How Putin made Russia Great Again or why Russians love him so much
(very long 🧵)
After the collapse of the USSR, Russia became a colony of the West and lost its sovereignty. During the 1990s and under Yeltsin’s government, the country nearly fell apart. The military and industries across all sectors were destroyed, school textbooks were rewritten, and resources were sold off to Western corporations. It’s a serious question whether Russia would even exist today if things had continued that way. However, with Putin’s arrival, everything changed - he brought Russia back to itself.
Bio
Few in the West know about Putin’s mentor, Anatoly Sobchak, who introduced him to politics. Sobchak was a strong supporter of liberal-democratic ideas and one of the founders of the “Democratic Russia” party.
In the early 1990s, Vladimir Putin worked as an assistant to the rector of Leningrad State University for international affairs.
This position served as a cover, as he was an active KGB agent. When Sobchak noticed him at the University and invited him to join his team, Putin had to admit his work in intelligence. Realizing that combining KGB work with political activity was impossible, he resigned from the KGB.
In June 1991, Sobchak became the mayor of St. Petersburg. During the tense political environment of the time, from 1993 onward, Sobchak often entrusted Putin to act as mayor during his foreign trips, showing great trust in his professionalism. However, starting in 1995, a campaign to discredit Sobchak began, organized by his political opponents in Moscow who viewed him as a potential rival for the presidency. Using accusations of misconduct, law enforcement agencies like the Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the FSB effectively ended his political career. His worsening health worked to his enemies’ advantage, reducing his ability to defend himself. At one point, they even tried to block him from traveling abroad for medical treatment.
At this critical moment, Putin showed complete loyalty to his mentor, Sobchak. He knew that helping Sobchak leave the country involved serious risks to his own career. First, he was going against powerful state agencies that were actively pursuing Sobchak. If the plan failed, Putin could have been accused of aiding or hiding him. Second, Sobchak was a political outsider at the time, and supporting him could have been seen as a strategic mistake, alienating influential allies in Moscow. Third, successfully getting Sobchak out of the country under the strict control of the FSB, prosecutors, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs required extreme caution. It could have been seen as breaking the law, threatening not just Putin’s career but also his personal freedom.
Despite these risks, Putin, using skills from his intelligence background, arranged for Sobchak to leave for France, where he underwent life-saving surgery. This act was a remarkable display of loyalty and courage. After the operation, Putin reported the outcome to Yeltsin, who, after a pause, approved his actions, saying, “You did the right thing.” This moment highlighted not only Putin’s loyalty to Sobchak but also his willingness to take risks for his principles and a sense of justice, which later became a defining feature of his political career.
The Turning Point: Russia’s New Year of Change
Since Christmas is a religious holiday in Russia, New Year’s Eve is celebrated similarly to how Christmas is in the West. A New Year’s tree is set up, and children receive gifts from Ded Moroz, the Russian Santa Claus, on the night of December 31st to January 1st. The celebration begins with a televised speech by the president, followed by the countdown to the chimes of the Kremlin clock, Russia’s main timepiece.
Back then, everyone anticipated Boris Yeltsin’s New Year address. By the 2000s, however, Yeltsin could barely speak. He was widely seen as a hopeless alcoholic, mocked by the Russian people and even by foreign leaders like Bill Clinton. Russians felt ashamed of their president, who had become a national embarrassment.
But instead of Yeltsin’s familiar face on TV, a young man appeared. Calm, polite, and well-spoken, he explained that Yeltsin had stepped down due to health reasons, and until the elections in the spring, he would take on presidential duties. He wished everyone a Happy New Year, and for the first time in a while, there was a sense of hope in the air.
When the elections came, people voted for this young man, Vladimir Putin, and he became president. Almost immediately, he introduced significant changes, particularly regarding the oligarchs who had gained immense political influence in the 1990s during the privatization of state enterprises under Yeltsin.
After the collapse of the USSR, several waves of privatization swept through Russia, leaving the nation’s wealth in the hands of a few. While ordinary Russians suffered from a sharp decline in living standards, barely scraping by, the business clans born in the chaos of perestroika solidified their control over the most valuable assets of what was once a great country.
