Comrade_Colonel

On Freedom of Speech

Yes, the right to freedom of speech is a great achievement of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This right significantly contributes to a country's political and economic development. I understand this well, given my age, my service in the Soviet Army, and my background as a historian. I have lived through the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat to the time of "decaying capitalism," and I fully grasp the importance of free speech.

As an officer in the Soviet Army, I was responsible for explaining the government's domestic and foreign policies to personnel. Political education sessions were held twice a week for all ranks, lasting two hours each. For officers, there was also Marxist-Leninist training according to a specific program. This meant that the leadership of the army had a solid understanding of the party’s policies and government direction.

The Role of Propaganda and Misinformation

An information war against socialist Russia and the USSR began from their very inception. In my opinion, we were losing this battle from the start. We lacked an accurate picture of how the people in other countries truly felt about us—the world's first workers' and peasants' state.

In 1941, I was 11 years old and believed that German soldiers—workers dressed in military uniforms—would not fight against us, based on the slogan “Workers of the world, unite!” But I was wrong. They fought, and not only German workers but workers from across Western and Eastern Europe. They fought fiercely. Meanwhile, we, relying on reports from our press, considered the proletariat of these countries our brothers.

Post-War Challenges

After the war, the information war against the USSR intensified. What we see today—neo-fascism spreading across Europe, the desecration of monuments to Red Army soldiers, and the encouragement of such acts by European leaders—should not surprise us. Its roots lie in the post-war years.

We believed we were liberating Europe from fascist oppression. They, however, lamented that fascism had failed to defeat the Soviet Union. For them, fascism was more familiar and acceptable than socialism. It wasn’t about socialism itself; European countries have always harbored animosity towards Russia.

Historical Context and Missed Opportunities

Looking at history, Europe has consistently treated Russia with disdain, hostility, and hatred. Take 1812, for example—no Bolsheviks, no socialism. Russia saved Europe from Napoleon, sacrificing countless lives and enduring the destruction of cities and villages. What was the reward? The fruits of victory were claimed by European countries, leaving Russia with nothing.

Russia bears some blame for Europe’s dismissive attitude. After the war, did we demand reparations from European countries that participated in the Nazi coalition? No. We limited ourselves to Germany. Worse, we even provided aid to some of these countries. This leniency allowed them to disrespect us.

The Soviet Union and Freedom of Speech

During the existence of the socialist bloc, serious crises frequently arose in almost every member state of the Warsaw Pact. Yet, due to the lack of free speech in our country, we learned about these crises only through “enemy broadcasts.” We consistently lost on the information front because we lacked freedom of speech and democracy.

While it’s understandable why the Soviet government restricted free speech—such freedom might have accelerated the collapse of the Soviet system—this suppression created distrust toward the media and the government itself. By the 1960s, this lack of freedom had cultivated a layer of intellectuals who later undermined the foundations of Soviet power, contributing to the USSR’s downfall.

Modern Reflections on Leadership and Society

Freedom of speech and democracy can either save or destroy a state, depending on the intentions of their proponents. Even democracy can produce dictators. Boris Yeltsin, Vladimir Putin, and Dmitry Medvedev were all elected democratically. But what have they achieved for the people?

While Putin initially made efforts to stabilize the country and prevent its collapse, I don’t see this as an extraordinary accomplishment—it’s a president's duty. However, why has poverty increased over the past seven years? Why are there 22 million poor people in a country with vast natural resources? And why does the number of billionaires keep growing?

A Message to the President

President Putin, you’ve recently mocked the Soviet period, yet it provided you with a free education that prepared you for your presidency. Back then, we didn’t have 22 million impoverished citizens. I suggest you study the Soviet government’s experience more closely. Why didn’t it allow such massive exploitation of the Russian people? Why weren’t foreign citizens in positions of power?

Criticizing the cult of personality while creating one for yourself is hypocritical. Television programs like Moscow. Kremlin. Putin are nauseating. Every show starts and ends with you to emphasize how “healthy” you are. But the ordinary people are tired of this. It’s time to leave the stage before you’re forced out.

