Totalitarianism, imperialistic colonialism in their immediate neighbourhood, and total disrespect for their subjects' dignity, environment and life?
Disappearance of Stasi and getting rid of KGB in most of the ex-SSRs (if not in Russia main) is always case for triumphalism. Anyway, government never is equal to the people it governs, especially when it's doing its utmost to claim so.
Speaking of governmental continuity, you forgot Sweden. And about the only part of the old Russian empire Soviets (more or less by sheer luck on our part) didn't manage to re-invade, Finland (merely politically subjugate post-WW2). Depending on how one counts these things, especially the revolution/civil war period of 1917/18, our parliamentary and wider governmental system could be viewed as a direct continuation of the czars' local regime. Yay for outliving?
Of course, even if one accepts this weird 'race of continuity' viewpoint, the 'uninterrupted' is quite nice technicality. Denmark, Norway or the Netherlands are still quite recognizable as the about same governmental and national entities both before and after WW2. Even France, with all its constitutional changes since Napoleon III, didn't try such large changes at the societal level.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulak#Dekulakization
It was not a backwards country in 1914. This is a soviet hoax so widely spread.
Surely, it lacked in some areas, but it was already industrializing fast, building ships, cars, planes, railroads and stuff. Then came soviets and took credit for all aforementioned.
Certainly for "99%" + "extreme poverty".
Most of other claims are weasel-y. You could say the same about a lot of countries who then figured themselves out.
"the level of... political inequality that noone these days can understand or accept" is especially fun to read for a citizen of Putinist post-Soviet Russia. I not only understand political inequality but also experience levels of it that exceed what 1914 had to offer. For example, they had real Duma with real parties! That didn't always vote the same!
Hundred years passed and yet today we are far worse off.
As for the Tsarist Duma, come on. It was only established after the revolution of 1905, and after 1907, the electoral laws were engineered to favour the ruling class and the pro-Tsarist currents, and the Tsar retained most of his authority.
1: http://www.ehs.org.uk/dotAsset/62d8a367-8beb-4dd0-b21f-d98b4...
Modern Duma is young too, but really degenerate: voting unanimously, no opposition parties due to very high barrier to entry (by both not registering new parties and 7% elective barrier) and general monopolization of power in Russia. Rules now change before every new elections.
(the fact that one of Britain/USA, Nazi Germany, or Russia invaded basically all of Europe in the post-1917 period doesn't help)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pac...
How much exactly did they "bleed" before starting war with the USSR? AFAIK they mostly took countries intact with low to none losses.
"...the greatest villainy of the century"
"Peace for Our Time"
Non-allied states are not performing joint military invasions or provide military support to each other in ongoing war.
When the leaders of Russia's communist party decided to reorganize their government in 1991, what governments in continental Europe from 1917 still existed in the same form, uninterrupted? Not Germany, not France, not Italy. Not Spain, not Portugal, not Holland. The only country I can think of is Switzerland, although perhaps one or more slip my mind. Some "failure" - when you've outlived everyone else and are done away with by the leaders of the party that was in charge seventy years before decides to throw in the towel. While in the meantime surviving numerous major wars, and, under Stalin, having enormous economic growth, at a time when the rest of the world was stagnating economically.
Russia was a backwards country in 1917. Lenin said Russia would not be a leader among countries, but the opportunity availed itself and so socialists would hold out in Russia while the rest of the world went on with its processes. This was followed by invasion by every country (including the US in places like Arkhangelsk), then 25 years later being invaded by a coalition of most of continental Europe, followed by a Cold War against a military alliance of all the world's industrialized nations. What magic pixie dust would the Russians have to combat all this? It's a miracle they made it to 1991, in the process launching the first satellites, man in space etc., before deciding themselves to close up shop in 1991.
It's a strange triumphalism - exaggerate a threat beyond all proportions, then crow how you defeated it. 1917 US (and allies) against 1917 Russia is like an NFL team against a Pee-wee league. This is the case for triumphalism? It's a miracle the Russians did as well as they did - they even beat Nazi Germany. It shows there must have been something to what they were doing.