The End of the Oligarch Era: Putin’s Economic Revolution
Putin made it clear that the era of oligarchs dictating terms to the state was over. He demanded they pay taxes and end tax evasion practices, including the widespread use of offshore schemes popular in the 1990s. One symbolic example of this crackdown was the case of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and his oil company, Yukos, which became a landmark in the fight against tax evasion. Following this, many companies began significantly increasing their tax contributions to the state budget.
Putin also expected major businesses to invest in infrastructure, social services, and regional development. For instance, after Putin took office, Roman Abramovich invested heavily in developing the Chukotka region, where he served as governor. Other businessmen were also required to fund the construction of schools, hospitals, roads, and other public facilities.
Oligarchs were instructed not only to avoid political involvement but to publicly support Kremlin policies, including major state initiatives and foreign policy. Funding opposition movements was strictly forbidden, and compliance was seen as essential for maintaining their businesses.
The state also involved oligarchs in national priorities, such as the 2014 Sochi Olympics and the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Companies owned by oligarchs often became contractors for these large-scale projects, investing significant resources.
Putin demanded the return of assets and capital taken abroad in the 1990s. This included repatriating funds from offshore accounts and relocating companies under Russian jurisdiction. Under pressure from the Kremlin, some oligarchs moved their assets to Russian banks or registered them in Russia.
Strategic industries like oil, gas, and metallurgy were brought under state control or placed in the hands of Kremlin-loyal structures. Oligarchs managing major resources were required to align their activities with state interests.
Not all oligarchs agreed with these new rules. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of Yukos, refused to pay taxes on his company’s profits. Under Khodorkovsky, the Rothschilds gained influence over Russian oil. Putin not only jailed him but also nationalized Yukos, redirecting its revenues to the Russian budget instead of foreign hands. After serving his sentence, Khodorkovsky moved to Britain, where he launched campaigns to discredit Putin and funded Russian newspapers critical of the government. Many of these outlets were labeled foreign agents in 2022. Btw, Khodorkovsky was invited and he also attended Trump’s inauguration 2 days ago.
Boris Berezovsky, another prominent oligarch, made billions through ventures like “Logovaz” (car sales) and co-ownership of “Sibneft” with Abramovich. His activities caused significant harm to the Russian economy. Understanding the power of media, he owned newspapers and held shares in the ORT television channel. Berezovsky was suspected of involvement in the murders of journalist Paul Klebnikov, who wrote the book “Godfather of the Kremlin”, and TV host Vladislav Listyev. His commercial ties allegedly extended to organized crime groups and Chechen militants, with claims that he profited from the release of hostages held in Chechnya.
When Berezovsky refused to accept the new rules in Russia, he fled to London, where he called for a “violent overthrow of power” in Russia.
Other oligarchs, including Vladimir Gusinsky, Evgeny Chichvarkin, Sergey Pugachev, Alexander Lebedev, Roman Abramovich, Leonard Blavatnik, Leonid Nevzlin, Mikhail Fridman, Pyotr Aven, and Alexander Smolensky, faced similar outcomes.
In the end, Putin returned control of strategic industries—oil, gas, and metallurgy—to the state. Many assets held by oligarchs were nationalized or transferred to companies that prioritized Russia’s interests. These changes redirected investments into the country’s development rather than draining wealth into offshore accounts, strengthening the nation’s economy.
Now, let’s look at the achievements of Putin’s presidency in numbers.
🔷 GDP (Gross Domestic Product) increased by 930%.
🔷 The national external debt was reduced by 75.2%.
🔷 In 2024, Russia ranked first in Europe and fourth in the world for GDP (PPP). According to the IMF, Russia’s share of global GDP (PPP) reached 3.55%, surpassing Japan’s 3.38%.
🔷 Between 1999 and 2024, Russia’s gold reserves experienced significant growth by approx 580%, reaching 2332 tonnes.
🔷 International reserves increased over 5,000%, reaching $609 billion.
🔷 Federal budget revenue increased 45 times to 36.72 trillion rubles.