Reflections on Life and Changing Worldviews

Having lived for so many years, I can't help but compare different periods of my life. My generation, in particular, had to endure many tumultuous political and economic events. Each era provided its own spiritual nourishment, which shaped our worldview. I believe that a person's worldview is largely shaped by the dominant ideology of society during the period of their most active engagement with the world. From personal experience, I think a person's views on life, their relationship to the world around them, and key character traits are mostly formed before the age of twenty. Of course, later on, perspectives can change, but these changes often happen under immense pressure from circumstances.

In my reflections, I base my thoughts on my own experiences, so I do not claim to have the final word on these matters.

Early Life and Struggles

I was born into a very poor family. My mother worked as a maid in a wealthy household, and my father was a chimney sweep. When I was born, he was sent into exile for seven years, so I didn’t see him until I was seven years old. It would have been better if I hadn’t seen him at all, as he made my childhood the most difficult period of my life, which also influenced the formation of my character.

I remember my childhood from the age of four. We lived in a semi-basement room. It was my mother, my older brother (two years older than me), and myself. The two-story house was somewhat isolated from other homes, with no neighbors, except for a small house next to it where a guard lived. He had a daughter my age, with whom I would play "house." I started playing this game quite early, which was unusual. My brother never played with me. There were no other boys my age. So, I spent a lot of time alone in that half-basement, looking at the dirty yard. This lack of communal interaction meant that the sense of collectivism never really developed in me.

Early Reading and Influences

Apparently, the guard, Uncle Viktor, taught me to read at an early age. By the age of four, I could read, and this started to shape my worldview. I would go up to the second floor, where I saw empty rooms and scattered pages from books, some of them torn. I remember a hardcover book with missing pages and a very small font, possibly in Russian, that I couldn’t read. But there were portraits in the book, all of which had been covered in ink. I wondered why the book had ink spilled on it. I also remember a soft-cover book with large text, "How Our Grandfathers Lived and Fought," featuring an image of seven people with spoons, one with an ox yoke. The image showed a peasant plowing, followed by seven people with spoons. This left a lasting impression on me. From this period onward, I think my worldview began to take shape in support of the Soviet regime.

The Ideology of the Time

In the 1930s, people like us had no access to the press, and radios were rare. But still, we knew what was happening in the country. I’m talking about polar explorers, polar aviators, border guards like Karatsupa and his dog Zhukbars, the Chelyuskin expedition, Papanin, and many others. We were proud of them, and there was no talk of the purges. Of course, there was great love for Stalin, Beria, Voroshilov, and others. To me, Stalin appeared as a wise and kind old grandfather, and Voroshilov was a strong, athletic young man, the best shooter. Our country was the best in the world. We had no "Mister Twisters." We loved Black people, and they didn’t love us. We defended the children of Spain, while others killed them. Our army was the strongest, and our Red Army soldiers were the kindest and bravest. We also had the kindest man in the world, Grandpa Lenin. Our country was the largest and most beautiful. We were all in love with Chapayev, hoping he would make it to the shore.

This was the spiritual food that shaped our worldview. And of course, we loved Soviet power and the Soviet motherland. Such upbringing led to the mass heroism of Soviet people and the unforgettable feats of Soviet citizens both on the frontlines and in the rear during the Great Patriotic War.

Doubts and Realizations

However, such spiritual nourishment did not affect everyone in the same way. The country was home to tens of millions of people who experienced what it meant to build socialism with only internal resources, primarily relying on agriculture. The war clearly demonstrated this.

As for me, I belong to the larger part of the population that sincerely believed everything we read in the press, heard on the radio, and were told by elders. We lived in poverty, but we were promised a bright future, and we believed in it. I believed in Stalin. To me, he was the wisest and kindest person. The only time I questioned his military genius was when the Germans approached Stalingrad. Before that, I justified our retreat as a strategy to lure the enemy in. But Stalingrad felt different, and victory wiped away all my doubts. Stalin was once again a genius leader in my eyes.

The End of the War and the Changing Outlook

On Victory Day, I was in the center of Tbilisi, walking down Rustaveli Avenue with my classmate, discussing various issues in our lives. I was almost 15, but what’s interesting is that I said, "The war is over, and now we will begin a freer and happier life." In hindsight, I can’t understand why I was so certain of a future of freedom. Somehow, I subconsciously felt that our life wasn’t really free.

