There is a particular moment in the life of every long-ruling strongman when power stops looking permanent and starts looking theatrical. The speeches grow harsher. The photo opportunities become more carefully staged. Loyalty is no longer assumed; it is audited. Vladimir Putin may not yet be politically finished, but the aura that once made him appear inevitable has begun to flicker.
For two decades, Putin sold Russia a story about restored greatness. After the humiliations of the nineteen-nineties, he arrived as the disciplined adult who would stabilize the country, humble the oligarchs, tame separatists and force the West to treat Moscow seriously again. Many Russians accepted the bargain: fewer freedoms in exchange for order, national pride, and predictability. It was authoritarianism wrapped in competence.
The trouble with systems built around one man is that eventually the man ages, the myth stiffens, and reality starts leaking through the cracks.
The war in Ukraine accelerated that process dramatically. What was intended to be a swift demonstration of Russian dominance became something far more corrosive: a prolonged war of attrition exposing military weaknesses, economic strain, bureaucratic rot and astonishing strategic miscalculations. Even if the Kremlin insists on projecting confidence, history has a cruel habit of measuring leaders not by the stories they tell but by the costs they impose.
Putin still controls the machinery of the Russian state. That matters. He commands the security services, influences the courts, dominates television, and oversees a political culture where meaningful opposition has been suffocated. Yet authoritarian systems often appear strongest just before they become brittle. Fear can maintain obedience for years, but it rarely produces genuine devotion forever.
The Wagner mutiny last year felt significant not because it toppled Putin but because it punctured the illusion of untouchability. Watching an armed column move toward Moscow while the state hesitated was the kind of spectacle that authoritarian governments dread. It suggested that beneath the rigid public image lay uncertainty, rivalry and perhaps panic. In autocracies, perception is half the regime.
The question now is not whether Putin remains powerful. He plainly does. The real question is whether the elite around him still believes he guarantees stability better than the alternatives. That is where strongmen become vulnerable, not from crowds in the streets but from quiet conversations behind guarded doors.
Dictators are rarely removed in dramatic cinematic fashion. More often, they are gradually isolated. Allies become careful. Generals become noncommittal. Wealthy insiders begin moving assets and hedging loyalties. The ruler notices the hesitation and responds with purges, paranoia, and even tighter control, which in turn deepens the atmosphere of fear. It becomes a political hall of mirrors.
Putin increasingly looks like a leader trapped by the image he created. He cannot easily soften because strength is his entire political brand. He cannot admit failure because his authority depends on appearing historically destined. He cannot truly retire because systems centered on personal power offer no safe retirement plan. Men like Putin do not leave office; they leave eras.
That does not mean collapse is imminent. Predictions about Russia often fail because outsiders underestimate the state’s tolerance for hardship and the population’s exhaustion with instability. Russians have survived revolutions, famines, purges, economic collapse and wars. Many may prefer an aging authoritarian to another national convulsion.
Still, the atmosphere has changed. Putin once looked like the future of Russia. Now he increasingly resembles the final guardian of a system running out of imagination. The Kremlin remains formidable, but it no longer feels historically confident. It feels defensive.
And that may be the clearest sign of all that the long season of Putinism is approaching winter.
No comments:
Post a Comment