[peter_co]

I believe one of the greatest problems that Russia has is that the country has never experienced a complete rupture with the past that would have allowed its people to candidly reassess the past and thus forge a new identity. Russia's case stands in stark contrast to that of Germany. After WWII, the decisive defeat that the Germans suffered and the revelation of the enormity of the crimes committed under the Nazi regime forced the Germans to reevaluate the past with a much greater level of skepticism, which was key to Germany evolution as a modern liberal state. On the other hand, although Russia did experience a great shock with the end of the Soviet Union, and the atrocities committed under the Communists were revealed, the country nonetheless never undertook anything close the same degree of reevaluation that was required. In fact, several topics, especially those related with Soviet foreign relations and the USSR's actions during WWII continued to be taboo. Most Russians and even Russian textbooks still do not accept responsibility for the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia, for the USSR's aggression against Finland, for the occupation of Eastern Poland, or for the country's stranglehold on Eastern Europe up to the end of the USSR, punctuated by events such as the bloody suppression of the Hungarian Revolution and the Prague Spring. In fact, even some of the worst attrocities committed by the USSR, such as the Katyn massacre are justified by many, for instance on the grounds that the Poles were "fascists", as well as the mass execution of the middle classes in newly occupied territories! Imagine if Germans today would continue to justify the extermination of European Jewry because they were anti-German!

The result of this refusal to reevaluate the past and accept the positive as well as the negative aspects of their country's history is in my view a key cause in my view for the virulent imperialism that the vast majority of the Russian electorate craves and lauds. This anachronistic mentality is not only detrimental to the stability of Europe, but is also holding Russia back by allowing its people to indulge in the type of rationalization that was rampant in inter-war Germany. Thus it would be in the interest of virtually all if Russia would be able to get past this disingenuous attitude. Unfortunately though, there are no sings of this change being any close.

[Oxymoron]

Why should it be in the general interest of a nation to admit and reinforce negative actions of their past?

[Igor Antunov]

Germany along with Japan was forced to admit it's guilt because it was defeated and occupied. Russia experienced no such defeat, Britain, America neither etc so they were never forced to admit their crimes, they are all guilty of despicable actions. But the victor writes the history, and the victor wasn't germany, japan or their allies. Germany and Japan changed due to outside pressure, they were forced to change, Russia and other truly independent countries change on their own whim.

[peter_co]

Why should it be in the general interest of a nation to admit and reinforce negative actions of their past?

I'm certainly not saying that they should reinforce these actions. But I do think that it is necessary to acknowledge the negative aspects of one's history in order not to repeat them and to prevent unhealthy myth-building, which can easily lead to foolhardy decisions later on.

Germany along with Japan was forced to admit it's guilt because it was defeated and occupied. Russia experienced no such defeat, Britain, America neither etc so they were never forced to admit their crimes, they are all guilty of despicable actions.

I partially agree with this, but not completely. For instance, look at the history of Germany after WWI: even though the country was defeated, and was forced to "acknowledge its guilt" by the victorious allies, this did not result in a positive internal transformation, but rather in scapegoating and defiance. And while after WWII the Allies obviously insisted that Germany change, the radical transformation of the country's mentality (or at least in the FRG) could only come from within. Furthermore, in Britain and the US there has been vigorous debate regarding these countries' histories, including bitter discussions about colonialism and Vietnam, which have almost been nonexistent in Russia. Furthermore, while it's true that while all of the countries you mentioned have engaged in not quite exemplary behavior, I would argue that there's a difference of multiple orders of magnitude between say Britain's actions in Europe around the WWII era and the Soviet Union's naked aggression and subsequent occupation of other European countries, either in part or in whole, as well as its authoritarian subjugation of Eastern Europe which only ended less than twenty years ago.