In the summer of 1945, we were asked to leave the school where we had been living for about two years. We moved to Vladikavkaz, where there was a possibility of getting enough food. Life wasn’t easy, but it was better than before. At the time, the country was full of praise for Stalin, especially in Georgia. When the Germans approached the Caucasus mountains, the Georgians spoke of Stalin as "the bastard Ossetian," but when victory was secured, he was once again celebrated as a great son of Georgia.

The Twentieth Congress and the Fallout

The 20th Congress of the Communist Party was a turning point for many. Before that, Stalin had been seen as the only true interpreter of Marxism-Leninism. But then, he was exposed as a criminal and a murderer. Stalin was no longer just a personality; he had become a symbol of socialism’s construction not only in our country but in the international communist movement.

By criticizing Stalin’s repressive policies, Khrushchev created a deep divide in the understanding of Marxism-Leninism and what socialism truly meant. This inevitably had an impact on our spiritual nourishment, leading to more liberal interpretations of Marxism and a growing criticism of everything that had been happening in our country. By the late 1950s and early 1960s, the revisionist interpretation of Marxism had taken hold, and the criticism of the personality cult practically turned into criticism of socialism itself and everything related to it.

Growing Disillusionment with the Party

I continued to believe in socialism and remained loyal to the Party’s policies. I joined the Party in 1957. However, by the late 1970s, my confidence in the Party began to waver. By the 1950s, I had lost any reverence for Stalin, especially after reading his writings on linguistics and economic problems within socialism. We were forced to admire and take notes on these works, but I could not understand what was so brilliant about them. I began to realize that long-term leadership often stifled a country's development. This was a realization that was confirmed by history.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union

I now believe that the 20th Congress was the start of the collapse of the Soviet Union. While living under socialism for 61 years, I don’t think socialism was an entirely bad system. At least under socialism, the people weren’t exploited as they are now. However, those in charge lacked a proper understanding of economics and international economic relations. We closed ourselves off from the world and made ideology the priority. We didn’t learn from capitalists about managing an economy.

Khrushchev had promised that by 1970 we would surpass the United States in key areas of heavy industry. I believed we could achieve this. But by 1970, it became clear we hadn’t achieved anything close to that. The country was led by Brezhnev, who became infamous for his "kisses" and for awarding himself the Order of Victory, despite his relatively minor role in the victory over fascism.

By the 1970s, the country was facing serious economic decline. There was a shortage of meat, dairy, and products in the stores, especially in Russia. The situation in the republics was better, but it became harder to believe in the idea of communism when everyday life was far from the ideals we were taught.

The Bitter Truth of the 1991 Collapse

When I left the army and got closer to real life, I realized how far we had strayed from the ideals we had been taught. This gap between theory and reality helped create the conditions for the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

"How easy life is for those who give grand names to their trivial pursuits and passions, presenting them to humanity as monumental deeds for its benefit and prosperity." - Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther

Doctor of Philosophy Igor Chubais has proposed a fascinating idea: to establish a new academic subject called "Russian Studies" in the Russian education system. This subject, according to an article in Mir Novostei, would cover Russia's history, culture, geography, and more. The concept seems excellent—people need to know their country's history. But the question is, can we create a truthful and unbiased textbook for Russian Studies?

It seems unlikely that in the next 30-40 years, an impartial history textbook could exist, free from ideological influence. Some historians still cling to Marxism-Leninism, while others view the Soviet era in only the darkest terms. For example, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, introduced into the curriculum at the request of Solzhenitsyn's widow, was impactful when first read in the 1960s. Yet other works, like Bas-Relief on the Cliff, which described the tragedy of a sculptor forced to carve Stalin’s image, also capture the harsh realities of that era. Knowing the darker sides of history is essential, but should they alone define a generation’s perspective?

**A Balanced Perspective on Soviet History ** It’s essential to remember the positive achievements of the Soviet era, alongside its dark aspects. Figures like locomotive driver Krivonosov, pilot Chkalov, and others made valuable contributions. Despite severe hardships, the Soviet people built a strong industrial base, enabling the country to withstand the struggles of World War II. Such resilience deserves to be part of the historical narrative. To suggest that the Soviet period should be erased, as Chubais proposes, is simply unrealistic. History should be complete, encompassing all shades of the past.

