Putin’s Russia: Two Critical Flaws

Vladimir Putin’s administration in Russia seems to be facing two significant issues: a decline in legitimacy and the artificiality of its borders.

Legitimacy is crucial for rulers to maintain authority. Max Weber, a noted German sociologist, argued that while force can impose rule, it’s much more effective—and cost-efficient—when authority is perceived as legitimate. This legitimacy fosters compliance among the populace.

Regarding borders, it’s worth pondering. All nations are human constructs, but some might feel more organic than others. In this context, the historical expansion of the Russian Empire often exemplifies a politically artificial system.

Weber identified three pillars of legitimacy: tradition, established rules, and charisma. Putin initially managed to tap into all three.

Historically, Russians have accepted dictatorial governance. This acceptance can be traced back to earlier political upheavals, such as during Putin’s rise in the late 1990s and Lenin’s revolution in 1917.

In terms of legitimacy sources, Putin was elected under conditions that were, at least on the surface, fair. Additionally, for a time, he embodied a charismatic, energetic figure reminiscent of Mussolini.

However, the past 10 to 15 years have marked a stark transformation. While many Russians may still harbor romantic notions about dictatorship, younger, educated citizens are increasingly scrutinizing authority, especially as they face the impacts of the war in Ukraine.

True elections have been nonexistent for years, and the aging Putin struggles to project the vitality he once did. His decision to invade Ukraine has only weakened that image further.

In short, the legitimacy propelling Putin is rapidly deteriorating. As history shows, illegitimate rulers often resort to violence to maintain control. Yet, even within a regime like North Korea’s—or despite its longevity—such rulers often find their time is limited. Putin’s reign, however, has extended for more than 25 years.

Despite his bravado, which some analysts mistake for true strength, Putin’s grip on power appears tenuous. If he were to be overthrown tomorrow, it wouldn’t be too surprising.

This illegitimacy intertwines with Russia’s second flaw: its artificiality. Traditionally, when Russians say that “Russia has no borders,” it can hint at an expansionist mindset but also suggests a fundamental emptiness within the state itself.

Although Russia identifies as a federation, it has functioned as an imperial force since the 14th century, now standing as the world’s largest country. “Russia” might be seen as synonymous with “vague” or “undefined.”

Consider this: Where exactly is Russia? Centuries ago, it expanded from just the areas surrounding Moscow, which called themselves Iscovita. Did the conquest of Siberia signify natural growth, or was it merely an imposition? Was Russia’s acquisition of Poland and Ukraine in previous centuries a natural evolution or a forced expansion? Similar questions arise regarding the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Why is it seen as more “natural” for Russia to claim parts of Ukraine than for the local populations to assert their own identities?

The imperial expansion tactics of the past may have served Russia well in the 19th century. Yet, during the latter half of the 20th century, these practices were challenged as oppressed nations rallied for their own identities and sovereignty, leading to the fall of the Soviet Union.

If history remains consistent, the artificiality that has characterized modern Russia is likely to lead to its downfall. As Putin’s legitimacy wanes, his ability to sustain the Russian state diminishes. The diverse populations within Russia will likely begin exploring how they can shape their own identities and governance structures.

When will this transformation occur? It’s uncertain. But one can reasonably assert that as more illegitimate rulers emerge, the upheaval will become louder and more pronounced.

Putin often criticized Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, portraying him as a ruler of an artificial state. However, it seems that the last laugh may ultimately belong to Zelensky.