underscore similarities between his wartime leadership and Putin’s. Discussion of Stalinist terror has disappeared, as has the memorialization of his millions of victims. Whereas only one in five Russians had a positive view of Stalin in the 1990s, polls conducted over the last five years show that number has risen to between 60 percent and 70 percent. In normalizing Stalin, Putin is not glossing over the tyrant’s crimes; rather, he is deliberately normalizing Stalin as a justification for his own war-making and repression.

Putin now resembles Stalin more closely than any other Soviet or Russian leader. Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, and Yuri Andropov—not to mention Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin—Putin has unquestioned power that is not shared or limited in any way by parliament, courts, or a Politburo. State propaganda has created a Stalin-like personality cult that lionizes Putin’s absolute power, genius as a leader, and role as a brilliant wartime generalissimo. It projects him as the fearsome and all-powerful head of a militarized nation aiming, like Stalin, to defeat a “Nazi” regime in Ukraine and reassert hegemony over Eastern and Central Europe. Just as Stalin made effective use of the Russian Orthodox Church to support Russia’s effort during World War II, Putin has effectively used Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill as a critical ally and cheerleader of Russia’s brutal war in Ukraine. And just like Stalin, Putin has made invading neighboring countries and annexing territory a central focus of the Kremlin’s foreign policy.

A young Communist holds a flag depicting Stalin before placing flowers on his tomb in Moscow on March 5, during a memorial ceremony to mark the anniversary of the Soviet leader’s death. Alexander Nemenov/AFP via Getty Images

Putin’s descent into tyranny has been accompanied by his gradual isolation from the rest of society. Like the latter-day Stalin, Putin began living an isolated life as a bachelor even before the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Like the later Stalin, Putin lacks a stable family life and is believed to have replaced it with a string of mistresses, some of whom are reported to have borne him children for whom he remains a remote figure. Like Stalin, he stays up late into the early-morning hours, and like the Soviet dictator, Putin has assembled around him a small coterie of trusted intimates, mostly men in their 60s and 70s, with whom he has maintained friendships for decades, including businessmen Yury Kovalchuk and Igor Sechin, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, and security chief Nikolai Patrushev. This coterie resembles Stalin’s small network of cronies: security chief Lavrentiy Beria, military leader Kliment Voroshilov, and Communist Party official Georgy Malenkov. To others in leadership positions, Putin is a distant, absolute leader who openly humiliates seemingly powerful officials, such as spy chief Sergey Naryshkin , when the latter seemed to hesitate in his support during Putin’s declaration of war on Ukraine.

Through near-total control of domestic civic life and media, his widening campaign of repression and terror, relentless state propaganda promoting his personality cult, and his vast geopolitical ambitions, Putin is consciously mimicking the Stalin playbook, especially the parts of that playbook dealing with World War II. Even if Putin has no love for Soviet Communist ideology, he has transformed Russia and its people in ways that are no less fundamental than Stalin’s efforts to shape a new Soviet man.

Putin’s massive victory in a Soviet-style election last weekend represents the ratification by the Russian people of his brutal war, militarization of Russian society, and establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. It is a good moment to acknowledge that Russia’s descent into tyranny, mobilization of society onto a war footing, spread of hatred for the West, and indoctrination of the population in imperialist tropes represent far more than a threat to Ukraine. Russia’s transformation into a neo-Stalinist, neo-imperialist power represents a rising threat to the United States, its European allies, and other states on Russia’s periphery. By recognizing how deeply Russia has changed and how significantly Putin is borrowing from Stalin’s playbook, we can better understand that meeting the modern-day Russian threat will require as much consistency and as deep a commitment as when the West faced down Stalin’s Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the founder of Myrmidon Group, and the author of Battleground Ukraine: From Independence to the War with Russia , to be published by Yale University Press in June 2024.

Join the Conversation

Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log In .

Subscribe Subscribe

View Comments

Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account? Log out

Please follow our comment guidelines , stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs.

Change your username:

I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines . (Required)

Confirm your username to get started.

The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.

More from Foreign Policy

Is this a revolution or are people just very ticked off.

In a new book, Fareed Zakaria explores how much the times are a-changin’. At risk, he says, is the entire global system.

Egypt Is What Happens When the U.S. Gives Up on Democratization

Civil society loses—and China and Russia fill the vacuum.

Why Biden Can’t Force a Truce on Israel—or Won’t

The United States has intervened in past Mideast wars, but this one is different.

Modi’s Messenger to the World

How aleksandr solzhenitsyn became putin’s spiritual guru, is india really the next china, china is gaslighting the developing world, the problem isn’t just netanyahu. it’s israeli society., 4 books to understand modern india, 5 charts that explain india, becoming indian, meet india’s generation z.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.