National Pride and Patriotism in Historical Education

It’s misleading to imply that pre-revolutionary Russia was a paradise. Authors like Gogol, Chekhov, and Leskov reveal the struggles of ordinary people in the 19th century, which were far from idyllic. A hungry, oppressed population doesn’t rebel without cause. The Soviet government eventually collapsed in 1991, unable to meet people’s needs. Therefore, instead of erasing the Soviet period, we should study it deeply, acknowledging both the achievements and mistakes, to give young people a well-rounded view.

Patriotism Beyond Political Systems

Chubais argues that one can’t be a patriot of both North and South Korea, using this to claim that patriotism for both Russia and the USSR is contradictory. But a nation is loved not for its political system, but for its people and land. True patriotism should inspire pride in our heritage and appreciation for the sacrifices of past generations. To instill pride in young people, we must teach them about their forefathers’ achievements without reducing our history to mere political disputes.

In short, a national idea based on a well-rounded, honest portrayal of history—both the hardships and the triumphs—is key to fostering genuine patriotism.

"How easy life is for those who give grand names to their trivial pursuits and passions, presenting them to humanity as monumental deeds for its benefit and prosperity." - Goethe, The Sorrows of Young Werther

Doctor of Philosophy Igor Chubais has proposed a fascinating idea: to establish a new academic subject called "Russian Studies" in the Russian education system. This subject, according to an article in Mir Novostei, would cover Russia's history, culture, geography, and more. The concept seems excellent—people need to know their country's history. But the question is, can we create a truthful and unbiased textbook for Russian Studies?

It seems unlikely that in the next 30-40 years, an impartial history textbook could exist, free from ideological influence. Some historians still cling to Marxism-Leninism, while others view the Soviet era in only the darkest terms. For example, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, introduced into the curriculum at the request of Solzhenitsyn's widow, was impactful when first read in the 1960s. Yet other works, like Bas-Relief on the Cliff, which described the tragedy of a sculptor forced to carve Stalin’s image, also capture the harsh realities of that era. Knowing the darker sides of history is essential, but should they alone define a generation’s perspective?

**A Balanced Perspective on Soviet History ** It’s essential to remember the positive achievements of the Soviet era, alongside its dark aspects. Figures like locomotive driver Krivonosov, pilot Chkalov, and others made valuable contributions. Despite severe hardships, the Soviet people built a strong industrial base, enabling the country to withstand the struggles of World War II. Such resilience deserves to be part of the historical narrative. To suggest that the Soviet period should be erased, as Chubais proposes, is simply unrealistic. History should be complete, encompassing all shades of the past.

National Pride and Patriotism in Historical Education

It’s misleading to imply that pre-revolutionary Russia was a paradise. Authors like Gogol, Chekhov, and Leskov reveal the struggles of ordinary people in the 19th century, which were far from idyllic. A hungry, oppressed population doesn’t rebel without cause. The Soviet government eventually collapsed in 1991, unable to meet people’s needs. Therefore, instead of erasing the Soviet period, we should study it deeply, acknowledging both the achievements and mistakes, to give young people a well-rounded view.

Patriotism Beyond Political Systems

Chubais argues that one can’t be a patriot of both North and South Korea, using this to claim that patriotism for both Russia and the USSR is contradictory. But a nation is loved not for its political system, but for its people and land. True patriotism should inspire pride in our heritage and appreciation for the sacrifices of past generations. To instill pride in young people, we must teach them about their forefathers’ achievements without reducing our history to mere political disputes.

In short, a national idea based on a well-rounded, honest portrayal of history—both the hardships and the triumphs—is key to fostering genuine patriotism.

It seems that in Russia, life is good for those who know how to please those in power. The ways of pleasing them vary, of course. For example, I watched as Mr. Mikhalkov criticized a certain Bykov. They say Bykov is a writer, though I haven’t read him. This Bykov claims that Putin’s constitutional reform is merely a power grab to become president for life. As Putin himself put it, almost with regret, it is his destiny. Well, of course, you can’t fight destiny.

