His Grand Emptiness
The Emptiness of Putinism
Author Foreword: The Inevitable Endgame
As I sit down to write this foreword, we are still witnessing history as it unfolds — a moment in time that feels both extraordinary and inevitable. The world has watched as Vladimir Putin, a figure who once appeared unassailable, finds himself facing the inexorable decline of his power. The story of Putinism is not yet complete, but its trajectory seems clear. The final chapters of his rule are being written, and with each passing day, the endgame becomes increasingly visible. The loss of power, for any authoritarian ruler, is not a matter of if, but when. And for Putin, that moment appears to be approaching with a sense of inevitability.
This book, His Grand Emptiness, seeks to capture the essence of Putin’s rule — not just the story of his rise and the creation of an illusion of invincibility, but also the inherent weaknesses that have led to the crumbling of that facade. Putinism, at its core, is a system built on fear, propaganda, and the consolidation of power in a single individual. It is a regime that has sought to present an image of strength, stability, and control, all while masking the profound emptiness at its center. The pursuit of power for power’s sake has driven this hollow endeavor, and now, as cracks emerge, the illusion begins to fade.
The end of Putin’s reign will not be without turmoil — there will be moments of uncertainty, perhaps even chaos. But in this uncertainty lies the hope for a new beginning. The collapse of Putinism is an opportunity for Russia to redefine itself, to move away from the authoritarian legacy of the past, and to build a future based on the values of freedom, accountability, and human dignity. This book is not just an analysis of what has been, but a reflection on what could be — a vision for a post-Putin Russia that is defined not by fear and control, but by hope, opportunity, and resilience.
The inevitability of Putin’s loss of power is not just a reflection of his personal failings or the vulnerabilities of his regime; it is a testament to the broader truth that authoritarian power is ultimately unsustainable. History has shown us time and again that regimes built on repression, deception, and the elevation of a single individual cannot endure indefinitely. They may persist for years, even decades, but eventually, the forces of change — whether internal dissent, economic pressure, or simply the passage of time — erode the foundations of these hollow structures. Putin’s endgame is playing out in real-time, and while the precise timing and nature of his downfall remain uncertain, the direction is unmistakable.
As readers embark on this journey through His Grand Emptiness, I invite you to consider not only the story of Putin and his regime but also the lessons it holds for the future. The collapse of Putinism offers a unique opportunity for Russia — and for the world — to reflect on the dangers of unchecked power, the importance of resilient institutions, and the value of leadership that serves the people rather than ruling over them. This is a moment of both reckoning and potential — a chance to learn from the past and to envision a future that is not bound by the mistakes of old.
History, as it unfolds, often feels inevitable in hindsight. But the inevitability of Putin’s endgame is not merely a product of fate; it is the consequence of choices — choices made by a ruler who sought power at the expense of everything else, and choices that will soon be made by a people determined to reclaim their country from the shadows of authoritarianism. The story is still being written, and its conclusion holds the promise of a new beginning — a Russia that is, at last, free to embrace its potential, unburdened by the weight of His Grand Emptiness.
John R Raymond
Part 1: The Illusion of Strength
Chapter 1: The Hollow Crown
Vladimir Putin’s Russia is often portrayed as an indomitable force, a bastion of strength held firmly in the grip of its leader. This portrayal, however, is a facade — an illusion meticulously constructed and maintained through propaganda, fear, and manipulation. The central thesis of this chapter is simple yet profound: Putinism is ultimately empty. It is a regime that, beneath its veneer of power, is hollow, lacking the ideological, institutional, and moral foundation necessary for true resilience. In this way, Putin embodies “His Grand Emptiness,” a figure whose supposed strength masks the fragility of the entire system beneath him.
To understand how such an illusion has been created, it is important to examine the mechanisms that Putin has employed to craft his image of invincibility. The careful curation of his persona as a decisive, unyielding leader is reinforced through state-controlled media that broadcasts images of Putin as a warrior, a problem-solver, and a protector of Russian interests. These depictions are designed to instill a sense of inevitability about his power, as if he alone can safeguard the nation against external threats and internal chaos. Yet, the reality behind this image is far more precarious — a construct sustained by fear and coercion rather than genuine popular support or effective governance.
This strategy of image-building is not unique to Putin. Throughout history, other autocrats have similarly relied on projecting an aura of infallibility to maintain control. Stalin, Mao, and even more recent leaders like Kim Jong-un have crafted cults of personality designed to obscure their regimes’ weaknesses. By positioning himself as irreplaceable, Putin seeks to ensure that the Russian people see no alternative to his leadership, much like how other authoritarian figures have done to avoid challenges to their power. But just as history has shown, regimes built on the illusion of invincibility are often brittle. The cracks, though initially hidden, eventually widen as the pressures of governance, economic instability, and public dissatisfaction grow.
This introduction serves as the foundation for understanding why the strength of Putinism is inherently flawed. By peeling away the layers of propaganda, we reveal a regime that is disconnected from the needs of its people, one that has no enduring ideology beyond the preservation of power. Unlike true statesmanship that builds institutions to outlast individuals, Putin’s approach undermines the very structures that could provide lasting stability to Russia. The result is a leadership model that is deeply vulnerable — a hollow crown that, without its carefully crafted facade, has little substance to sustain it.