🔷 Major international events were held: the Sochi Olympics (2014) and the FIFA World Cup (2018).
🔷 Increased funding for culture, cinema, and scientific research.
Education and Science
🔷 National education projects contributed to the modernization of schools and universities.
🔷 Only from 2019 to 2023, 900 new schools were built. Overall number for the last 25 years is much higher. Additionally, every year more than 1,000 schools undergo major renovations. By the end of the five-year period, more than 7,300 educational institutions, including those in rural and small towns, will have been updated.
🔷 Russia remains a leader in space exploration, continuing missions with Soyuz spacecraft and developing new technologies.
Industry and Economy
🔷 Industrial production grew by 60%.
🔷 Manufacturing increased by 70% by 2019; in 2024, it grew an additional 7.2%.
🔷 Agricultural product exports grew 19 times to $25 billion.
🔷 Grain exports grew 40 times, reaching 50 million tons.
🔷 Over the past 17 years, Russia has opened 200 to 500 new factories, workshops, and enterprises annually.
Social Progress
🔷 Real wages increased 3.5 times. This reflects real growth for the entire population, accounting for inflation and other factors, not just for select groups.
🔷 The average monthly pension increased by 30 times.
🔷 Unemployment decreased by 65%, dropping to 4.6%.
🔷 Average life expectancy rose to 73 years (for men, from 59 to 68.5 years; for women, from 72 to 78.4 years).
🔷 Free Healthcare and Education
Family support
🔷 Financial support to families upon the birth or adoption of their second and subsequent children
🔷 Employed parents can take up to 3 years of parental leave
🔷Housing Support: Special programs provide discounts on mortgage interest rates for families with children
🔷 Families with children are entitled to tax deductions, including reduced income tax for working parents
🔷 Families raising children with disabilities receive additional financial assistance, including monthly care payments
Military and Security
🔷 Russia’s military is considered one of the strongest globally, ranked either first (U.S. News & World Report) or second (Global Firepower Index).
🔷 Crime rates, including murders, assaults, and robberies, decreased by 53% during Putin’s presidency. The homicide rate dropped by 74%.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The Transfer of Crimea in 1954: Violations of Law, Khrushchev’s Personal Ambitions, and the Role of the Ukrainian Nomenklatura
Originally part of the Russian Empire, Crimea became part of the RSFSR when the Soviet republics were set up. So, from 1921 until 1954 it was officially Russian. Then, in February 1954, Khrushchev signed a decree moving Crimea into the Ukrainian SSR, selling it as a friendly “brotherly” gesture between Russians and Ukrainians. In reality, he was playing political games to boost his own clout and completely ignored the constitutional rules of both the USSR and the RSFSR.
Let's unpack 👇🧵
Constitutional and International Law Violations
The 1954 transfer violated at least Articles 16 and 18 of the 1936 USSR Constitution, sidestepped the full Supreme Soviet’s monopoly on major decisions, ignored any local referendum, and was enforced through political purges rather than legal channels.
🔸No proper agreement from Russia:
According to Soviet law at the time (the 1936 USSR Constitution), you couldn’t just give territory from one republic (like Russia) to another (like Ukraine) without getting proper agreement from the republic losing the territory. On February 5, 1954, when Russian leaders gathered to decide if Crimea should move to Ukraine, they needed at least 19 out of 37 members present to make their decision official. But only 15 showed up. That's like trying to hold a vote without enough voters present. It doesn’t count.
🔸The wrong people made the decision:
The law stated clearly that only the entire Supreme Soviet (like a big parliament) could change borders between republics. Instead, a smaller group (the Presidium) made this decision quickly and secretly, without letting the full parliament debate or vote on it. It’s like if a few officials made a major decision without asking the rest of the government.
🔸Nobody asked the people of Crimea:
Usually, when big changes like this happened, the Soviet system required at least some kind of public discussion or vote among the people directly affected. In Crimea, nobody held any referendum or even public debates about becoming part of Ukraine.