Defending the Leader

Mikhalkov lashed out at Bykov, accusing him of not understanding how Putin cares for the people. According to him, the pension indexation clause Putin added to the constitution is proof of this. He even wrote God into it. And he added a provision so that future presidents won’t give away Russian land, even 25 years from now. Of course, some land was already given to China, but that was just to “adjust the border.” And why give away the Taiga when the Chinese already easily export millions of cubic meters of timber without any formal agreements? They already see the Taiga as theirs, just as the Finns consider Karelia theirs.

What’s Missing from the Constitution

Many new things have been written into the revised constitution, but nothing about eradicating poverty in the country. Nothing about stopping the need for people to scrape together pennies for treating severely ill children. No mention of providing universal, high-quality healthcare for Russian citizens. Mikhalkov praised the president’s concern for pension indexation, but indexation happened even in the Soviet Union and Russia without being in the constitution.

The Friendship Between Putin and Mikhalkov

Putin seems honored to have a relationship with the noble Mikhalkov family. Mikhalkov’s father was Stalin’s close friend, and now his son is on close terms with Putin, a man few knew about before a certain notorious drunkard propelled him into the political sphere. The Mikhalkovs have lived well in Russia through the tsars, the Bolsheviks, and now under anti-communists. It’s a talent to live like that. So naturally, Mikhalkov will defend Putin. Under Putin, Mikhalkov became one of the country’s wealthiest people, owning an estate as grand as a nobleman’s.

From Soviet Kids to Anti-Soviets

I sometimes wonder: both Putin and Mikhalkov are products of the Soviet Union. They grew up as pioneers, joined the Komsomol, and eventually the Communist Party. Yet, at the first chance, they turned against the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, and everything connected to socialism. I believe this attitude toward socialism is no accident in the postwar generation. We, the prewar generation, were raised differently. We were taught from birth that we lived in the greatest country in the world, though we had no idea how others lived.

Disillusionment and New Influences

When the war started, I believed German workers wouldn’t fire on our soldiers—yet they did, with no trace of internationalism. The war generation faced less ideological pressure than we did before it. The postwar generation, represented by people like Mikhalkov and Putin, started learning about the world after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, when Khrushchev criticized Stalin’s personality cult to protect himself, hurting the ideology as a whole.

Impact of Upbringing on Ideology

Putin’s and Mikhalkov’s youth coincided with a wave of anti-Stalinist literature and documentaries. I remember this period well, the so-called “thaw.” A new personality cult emerged to replace the old one. Khrushchev was ultimately removed, yet the ideology remained fractured, and Russophobia began openly in the republics. I was obliged, in my military duty, to explain the policies of the Soviet government. Putin and Mikhalkov came of age in this ideologically fractured time, shaping their worldview. Hence Putin’s reverence for Solzhenitsyn.

Final Reflections

I am 91 years old, and watching Putin, I’m increasingly convinced of the influence one’s early years have. Children naturally absorb the dominant ideology around them. Officers would come to my unit from universities with military training, so I know this mindset well. Listening to Putin’s jokes and remarks, I get the impression he’s a man of limited culture with little understanding of Russian history or classical literature. His speeches lack richness, and his culture seems shallow. Nevertheless, thrust into such a high office, he tries to present himself as an intellectual leader and cultivates relationships with cultured individuals. Yet, what isn’t inborn can’t be acquired.

A Unified History Textbook

The President of the country has issued a directive to quickly create a standardized history textbook for schools. The idea is to teach the history of the country based solely on historical documents and facts, rather than allowing individual interpretations. This decision by the President is correct, though somewhat delayed. Creating such a textbook, which would present the country's past from a single perspective, is no easy task. Over the past 20 years, some misguided patriots and so-called scholars have already managed to distort and desecrate the history of the country and its historical figures. Some have even suggested that the period from 1917 to 1991 should be completely erased from Russian history. However, I can’t imagine how they plan to do that. I lived through 61 years of Soviet rule, so I know firsthand what that period was like.

In this brief work, I don’t aim to either praise or criticize the Soviet period. I can only say that it is the history of my homeland. The good things make me proud, while the bad things cause me pain. As a historian by education, my long life gives me the basis to say that there has never been a socio-political system that satisfied all layers of society, and I believe it is impossible to create such a system. The Soviet system had many flaws, as has been widely discussed. There was both the dark side, such as mass repression, and the bright side, such as the industrialization that was crucial for the victory in the Great Patriotic War. There was also the space breakthrough and the creation of the nuclear shield, which protected and continues to protect the country from potential aggression.

