Question: What are the spiritual consequences of Vladimir Putin’s presidency both for his lifestream and for Russia? And what message should Russians take out of his administration?
Answer from the Ascended Master Lanello through Kim Michaels. This answer was given at a conference in Novosibirsk, Russia in 2017.
My beloved, you can best understand this in connection with my previous comments about the time of the czar and the general initiation faced by the Russian people, relating to their unwillingness to make decisions. I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to consider a question that surprising few people in Russia have actually considered and that is, “How could the Soviet Union possibly collapse?”
It is safe to say that the vast majority of the people who lived in the Soviet Union at the time were extremely surprised when the entire Soviet Union collapsed. And unfortunately, too few of the people today living in Russia have really considered this question, including journalists, historians and scientists. There has been much more progress made in some of the nations that were part of the former Soviet Union or who were under the Warsaw Pact, where they have been much more willing to analyze what actually happened. But it could be a great benefit to Russia to do more analysis of this in as neutral and objective manner as possible.
Now if you look at the situation, you will see that it is generally recognized that Gorbachev was the one who started the process that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is clear of course, that Gorbachev had no intention whatsoever, of dissolving the Soviet Union. However, he did see that changes were needed. I am in no way saying that Gorbachev was attuned to the ascended masters. But he was attuned to the fact that due to the raising of the collective consciousness, there was a need to make changes because the Soviet Union could not continue the way it was, partly because too many people in Russia were dissatisfied with their material situation.
Gorbachev, of course, also knew that the Soviet Union was facing extreme financial difficulties and basically could not sustain itself the way it was for a very long time into the future. So he hoped that it would be possible to reform the system and therefore, gradually transition into a different kind of Soviet Union that could survive for a long time to come, perhaps indefinitely.
Those of you who study the topic will see that there was a very complicated personal situation between Gorbachev and Yeltsin and you will see that it was actually Yeltsin who decided to take power and decided to declare the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
If you look at Boris Yeltsin you will, of course, see a very complex psychology. You will see that he was, in many ways, a typical product of the Soviet Union, first of all with his drinking problem. But you will see that here was a person who saw a political situation develop. He saw that there was a need for someone who would take decisive leadership and who would make a bold decision and he did make a bold decision. You may see, and I will not dispute it, that much of this was due to his personal arrogance that he felt it would be significant and make him a significant person that the dared to publicly declare the end of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, it was one of these decisive decisions made by one man that altered the course of history.
Now, needless to say, this surprised most people and there were many, many people who were not just surprised, but who were resentful and who wanted to actually have stayed in the Soviet Union and do what Gorbachev talked about – create the necessary reforms so that it could be sustained. There were also those who did not want to create reforms, but who blindly thought that it could continue indefinitely. And so you saw of course, that after the Soviet Union was dissolved, many of these people sat back not knowing what to do, but still feeling that resentment and that opposition.
So if you look at what actually happened when the Soviet Union was dissolved, it was that the Russian people were given a historic opportunity. And you may say that they were given an opportunity they were not ready for and that is correct. But why were they not ready for it? Well, because they had not been willing to use the time during the Soviet Union to raise their consciousness to decide what kind of country we want to live in.
There are still people in embodiment in Russia who felt that the best of times were under Stalin. And one can look at this and say that these people must not have understood what happened under Stalin. They were not personally killed or sent to a labor camp. But how could they fail to understand what was going on? How could they fail to educate themselves later, even when later leaders distanced themselves from Stalin and recognized that the Soviet Union could not survive if the Stalinist regime had continued? They recognized that that kind of oppression of the people could not go on indefinitely.
And so it is a question to consider for experts and for the Russian people of why there are people in Russia who are so, one might say, loyal to the past. Why are there still so many people who feel that everything was better under Communism, where they as I said, had a known misery but they prefer this to an unknown opportunity? And so they even look at Russia today, and although there has been clearly much progress made in terms of most people’s standard of living; there are still those who say that things were still better under Communism because they didn’t have the uncertainty that you have today.
