Does Gessen mention in her book that Putin’s father was a POW during the war and joined the Vlasov’s army ? It all happened long before Putin was born, but it must have left a huge imprint on his psyche.

^[2]

No, she does not mention that. On the contrary, she mentions that older Putin was seriously wounded behind enemy lines (he remained severely disabled in both legs) early in the war and then survived the siege of Leningrad together with his wife. All their children died.

Now, let me make one thing clear here: people who suggest that elder Putin fought for Vlasov wish to discredit him by mentioning this fact under the slogan: „son of Nazi collaborator is becomes Russian president”. It’s typical of the twisted logic of today’s world. In my eyes, Putin is a bolshevik. One cannot be lower than that. As Mackiewicz once said, you cannot diminish a murderer by calling him a cheat – and calling any bolshevik a „red fascist” amounts to doing just that. After the war some people tried to diminish Stalin by reminding the worlld that he shook hands with Ribbentrop but Mackiewicz quite rightly pointed out that one should rather be disgusted with Ribbentrop for shaking the hand of the worst criminal ever.

So should it prove to be true that Putin’s father fought for Vlasov I would be the first one to say: good on him! At least he tried to free his country from the worst plague that ever attacked it: soviet bolshevism.

Nevertheless, I doubt very much whether it is true that older Putin fought with Vlasov. As far as I know, not many Vlasov soldiers survived forceful repatriation by Western powers. Those that were not hanged in the Red Square, were sent to the Gulag and did not survive it either. But in any case, they would not be living quietly in a communal flat in Leningrad, with a television set, a telephone and a dacha…

not many Vlasov soldiers survived forceful repatriation by Western powers
——————–

True, but remember that Putin’s grandfather was Stalin’s cook. He surely could have interceded on behalf of his son and spare him a trip to the Workuta mines.

Also, Vlasov is no longer a pariah in today’s Russia. He is now a controversial figure, still denounced by some, but also defended by many ( ^[3]). And people defending Vlasov are often Putin’s opponents.

Well, whatever the Petersburg Times are saying – and to be perfectly honest, I don’t care that much about the views expressed by bolshevik publications – Vlasov fought Stalin and that’s not a bad start. He wasn’t my cup of tea but what do I matter?

Having said that, I completely disagree with her that Putin’s grandfather-cook could intercede on his son’s behalf. Stalin outlawed not the „Vlasovtsy” but all soviet prisoners of war; anyone who was captured by the Germans was treated as a traitor – including his own son. But the real outrage was that he then introduced a new decree outlawing all family members of POWs. So, was it really the case – which I still doubt – that Putin’s father was in Vlasov’s army, Spirydon (the grandfather) would have been scared for his life rather that dared to intercede.

In other words, I find it very difficult to believe that Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin was in Vlasov Army.

Lastly, let me address the point that defenders of Vlasov in today’s soviet union are Putin’s opponents. This can hardly be surprising, can it? Putin is 100% bolshevik, he is with all his heart and all his soul on the side of the ussr. Defenders of Vlasov, whatever their persuasion, are probably not that enamoured of the ussr so why is this supposed to be strange.

Besides, I’m sceptic in Gessen’s et al. prognoses of „deputinisation”. It seems that the present soviet „politburo” (gathered probably of high-rank chekists, Ch. Story pointed ) wants to keep Putin at the top by some time, perhaps even until 2024, as it was announced over year ago. Either as a „new Stalin” or as a kind of „clown”, like Brezhnev or Eltsin, or playing these two roles simultaneously (each for different „target groups”).

…except that Gessen never said anything about future de-putinisation. I said it and stand by it but perhaps it would be safer to transfer this discussion to the Polish version of the above? The Polish version is much longer and more detailed so hopefully it will be clearer and we can avoid misunderstandings.

Oh, and please, please, don’t use the ridiculous American transliteration of „Eltsin”… I can’t stand it. „Fedor Dostoevsky”? Yuck!

I mean other Gessen’s statements, not book we’re discussing about. As well as many other Russian (or soviet – sometimes I’ve got a problem to name them) dissidents, she hopes that Putin’s fall is at hand, together with collapse of KGB/FSB dictatorship they cannot identify clearly as a next incarnation of communism/bolshevism. I just wonder why the problem is SO universal to all nations threatened by communism and is common to every political option opposing… what? Neobolshevism, neocommunism? Or Putin’s regime only? With literally few exceptions. Kind of plague or something worse?

American transliteration of soviet „president’s” name? I met both ways in American texts and I was concerned that „Eltsin” (instead of „Yeltsin”) is used rather by Russian speakers writing English, widely in so called „runet”. So, if I’ll take a part in the next discussion, I’ll try to not use „Runglish”. But now I’ll go to the Polish version…

Oh, it was only tongue in cheek… Eltsin, Yeltsin, Jelcyn – wahtever. What do I care? Yet another bolshevik.

Gessen’s words about the „parallel world” or „the system that strove to control everything” made me to prick up my ears but, you’re right, despite those words, she understands nothing. She opposes Putin and hence my words that the coming „de-putinasation”, in some distant future, is going to satisfy her. Just like de-stalinisation satisfied anti-stalinist.

And this is why we need Mackiewicz-like clarity: there is only one bolshevism. Putin, Krushchov, Stalin or Gorbi make no difference.