Many Crimeans actually felt uneasy or worried, but their voices were ignored. According to Oleg Volobuev, who was living in Crimea at the time, things were far from calm: “the mood on the peninsula was anxious, panic even. From time to time you’d see graffiti hinting at a hidden protest, and conversations made it even clearer.” After all, at the moment of the transfer, ethnic Russians still made up the majority of Crimea’s population.
🔸One brave guy who spoke up got punished:
Pavel Titov was a local leader in Crimea who openly opposed Khrushchev’s idea. Instead of listening to his concerns, Khrushchev quickly fired Titov and gave him a less important job in Moscow. Dmitry Polyansky, another leader who enthusiastically supported Khrushchev’s plan, was promoted to replace Titov. This shows the transfer wasn't really about "the friendship", but about politics and power.
Khrushchev didn’t hand over Crimea just to be nice. He did it to win friends in Ukraine.
Khrushchev built his entire career in the Ukrainian SSR. Despite being ethnically Russian and born in central Russia, he cultivated a strong Ukrainian affiliation in his rhetoric and alliances. Even today, many still consider him Ukrainian. After Stalin died in 1953, there was a fierce power struggle in Moscow between guys like Malenkov, Beria, and Khrushchev and Khrushchev wasn’t the obvious winner. That’s why he needed Ukraine’s backing more than anything. The transfer of Crimea to Ukraine wasn’t about friendship or fixing the economy. According to official statistics, between 1946 and 1950 Crimea’s economy was fully restored to its pre-war levels, and industrial production rose by 8% over that period.
As historian Roy Medvedev puts it, “The real reason for transferring Crimea was Khrushchev’s desire to win the sympathies of the Ukrainian party elite.”
Medvedev reminds us that from 1938 to 1949, before moving to Moscow, Khrushchev led the Communist Party of Ukraine. “He can certainly be considered one of the architects of the republic’s party elite in the 1930s and 1940s, and he maintained close ties with Ukraine afterward.” Khrushchev counted on support from this Ukrainian “clan” even after he reached the top in Moscow: “Trust from comrades in Ukraine was Khrushchev’s main political capital.”
It’s also worth noting that Khrushchev’s 1955 amnesty led to the mass release of Ukrainian collaborators and Banderites.
When my foreign friends visit Moscow, they’re always surprised by how deep the metro is. And it’s true once you get on the escalator, it just keeps going and going. But there’s a reason for that.
The Moscow Metro was originally designed as a bomb shelter. Many stations are built 40 to 80 meters underground, with hermetically sealed doors, autonomous ventilation, and water supply systems.
During World War II, it served not only as a shelter but also as a hospital and even a command center for the Soviet High Command (Stavka). Some stations are even reinforced to withstand a nuclear strike.
Near the Kirovskaya station (now Chistye Prudy) there is a bunker that included a war room for the Stavka (High Command) and even Stalin’s personal office.
They say a special entrance was built for the Supreme Commander through a secret shaft leading to the air defense command post. None of the General Staff officers ever saw Stalin take the regular escalator down.
Today, this bunker is open for tourists, but at the time, its location was a closely guarded secret.
👇 Preparations for the celebration of November 7, 1941.
Joseph Stalin’s speech dedicated to the 24th anniversary of the October Revolution, delivered at a ceremonial meeting of the Moscow City Council.
Mayakovskaya Metro Station, November 6, 1941.
During World War II, according to the Moscow Metro authorities, a total of 3,800 children’s beds and 4,600 adult cots were installed in the stations. Drinking fountains and water taps were set up on the platforms, along with 25 restroom facilities. Doctors were on duty around the clock.
In the evenings, children were given milk and white bread, and some stations even showed movies to help keep up morale.
Finland’s Contacts with Germany Before the Winter War
Finland was not simply a helpless victim of Soviet aggression, as often portrayed in Western narratives. It had hostile intentions toward the USSR, ideological alignment with Germany, and was seen by the Nazis as a natural ally on the Eastern Front long before Operation Barbarossa or the winter war.
Military and political ties since the 1920s
🔸 After World War I, Finland looked to Germany as a counterweight to the Soviet threat.
🔸 In 1918, during the Finnish Civil War, German troops landed in Helsinki (Operation “Seeadler”) to support the White Finns against the Red Guard.