Questions on Soviet History

I don’t intend to either vilify or glorify the Soviet system. But as a historian, I have questions that remain unanswered by modern scholars and political scientists. For instance, after the fall of Tsarism, was there any other political force that could have preserved Russia within the borders of the Russian Empire, other than the Bolsheviks? If there was, why didn’t they succeed? If we hadn’t built a powerful industrial base, how would we have defended our country’s freedom and independence? All this was achieved relying solely on internal resources, without foreign investment.

The Role of Leaders in History

Another question: If leaders like Bukharin, Zinoviev, Trotsky, Kamenev, Yeltsin, Khrushchev, Gorbachev, or Brezhnev had been in charge during the Great Patriotic War, would we have won? I believe that answers to these questions should guide the evaluation of Stalin’s actions. It's important to remember that Stalin did not wield great power before the 1930s. His policies, such as industrialization and collectivization, faced significant opposition from influential party members. The cult of personality around Stalin only developed later. My generation remembers well how he was glorified, and it’s true that speaking out of line could result in severe punishment. But does that mean everyone who was repressed was an innocent victim? Not necessarily. The country was surrounded by deadly enemies, and even today, some of our neighbors are not very friendly towards us.

Reflecting on the Past and Present

When some people today label Stalin as a criminal and compare him to Hitler, I want to ask them: how do they reconcile this with the pride millions of Soviet citizens feel for their medals won in battles for their homeland? These are complex issues that deserve careful thought. It’s also worth noting that Stalin returned the Kuril Islands, Port Arthur, and Kaliningrad to Russia—facts that are often overlooked by our historians. Finally, I would like to point out the stark difference between what Stalin left behind for his children and what Yeltsin left for his heirs. Stalin didn’t even own a personal apartment, while today we see the luxurious lifestyles of Russia’s modern rulers.

The Challenges of Writing History

Creating a history textbook that satisfies everyone in our society is incredibly challenging. Perhaps our historians, political scientists, and journalists should express their views on this matter more openly, aiming to find a more acceptable version of the textbook. It’s important to remember that history isn’t just about highlighting the dark sides. We should respect and take pride in the achievements of our ancestors. At the same time, we should also focus on the present, addressing the issues that arose in the tumultuous 1990s. Unfortunately, capitalism has not yet delivered the desired results for our country and its people.

The Complexity of Evaluating Historical Figures

In conclusion, it's essential to approach evaluations of any historical figure with objectivity. For example, I agree with historian Roy Medvedev’s assessment of Stalin, which is based on thorough and serious research. In the planned history textbook, it will be difficult to cover Stalin's activities, including the events of 1937, relations with Germany, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. I clearly remember the criticism and uproar over this pact. But I would ask those critics one question: what would have happened if we hadn’t moved the border 150 kilometers westward before Germany’s sudden advance?

The moral character of the Romanov dynasty is also worth discussing. Where people live well, there are no revolutions or mass killings. The current trend in political literature to idealize the Romanovs overlooks their flaws. Let’s not present Tsarism in an overly positive light, and let’s recognize the role it played in leaving Russia trailing behind Europe today.

Who Lives Well in Russia?

Practice shows that in Russia, those who live well are often the ones who know how to please those in power. There are various ways to do this, of course. For example, I watched and listened to how Mr. Mikhalkov criticized someone named Bykov, who, they say, is a writer. I haven’t read his work. Bykov claims that Putin’s changes to the constitution are just a power grab to stay president forever. As Putin himself said with some regret, this is his “destiny.” Well, you can’t argue with destiny, can you?

Mikhalkov’s Defense of Putin

Mr. Mikhalkov shouted at Bykov, accusing him of not understanding how much Putin cares about the people. After all, he included pension indexing in the constitution, which, according to Mikhalkov, is a sign of concern. He also included a mention of God and made sure that future presidents can’t give away Russian territory. Sure, some land was handed to China, but that was just a border adjustment. Besides, why give away the forest when the Chinese are already taking millions of cubic meters of timber without any permits? They already consider it their forest, much like the Finns do with Karelia.

