Putin’s War in Ukraine Taking Place Because Russian Empire Did Not Completely Fall Apart in 1991, Eidman Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 22 – Had the Soviet empire completely disintegrated in 1991, Moscow would not have continued to rule over its subjects as an empire and would not have launched Putin’s monstrous war against Ukraine, according to Igor Eidman, a Russian sociologist now living in Berlin.

            He points out that only those places that the Bolsheviks had designated as union republics escaped; but other nations without such status “remained as provinces;” and their presence defines both how Moscow rules the country and how it approaches the countries that did emerge three decades ago (t.me/igoreidman/1683 reposted at charter97.org/ru/news/2024/8/22/607843/).

            It treats both as imperial possessions, the former still under Moscow’s control and the latter as places to be regained, Eidman says, the result in both cases of the country which calls itself the Russian Federation remaining an empire that did not completely fall apart but existed in a state of only partial disintegration.

            The Russian empire can’t “endure the consequences of this half-life for long,” he continues. “Either it will completely collapse or it will continue to try to expand until that leads to a global war.”

            Putin has frequently said that “the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20^th century,” but “it is clear for those who think that way that the final collapse of the empire would be an even greater disaster,” Eidman says. This position at least is “internally logical.”

            But the position the majority if Russian liberals on this question is not. Such people “view the collapse of the USSR as a liberation, but they are afraid of its natural continuation, the liberation of the peoples and regions which are part of the Moscow-centric empire which is the Russian Federation.”

            However, “if Turkmenistan or Georgia could leave the USSR, then why don’t Yakutia or Tatarstan, to take but two examples, have the right to secede from the Russian Federation?” Can it be that they don’t have that right because “the Bolsheviks on a whim did not give them the status of union republics” – even though they demanded that status?

            “Having said A, you must also say B. If the collapse of the USSR was right, then the Russian Federation, a similar but greatly truncated empire should not exist. But most ‘good Russians’ do not have the courage to admit this” and thus are defenders of the remaining empire, Eidman argues.

“It is difficult to predict what will happen after the Russian Federation. Perhaps some republics and regions will choose complete independence, while others will create a new, genuine, non-Moscow-centric federation or confederation. There may be other options,” the commentator continues.

But “the main thing is this: the archaic imperial state will disappear, as it can be neither peaceful nor democratic and will remain a threat to international security.” Fortunately, “the collapse of the Russian Empire is fated to end.”