🔸 Many Finnish military officers were pro-German or had received training in Germany.
Economic cooperation with Weimar and later Nazi Germany
🔸 In the 1930s, Finland traded actively with Germany particularly in timber, metals, and nickel.
🔸 Germany, in turn, viewed Finland as a potential strategic partner in a future war against the USSR.
Finland as part of Germany’s Eastern strategy
🔸 As early as 1935, German military planners included Finland in scenarios for a campaign against the Soviet Union.
🔸 Throughout 1938–1939, Germany encouraged Finland to resist Soviet pressure and maintain an anti-Soviet orientation.
🔸 Secret military contacts between Finnish and German officers existed even before the outbreak of the Winter War.
Ethnic Cleansing in Karelia, USSR: Finland’s Dirty Secret of WWII
Finland was far from a victim, they were in bed with the Nazis, engaging in the same practices.
From 1941 to 1944, the Finnish army occupied Eastern Karelia (USSR), where it established a regime of terror targeting the Soviet population of the region. Not soldiers but civilians.
On October 24, 1941, the first Finnish concentration camp for Soviet civilians of Slavic origin, including women and children, was established in Petrozavodsk. The goal was ethnic cleansing: the elimination of the Russian population in the Finnish-occupied region of Karelia.
🧵👇
By the end of 1941, over 13,000 civilians were imprisoned. By mid-1942, the number rose to nearly 22,000. In total, around 30,000 people passed through 13 camps. Roughly one-third died, from starvation, disease, and forced labor. These figures do not include POW camps, where conditions were equally deadly. Since most men were drafted in the early days of the war, the majority of the labor force in the camps consisted of women and children.
In April 1942, Finnish politician Väinö Voionmaa wrote home:
“Out of 20,000 Russian civilians in Äänislinna, 19,000 are in camps. Their food? Rotten horse meat. Children scavenge garbage for scraps. What would the Red Cross say if they saw this?”
In 1942, the death rate in Finnish camps exceeded that of German ones. Testimonies describe corpses being hauled daily, teenagers forced into labor, and women and children made to work 10+ hour shifts in forests and camps, unpaid until 1943.
Camp No. 2, unofficially known as the “death camp,” was notorious for its brutality. It held “disloyal” civilians, and its commandant, Finnish officer Solovaara, became infamous for public beatings and killings. In May 1942, he staged a mass beating of prisoners simply for begging. Those who resisted forced labor, often in brutal logging camps, were beaten to death in front of others “as a lesson.”
According to the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission, Finnish forces conducted medical experiments on prisoners and branded them with hot iron unlike the Nazis, who tattooed. Finland also engaged in slave trading, selling abducted Soviet civilians for agricultural labor.
An estimated 14,000 civilians died in Karelia between 1941 and 1944, excluding POWs. But many of the dead labeled as “prisoners of war” were actually civilians: most rural Soviets lacked passports, and anyone of conscription age was assumed to be a soldier.
In 2021, the FSB declassified the names of 54 Finns responsible for the genocide of the Soviet population.
One of Russia’s most legendary landmarks is Saint Basil’s Cathedral. I’ve seen it countless times, yet as I grow older, its architecture amazes me more and more. It looks strikingly futuristic, even by today’s standards and it was built all the way back in the 16th century. The cathedral is truly one of a kind. Its architecture is filled with sacred symbolism.
A Symbol of the Heavenly Jerusalem
Saint Basil’s Cathedral was originally conceived as a symbol of the Heavenly Jerusalem - the paradise city, an earthly image of the Kingdom of God. The idea came from Metropolitan Macarius, and the architects sought to embody it in the cathedral’s design and decoration.
This is precisely why the cathedral appears so unusual. Its composition with nine chapels blooming around the central one like the petals of a flower was meant to evoke the image of the Garden of Paradise. In the ornamentation and frescoes, one finds grapevines, fantastical flowers, leaves, curls, and patterns that do not exist in nature.
These are not mere decorations, but a visual expression of spiritual meaning and heavenly imagery: the paradise.