What’s Missing from the Constitution

The updated constitution contains many new things, but it doesn’t mention anything about eliminating poverty or stopping the need for crowdfunding to treat sick children. There’s no mention of free and quality healthcare for all citizens. Mikhalkov highlights Putin’s concern for pension indexing, but pensions were indexed even without this being in the constitution, back in the Soviet Union and early Russia. It didn’t need to be written into the constitution at all.

Mikhalkov’s Loyalty to Putin

Mikhalkov defends Putin, of course. Under Putin, he has become one of the wealthiest people in the country, owning a massive estate like a true nobleman. Naturally, he supports Putin staying president forever. I sometimes wonder — both Putin and Mikhalkov grew up in the Soviet Union. They were raised as pioneers, Komsomol members, and even joined the Communist Party. Why did they turn their backs on the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, and everything tied to socialism?

A Generational Divide

I think this negative attitude toward socialism isn’t unique to their generation. We, the pre-war generation, were raised under different circumstances. We were taught that we lived in the best country in the world, but we had no idea how people lived elsewhere. We were brought up with patriotism and internationalism. During the war, I believed that the German working class wouldn’t fire on our soldiers. But they did, and quite fiercely, without a hint of international solidarity.

Post-War Disillusionment

The post-war generation, like Mikhalkov and Putin, experienced a different ideological environment than we did. They grew up after the 20th Congress of the Communist Party when Khrushchev denounced Stalin’s cult of personality, trying to save his own skin. This speech marked the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The young generation of Putin and Mikhalkov were exposed to the wave of literature, documentaries, and journalism that criticized the old regime. They were influenced by works like One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich and later authors like Grossman and Yevtushenko.

Putin’s Cultural Awareness

Watching Putin, I’m convinced of how significant childhood is in shaping a person. A child absorbs the dominant ideology of the time. Based on Putin’s jokes, his humorous remarks, and his comments about historical figures, I get the impression that he is not a particularly cultured individual. He seems to have a poor grasp of his country’s history and appears to be unfamiliar with classic literature, both Russian and international. His speeches are often simplistic and lack depth, though he tries to present himself as an intellectual leader. However, what isn’t there can’t be faked.

The Nature of Elections

Elections are known to be a sign of a democratized society. In the Soviet Union, during the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat, there were no elections. In 1936, the Stalin Constitution was adopted, proclaiming the victory of socialism in the Soviet Union. The first elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR took place on December 12, 1937. I remember those elections; I was seven years old then. We lived in Tbilisi, and I recall small airplanes flying over the city, dropping leaflets encouraging people to participate in the elections.

Memories of Early Soviet Elections

People went to the polls with dances, songs, and in a festive mood, as if it were a folk celebration. This reminds me of the presidential elections in 2024. Although elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and presidential elections are different, there are some similarities between the Soviet Union and Russia. I was involved in organizing elections to the Supreme Soviet in my position. In practice, there was no choice. The ballot had only one candidate, who would undoubtedly be elected. The candidate was appointed by the district committee, city committee, or the Central Committee of the Union Republic. The candidate gave a campaign speech to workers, employees, and collective farmers. People were allowed to write their wishes to the candidate on the back of the ballot.

Reflections on Modern Elections

I'm not familiar with the complete process of becoming a presidential candidate, but I haven't seen presidential elections since 1996. There have been changes in the positions of president and chairman of the council of ministers, but no presidential elections in Russia. Being an old person, I have seen and heard a lot. I envy Americans for how they elect their president, with fierce competition between candidates and campaign speeches in various states.

**Concerns About the 2024 Presidential Elections ** I don't remember Putin's campaign speeches or his plans for continuing his presidency. Where will he lead the country next? I've looked into the presidential candidates, and I suspect none of them have a real chance of winning. The people don't know them, and they might become known before the elections. They don't have any significant achievements for the people. I don't know what platform they will present, but I guess it will mainly be against war and for improving relations with the West. However, many decrees and laws have been passed that prohibit speaking out against these issues. They lack the main tool for an election campaign—mass media. Meanwhile, Putin can regularly and consistently make appearances across various media platforms.

