Why Putin finds himself in a much stronger position than the West believes

Like Alexei Navalny, the undisputed leader of Russia’s opposition. He died Friday in an Arctic prison., most commentators argued that Vladimir Putin’s government had lost its last vestiges of credibility. Dozens of Western leaders placed full responsibility for his death in the Kremlin, but President Biden said:considering numerous options” in response to this brutal human rights violation in Russia.

While such a reaction may please many democracy activists in Russia and abroad, I think it is time to ask ourselves why Russia rejected democratic institutions in favor of Putin’s lifelong presidency. Unlike many dictators, Putin has neither introduced one-party rule nor banned elections. Dozens of people in Russia came out to lay flowers in memory of the Kremlin’s most devoted opponent, even though a growing number of people in Russia disagree with Putin’s policies. .

I predicted in 2013 that Vladimir Putin would rule Russia until the end of the era, and I still believe my prediction. In my opinion, Putin’s strength comes not only from his authoritarianism and fear of the opposition (The latter started in the early 2020s) but due to a combination of historical background and tradition on the one hand, and sophisticated policies pursued by the ruling elite on the other.

First, it should be noted that Russia’s history has been built around a thirst for territorial expansion and imperialist aspirations. Since Moscow established itself as an empire long before it became Russia in the modern sense. Moreover, for centuries the country has been underpinned by a sense of religious, cultural, ideological and military uniqueness, which has merged with the national identity. Since the founding of modern Russia in the 16th century, its economy has been based on the exploitation of its vast natural resources.Therefore, the right of the central government to redistribute a country’s wealth never questioned. For this reason, a strong, centralized political system is quite natural for Russia.

Second, since President Putin took over as national leader in 1999, his team has done an excellent job. They orchestrated very gradual changes in the social system, exchanging economic freedom for political expression.. This system, which proclaims respect for laws and rules and at the same time presupposes large-scale exclusion and a combination of business and public service, seemed so common to Russians that they quickly became accustomed to it. Ta. And finally, President Putin and his team spoke to the public in a much clearer and more transparent manner than the liberal opposition.

Moreover, the Kremlin has made good use of nationalist propaganda, which has been welcomed by the Russian people. In 2010, I argued that the Russia of the 2000s bore no resemblance to the Soviet Union of the 1970s. -The new, emerging authoritarian order was established without Soviet information embargoes or Soviet closed borders. Building a largely authoritarian system in which people are individually free was an incredible achievement for the Kremlin leadership. President Putin is his annexation of Crimeachanging the priorities of Russians: The so-called “Crimean consensus” prioritized geopolitical concerns over economic ones in people’s minds And the foundations that will allow Russia to survive a decade of economic stagnation without visible political discontent and without preparing for massive external pressure stemming from Putin’s adventures in Ukraine. was built.

The strength of Putin’s government is based on three pillars. First, he resonates with Russians’ imperial aspirations and their feelings about their country’s uniqueness. Secondly, he proposed a system that would be beneficial to Russians interested in the stability of Russia, not only bureaucrats and siloviki, but also state civil servants of all ranks, entrepreneurs, wealthy city dwellers and even retirees. succeeded in building. Thirdly, by drawing his country into the war, he turned all his critics into supporters of Ukraine (Immigration opponents now claim Ukraine’s victory means freedom for Russia) thus becoming a traitor. All of this makes his government more powerful today than it was a decade ago—and Western policymakers should not ignore this fact.

The final point I would like to make concerns President Putin’s inner circle. For many years I believed that such a personalistic regime could not survive the death of its founder. Today, I have less confidence in such a view since almost no one in the ruling elite deserted this country during the war. Putin’s inner circle is well aware that the advantages of their position outweigh any grievances that may arise from personal enmity. On the contrary, anti-Putin forces are now fighting each other harder than they are fighting the Kremlin because they have nothing to defend.

No one knows whether Putin’s fifth term will be his last. But maybe after Putin encounters another Putin, even his name will be different and he will not be anything like Alexei Navalny.

Vladislav Inozemtsev is a special advisor at the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Russian media research project He is also the director of the Moscow-based Center for Postindustrial Research.