tools of “real politics” could be applied.
But over time, this structural framework created problems. If a particular box could no longer be
checked, as in the case of concentration camps, questions were raised as to whether the regime could even be considered totalitarian.
Apparently, it could not. The Soviet Union, by playing word games – as in the case of simply labeling concentration camps as gulags or education camps – was able to eliminate the need to check one box, thereby seducing the West into believing things had changed. This is why Adam Ulam, considered one of the world's foremost authorities and top experts in Sovietology and Kremlinology, would able to use the outrageous and oxymoronic phrase of “enlightened totalitarianism” to describe post-Stalinist Russia.12 It is why Putin is held in higher regard than Stalin, even though he rules with an iron fist. It is also why people today have had such a hard time coming to consensus over how best to describe “The People’s Republic of China,” as it continues to suppress individual rights and intern and "reeducate" Uyghurs and other ethnic groups..
And maybe, in those cases where the regimes have nuclear capabilities, it is best to view them through the authoritarian lens because policymakers can engage tools to contain the conflict without having to address the troubling reality totalitarian regimes continue to present. Yet, the situation in Ukraine has shown how well such a posture works: solidarity and sanctions have not stopped the invasion, caused Russia to retreat, or paused threats to use weapons of mass destruction or invade other countries. A person can thus argue, it is simply the case that the western alliance is not using an analytical framework capable of predicting what could come next. Authoritarianism and traditional totalitarian frameworks are effective only in understanding the effect, not the cause, of totalitarian initiatives. This is probably why, more than anything else, the structural theories of
Friedrich and Brzezinski and others, have fallen
out of favor.
There is, however, an alternative theory of totalitarianism that offers the possibility of better understanding the cause of totalitarianism, one whose foundational framework better accounts more generally for drivers within totalitarian regimes and more specifically the underpinning motives of Putin’s invasion of the Ukraine. It is the theory of totalitarianism put forth by Hannah Arendt, a theory that focuses on the use of terror. As the argument develops in the following presentation, it is possible to see how actions of Putin would support such a thesis.
Terror
Arendt’s theory is complex and far ranging, as she uses an analysis of anti-Semitism and imperialism to reveal the historical origins of totalitarianism. Identifying the role loneliness and isolation – two distinct but related states – play in an individual’s alienation, Arendt is able to demonstrate totalitarian intent and the role terror plays in destroying the dignity of individuals.
The totalitarian terrorizes people through two means: first, he attacks the physical conditions and environment within which people live, the common experiences and bonds – the common
The lens of authoritarianism is revealed to be a reactive framework that provides little use in making predictions about the next step or, more importantly, how this will end.
13