Masha Gessen, born in Moscow in 1967, left Russia twice. The first departure came in 1981 when the family sought refuge in the United States. Gessen returned later as a journalist eager to report on the country from within, only to be forced into exile again in 2013 due to mounting pressure from Vladimir Putin. A contributor to The New Yorker, Gessen is also the author of a biography of Putin, titled The Faceless Man, and received a National Book Award in 2017 for The Future Is History, a work that examines the totalitarian shift in Russia. They also translated The Americans and have written extensively about the suppression of the LGBT community by Moscow. Gessen has appeared at venues such as the CCCB, was invited to the Biennale del Pensiero, and has spoken about the rising wave of fascism around the world.
When was the last time you visited Russia? The answer comes from a recent trip coinciding with the start of the war. They were in Ukraine at the end of January, and many Russian friends doubted that the conflict would begin. The journalist notes that this surprise did not come as a shock to them.
In the most recent article, the author describes the totalitarian drift in Russia, drawing on stories from Russians born in 1980. One of their earliest memories is the end of the USSR. Would that generation react differently to the current war? The answer is subtle. They argue that the same mythology informs everyday speech, schooling, and politics: imperial nostalgia. Putin’s era is marked by a shift in emphasis, with references to the Bolshevik revolution losing some of its former glorification. Yet the central claim remains clear: systems shape behavior more than any single leader. The future is history lays out a framework to understand how the Russian system guides people’s decisions.
There is a common stereotype about Russians needing an iron fist. The term homo sovieticus describes a social adaptation in Soviet times to secure safety and stability. Is such a mindset as prominent now as it was in the 1970s? The fact that thousands were arrested in protests against the war shows the changing dynamics. Still, many are prepared to risk everything for the cause, even if this was less widespread in the Soviet era.
Does the mass exodus after recruitment announcements signal something bigger? The answer points to intimidation. State mobilization units at the border and a pervasive fear create what many describe as a chilling effect. Thousands feel pressured to flee, while others view service as a dangerous expectation placed upon them by the state.
Did Putin calculate how the public would react to the news? In a totalitarian system, knowing what people think becomes almost impossible. Fear blocks honest expression, and assumptions about public opinion can be misleading. Hannah Arendt suggested that totalitarian rule deprives people of the option to hold an independent opinion. In 2014, after the annexation of Crimea, a poll showed high support for Putin, illustrating the depth of control. Those numbers reflect the system’s ability to manufacture consent rather than a clear gauge of private belief.
What about the opposition? The psychological cost of challenging the regime is immense. Consider a woman in a small Russian town whose son has joined the military. The personal and social costs can be overwhelming, and isolation becomes a common price of dissent. For most, opposing the regime comes with a heavy emotional burden, and only a small minority manage to persevere.
Do sanctions hinder the inner circle around Putin? The recurring pattern of sanctions often falls short of producing cracks in the Kremlin. They tend to redistribute money and power rather than erode loyalty, rather than delivering a decisive strategic blow to the leadership.
How might Putin end his rule? The most common exit for a dictator remains death, though the current leader seems likely to stay in power for life. Another exit path would involve a monumental misstep. The ongoing war in Ukraine is a grave mistake, yet it does not necessarily precipitate a fall from power.
Is the nuclear threat credible? The threat appears credible in a political sense because it serves as a tool to preserve control. The question is not whether Putin is irrational, but how a leader can justify such actions in a world where power plays rely on fear. Some observers note that Putin could become more isolated if Russia’s stance isolates it from key partners. The broader global context matters, including relations with China and regional allies.
Is Putin isolated from the rest of the world? The Kremlin’s war has positioned Moscow against the West, but much of the world remains outside that bloc. Countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America show varying degrees of support or neutrality. The real question becomes whether strategic partners, such as China, are willing to sacrifice their interests to sustain backing for Russia.
And NATO? If a nuclear weapon were to be used in Ukraine, it would trigger a massive, destabilizing response. The strongest argument against such a move is the risk of immediate and overwhelming consequences on land and sea forces. The discussion weighs the potential consequences against the perceived need to deter aggression.