But you see, my beloved, one person’s uncertainty is another person’s opportunity. And it is those who are not willing to make decisions and learn from them that want certainty, rather than opportunity. They cling to certainty, do not want uncertainty. And it would be valuable for the Russian people to consider why they have this. And we have, of course given you some of the explanation. But even if they are not willing to recognize our teachings, much progress could actually be made if the Russian people were willing to consider these questions.
The reason it is important to consider it is of course, that what you see today, the Putin presidency, the Putin leadership era, as we might say, is an expression of this. There were not enough people. There were not a critical mass of people, who saw it as an opportunity when the Soviet Union ended. They did not embrace the greater freedom and the greater opportunity. They were still longing back for some kind of security and they felt that this could only be achieved through a strong leadership.
And so, naturally, they attracted Putin, who again had some attunement to the consciousness of the people and who also saw a certain opportunity that because of the development in Russia, the somewhat political stalemate that had developed, there was an opportunity for a strong, decisive leader to step in and take command. And so he did.
Now, one of the real questions to consider about the Putin presidency is why he is still president. And the reason you need to consider this is you need to recognize that during the Soviet Era the Russian people did not have what you call normal democratic freedoms. There may have been talk about democracy and people voting and this and that, but they did not have true democracy. They did not have the true rights that are normally recognized in a democratic constitution and so when modern Russia emerged from the Soviet Era, you did create a constitution and that constitution is quite modern and it is quite well written and well thought out.
It is very clear that this original Russian constitution intended to do what most democratic nations do; namely limit the time that a president or other leader can be in office. The vast majority of democratic nations have such term limits. And of course, the original Russian constitution made it very clear that a president could only be elected for two terms. And so, the real question to consider is how is it possible that Putin could engineer a change in the constitution so he could continue to be president and no one objected to this, or at least not a critical mass of people objected to this.
And if you would consider these questions, my beloved, then you could gain a deeper understanding of the need for the Russian people to be willing to take a stand for themselves and their democratic rights. Or you could turn it around and say that the Russian people need to decide, “Do they want to live in a democracy or in some form of more totalitarian government?”
And of course, we are the ascended masters, we respect free will. If a majority of the people want to live in a different kind of government than a democratic government, we respect their right to make this choice. But have they truly made that choice? Have they made a free choice or has it been more of an avoidance decision, where they did not want to stand up for themselves? And so they silently accepted what was put upon them.
This was one of the biggest tests that the Russian people have faced since the collapse of the Soviet Union and it is one of the biggest test they have faced for a very long time. And so again an opportunity was there, an opportunity was not taken.
And now the question is, “How can Russia move on?”
Now, contrary to what some people might think, we are the ascended masters. We respect the right of a people to learn their own way. As Saint Germain commented on in Holland, we are not sitting here, for example, with a clear vision of which president the American people should elect. If they want this president or another president, it is their choice. We look at it as an opportunity and we look at how can we then move the nation on.
But in terms of Russia, well, when the Russian people did not object to the change of constitution it became very difficult for us to work more directly with Russia as a nation because we cannot work with Vladimir Putin. This is not to say that he is not a very intelligent person who has some attunement to the historical developments and even to the consciousness of the people, but we cannot work with him from the ascended level in any meaningful capacity; and there are currently really no prominent leaders in Russia that we can work with as we would like to be able to.
And so that is why there is at the present really no opposition to Putin other than Navalny who is not really a balanced politician but is more representing the opposite dualistic polarity to Putin’s presidency. So quite frankly, from an ascended master perspective, the political situation in Russia is somewhat in a stalemate and will remain so until there is a decisive change in the Russian peoples’ awareness or decision about what kind of country they want to live in.
It is not that we are looking for an overthrow of Putin. It is not that we are particularly supporting any opposition and we are quite frankly, most concerned about a violent revolutionary change. It is clear that we never advocate violence and even if there is an oppressive regime, we are not advocating a violent revolution. We never have, we never will because violence is not justified.
Copyright © 2017 Kim Michaels