The Future of Russia's Political Landscape

A well-known political figure is often attributed with saying, "It's not how people vote that matters, but how the votes are counted." We can guess how the results will be counted. The 2024 elections will show the direction in which the country is heading. Two fundamentally different paths are clashing: either the current exploiters will continue their exploitation, or they will be replaced by a new group of exploiters. As the saying goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Unshakable Wealth: The Power of Reading

Introduction

Wealth is often measured in terms of material possessions or financial assets, but there is a type of wealth that cannot be taken away: the wealth of knowledge. This wealth is accumulated through reading books, enriching the mind, and expanding one's horizons. Unlike material wealth, the knowledge gained from books grows over time and shapes one's character and outlook on life.

The Journey to Knowledge

From a young age, I began to understand the immense value of reading. Growing up in a modest environment, without the luxury of a personal library or the ability to purchase books, I still found ways to immerse myself in literature. Our family lived in a small, rented house, a single room shared by six people. Privacy was a luxury we couldn't afford, so I often hid outdoors to read in the fading daylight, escaping into the worlds within the pages. Initially, I read indiscriminately, but as I grew older, I became more selective, delving into works that offered deeper insights and understanding.

Literature as a Mentor

Books became my mentors, offering wisdom and guidance. The works of Russian classical literature, particularly from the 19th century, played a significant role in my development. Ivan Turgenev's "First Love" and Fyodor Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" were not just stories but windows into the human soul, teaching me about the complexities of life, the struggles between good and evil, and the depth of human emotion. These books were not mere entertainment; they were experiences that shaped my thinking and moral compass.

The Importance of Native Literature

While foreign literature is invaluable for broadening one's perspective, it's crucial to have a solid foundation in one's native literature. Russian literature, with its unparalleled depth and richness, stands out globally. Knowing and appreciating the literary heritage of one's own country fosters a deeper connection to one's roots and culture. The tales of Tolstoy and the humor of Chekhov taught me about my own people, our traditions, and our values. They instilled in me a sense of pride and belonging, a feeling of being part of a grand, ongoing narrative.

Reading as a Lifelong Companion

As we age, the spiritual richness that books provide becomes even more important. In solitude, the characters and stories from books become companions, offering endless opportunities for reflection and intellectual engagement. A broad literary horizon ensures that one is never alone in thought, always having something profound to contemplate. In my later years, I find solace in the words of Dickens and Hugo, their stories reminding me of the endless capacity for human resilience and compassion.

The Battle Against Cultural Degradation

In today's world, there's a growing concern about the cultural degradation brought on by mindless entertainment and the overuse of foreign terminologies. Maintaining the purity of one's language is essential as language is a core component of cultural identity. The infiltration of unnecessary foreign words dilutes this purity and, by extension, the culture itself. Our language is a living testament to our history and values. It pains me to see it corrupted by needless jargon when there are perfectly good native terms. Language, much like literature, should be preserved and cherished.

A Personal Note

As a former comrade, born in 1930 and a participant in the Caribbean Crisis, I have witnessed firsthand the power of knowledge and culture in shaping our lives. The experiences from my military service during such a critical period in history underscored the importance of being well-informed and culturally grounded. These experiences, coupled with my love for reading, have fortified my belief that true wealth lies in knowledge and understanding.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the wealth of knowledge gained from reading is unshakable. It shapes individuals, enhances understanding, and enriches life in ways that material wealth cannot. Embracing both native and foreign literature, while preserving the integrity of one's language and culture, ensures a well-rounded and fulfilling intellectual life. Books are more than just pages and ink; they are a gateway to endless possibilities, a bridge to different worlds and eras, and a repository of human wisdom.

Call to Action

To cultivate this unshakable wealth, I encourage everyone to read more and explore the vast landscapes of literature. Start with the classics and expand your reading horizon. Join a book club, share your favorite reads with friends, and support local libraries. Together, let's foster a culture of lifelong learning and intellectual enrichment. In doing so, we not only enrich our own lives but also contribute to a more enlightened and understanding society. Let’s treasure the stories that connect us, the wisdom that guides us, and the knowledge that empowers us.

Question: Please share the last book that impressed you.