The Eight-Pointed Star
When viewed from above, the eight smaller chapels of the cathedral form an eight-pointed star - one of the oldest Christian symbols, and a symbol of the Virgin Mary. This design was no accident, as the cathedral is dedicated to the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos.
It’s incredible, but this 60-meter-tall building standing on a hill has no foundation. The entire massive structure rests on a solid stone substructure - a raised basement level. It served for a long time as a storage place for the tsar’s treasury. The entrance had been sealed off and was only rediscovered in the 1930s during restoration work.
Two Wests: An Internal Power Struggle Over the Future
When people talk about “the West” as one big united political and cultural force, that’s really oversimplified. In reality, there’s been a growing civil war inside the West itself which is a fight among the elites over who gets to shape the future. It’s a clash between two completely different ways of seeing the world.
That bring us to the question: what is the essence of today’s geopolitical conflict?
Russia has traditionally been viewed as an “anti-system” force in relation to the West. This is precisely why the West has consistently sought to dismantle Russia whether it was the Tsarist Empire, the Soviet Union, or the Russian Federation. That is what also unites the "Two Wests" today.
However, as an internal conflict between globalists and nationalists is unfolding, its divide is spreading to other countries as well. Ukraine being a prime example.
On one side, we have the globalists. This includes the Vatican, the European Union (with France and Germany at the forefront), the U.S. Democratic Party, financial networks like George Soros’s Open Society, and major tech giants like Google, Meta, and Microsoft. Backing them are media outlets like CNN, The New York Times, and the BBC – all pushing the narrative of “universal values”, pro–immigration laws, pro–lgbtq laws.
This coalition wants to erase national borders and, just as importantly, national identity itself whether it’s Italian, French, German, or anything else. The goal is to replace deep-rooted cultural, religious, and historical identities with a standardized global model. Gender, tradition, faith, language – everything gets blurred. In place of countries and churches, they push for rule by transnational institutions like
🔷the UN
🔷WHO
🔷WTO
🔷IMF
Ideologies / Philosophies:
🔷 Postmodernism – rejection of absolute truths, deconstruction of traditions, moral relativism
🔷 Transhumanism – the belief in “enhancing” humans through technology, AI, and bioengineering
🔷 Neoliberalism – prioritizing global markets and multinational corporations over nation-states
🔷 Cultural Marxism / Woke ideology – fighting perceived “privilege” and dismantling traditional social roles
🔷 Climate radicalism – using environmental policy as a tool for centralized global control
🔷 Theology of “universal brotherhood” (Fratelli Tutti) – merging religious identities into a unified humanist framework
🔷 Universalism – promoting the idea of a “citizen of the world” over national identity
On the other side is the national-conservative camp. At its core are
🔷The U.S. Republican Party, especially the pro-Trump wing.
🔷Evangelical Protestants
🔷Right-leaning intellectuals and independent journalists
🔷Business groups that reject ESG agendas and digital surveillance.
🔷Israel’s right-wing bloc (Netanyahu, religious Zionists), which, while operating within the global system, sees national sovereignty and a unique religious mission as the key to survival.
🔷Zionists
Their aligned media and platforms include Fox News, Breitbart, and X/Twitter under Elon Musk. Institutions and think tanks often associated with this camp include the Heritage Foundation, Turning Point USA, PragerU, and various evangelical networks like The Family Research Council and Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).
Ideologies / Philosophies:
🔷 Traditionalism – preserving religious, cultural, and moral values rooted in historical continuity and identity
🔷 Sovereigntism – prioritizing national self-rule over supranational governance (UN, WHO, EU)
🔷 Zionism
🔷 Biblical Nationalism – common among U.S. Evangelicals, links national identity to divine prophecy. In this view, the modern State of Israel is seen as a fulfillment of Biblical promises. The return of Jews to their land is believed to be part of God's plan.
🔷 Economic Patriotism
🔷 Family-Centered Ethics – emphasis on the nuclear family, biological sex, and parental rights
🔷 Civilizational Identity – belief in the uniqueness, resilience, and spiritual role of one’s own nation or civilization (e.g., American exceptionalism, Israel as the Jewish homeland, Christian Europe)