FEW reminders of Soviet rule are quite as powerful as the towering statues of Vladimir Lenin that, even now, keep watch over the region.

And with fears that Russia is once again in the mood for expansion, it’s no surprise that these monuments to the Soviet legacy are under attack.

Crowds cheered as Ukrainian nationalists tore down a statue of Lenin in the centre of Ukraine’s second-largest city, Kharkiv, on Sept 28 — with the support of local officials.

In Ukraine, more than 100 Lenin statues are said to have been dismantled since the overthrow of the government last December. Even in Moscow, the Ukrainian colours were recently painted over a Soviet star on skyscrapers known as Stalin’s towers.

These acts show that memories of Soviet aggression are just as raw today as they were when the USSR fell. But is this anger misplaced?

During the Soviet era, successive leaderships intent on leaving their mark went about building thousands of monuments to their power. With the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, the Russian government made the preservation of Red Army monuments one of the conditions of the troops’ withdrawal from the newly independent countries.

In Warsaw, for example, despite calls for all remnants of Soviet times to be demolished, a large Red Army memorial is protected and was even recently renovated. A cemetery for Soviet soldiers is part of that memorial, and to attack it would be to desecrate a grave.

However, the different countries that emerged from Soviet rule have dealt with this legacy in very different ways.

In those countries that have nurtured close ties with Moscow, Soviet monuments claim pride of place in city centres and manicured parks. In those that chose to move towards the west, however, most that could be destroyed were pulled down. Only a few survive as dubious tourist attractions, placed within special zones or theme parks, such as Gruto Parkas in Lithuania or Szoborpark in Budapest.

Their artistic value varies. Yet their characteristically heavy, socialist-realist style does not fit well in some post-communist cities, where they are seen to detract from a desirable modern image.

In Bulgaria, the Soviet memorial in central Sofia is regularly painted/defaced (depending on your view). Once the soldiers on the monument were painted to resemble American comic books superheroes; last year they were painted pink.

It did not amuse Russian authorities, who issued a request that the monument was no longer defaced this way. And I’d argue that in this case, they’re right.

Red Army monuments are a reminder of the astounding Soviet sacrifice during the war. You find them not only in the ex-communist bloc but in western Europe too — Berlin and Vienna being most prominent. Those two cities even feature quotations from Stalin, which remain in place without harassment. The degree of the Soviet sacrifice seems to be appreciated there.

The Soviet army played a major role in saving this part of Europe from the realisation of Hitler’s master plan in the east, which proposed the colonisation, enslavement and eventual extermination of the Slavic population.

In some areas of the former USSR that are keen to shrug off Moscow’s influence, Russia’s role in the second world war is seen largely through the initial collaboration with Hitler. But it is the Soviet Union’s later actions and subsequent role in the defeat of the Nazis in Europe that should be dominant.

The countries that suffered the greatest loss of life during the war were Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Poland. In Belarus, a quarter of the population was killed, and though unspeakable suffering took place across the region it happened with special cruelty there.

Of course not all Soviet monuments are the same. Desecrating a statue of a Red Army soldier is different to toppling a Lenin memorial or painting the Ukrainian flag on the spire of one of Moscow’s Stalin towers. The latter can and should be separated from the events of 70 years ago. The people who died in Stalingrad shouldn’t get mixed up with people sending arms to Donetsk separatists. To see it otherwise is to fall into the irresponsible, habitual comparisons of Putin with Stalin and Hitler, conflating things from very different historical orders.

Large Russian populations remain in some countries of the former USSR that want to escape these “Russian” symbols. These Russian minorities face hostility, and often lack basic civil rights, as if they have to pay for the communist past. The conflict in Ukraine that built a false distinction between “Ukrainians” and “Russians” was rehearsed in those countries, where controversies over historical symbols serve present political aims to divide and rule local populations.

Past and present

Ultimately, the past informs our present. In some ways the Soviet legacy and the emotions it provokes explain part of the current conflict in Ukraine but so too do many other factors in recent history — the corruption and chaos of the capitalist transition is just one example.

The destruction of Victor Yanukovych’s Disneyland-like villa outside Kiev at least aimed at the right target, the unequal economy. The Lenin statues have been a poor substitute for understandable anger.

In some parts of the former USSR the Soviet legacy is used to explain all ills while in others it is the source of fond nostalgia for better days. In conflating the past and present, we run the risk of re-enacting old battles, not properly assessing what our problems are today.

—By arrangement with the Guardian

Published in Dawn, October 2nd, 2014