The concept of a hollow regime is not new. The later stages of the Soviet Union provide a stark parallel. By the 1980s, the Soviet state had become a shell of its former self, appearing formidable on the surface but riddled with systemic weaknesses. The disconnect between the government and the people, the lack of economic innovation, and the growing disillusionment among citizens all contributed to its collapse. Similarly, Putinism, while appearing robust, is fundamentally compromised by its reliance on fear, suppression, and the absence of a forward-looking vision for Russia. This chapter lays the groundwork for exploring how this emptiness at the core of Putin’s power will ultimately lead to its unraveling, just as the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of its own contradictions.
Chapter 2: The Rise of the Tsar: Building an Empire on Sand
Vladimir Putin’s rise to power did not occur in a vacuum; it was the direct result of the chaos that engulfed Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The early 1990s were a period of profound turmoil for Russia — politically, economically, and socially. As the once-mighty Soviet empire disintegrated, it left behind a fractured nation grappling with the uncertainties of a new world order. In this void, Putin emerged as the figure who could restore order, presenting himself as the savior of a nation on the brink. But beneath the surface of this ascent lies a story of opportunism, manipulation, and the construction of an empire on inherently unstable foundations.
The collapse of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a political entity — it was the disintegration of an entire way of life for millions of people. The newly-formed Russian Federation faced a power vacuum, one that was exacerbated by the rapid economic decline and the incompetence of the early Yeltsin administration. In these uncertain times, Putin was able to position himself as the antidote to the chaos. He emerged from relative obscurity, using his background in the KGB and his connections within the political elite to move quickly through the ranks of power. His promise was simple yet compelling: stability and a return to greatness for Russia, a narrative that resonated deeply with a population exhausted by upheaval.
The economic struggles of post-Soviet Russia played a significant role in Putin’s rise. The transition from a state-controlled economy to a market-based system was fraught with challenges. Inflation soared, industries collapsed, and millions of Russians fell into poverty. The oligarchs, a new class of wealthy businessmen, amassed immense fortunes by exploiting the privatization process, further deepening inequality. In this climate of economic despair, Putin’s message of cracking down on corruption and restoring national pride was particularly powerful. He leveraged public dissatisfaction with the chaos of the 1990s to consolidate power, promising to rein in the oligarchs and bring order to the country’s failing institutions.
The geopolitical vulnerabilities of post-Soviet states are well-documented in Thomas Barnett’s The Pentagon’s New Map. Barnett describes the period following the Soviet collapse as a time when the geopolitical landscape was in flux, and the newly independent states were struggling to establish their identities and alliances. Russia, which had once been the center of a sprawling empire, was now facing the reality of diminished influence and encroaching Western power. Putin seized upon these vulnerabilities, tapping into a deep sense of national humiliation to bolster his own standing. By presenting himself as the defender of Russian interests against an encroaching West, he was able to rally support both from the political elite and from ordinary Russians who felt betrayed by the promises of Western-style democracy.
Putin’s early steps to consolidate power were characterized by a strategic dismantling of potential threats and the establishment of a centralized authority under his control. He moved swiftly to curtail the influence of the oligarchs, not by eliminating them but by bringing them under the Kremlin’s thumb. Those who opposed him, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, were made examples of — imprisoned or exiled to send a clear message to others. At the same time, Putin began to reassert state control over key industries, particularly in the energy sector, using Russia’s vast natural resources as a tool of both domestic consolidation and international leverage. These actions laid the groundwork for an empire that, while appearing stable, was in fact built on fragile foundations of coercion and centralized control.
The illusion of strength was critical to Putin’s ascent. He understood that in the eyes of the Russian people, the appearance of power was often as important as power itself. State-controlled media played a crucial role in shaping this narrative, portraying Putin as a decisive leader who could restore Russia to its former glory. Images of Putin riding horseback, practicing judo, and speaking sternly to world leaders were carefully curated to project an aura of invincibility. This illusion of strength was essential in masking the inherent weaknesses of his regime — the economic fragility, the lack of genuine political plurality, and the simmering discontent among those who were left behind by the promises of a resurgent Russia.
Putin’s rise to power was not the result of a popular mandate or a sweeping ideological movement. It was the product of a unique set of circumstances — economic collapse, geopolitical vulnerability, and the desire of the Russian people for stability at any cost. He built his empire on sand, using the tools of propaganda, fear, and strategic opportunism to create a facade of power that would serve him well in the years to come. However, as with any structure built on unstable foundations, the cracks are beginning to show, and the true fragility of Putinism is becoming harder to conceal.
Chapter 3: The Personality Cult: Putinism as a One-Man Show
Vladimir Putin has constructed a political system that revolves entirely around his personal authority, where loyalty to him eclipses loyalty to the institutions of the state. This personalization of power is not only a defining feature of Putinism but also its greatest vulnerability. By centralizing power in his hands, Putin has created a political culture where allegiance to the leader is paramount, while institutional integrity and strength have been systematically eroded. This chapter will explore the characteristics and inherent dangers of building a political structure that rests on the cult of one man.
In Putin’s Russia, the institutions of government exist primarily to serve and reinforce his authority. Ministries, law enforcement agencies, and even the judiciary have become extensions of the president’s will, with their leaders selected based on their loyalty to Putin rather than their competence or commitment to public service. This environment has fostered a political culture where dissent is equated with betrayal, and sycophancy is rewarded above merit. The result is a government that operates not on the basis of rule of law, but on the whims of a single individual. By making himself the focal point of all political power, Putin has ensured that the stability of the Russian state is inextricably linked to his own personal standing.
The dangers of building a political system around a single personality are manifold. Historically, regimes that rely on the authority of one individual, rather than on strong institutions, tend to be brittle. The moment that individual is no longer able to maintain control — whether due to illness, death, or a crisis — the entire system becomes vulnerable to collapse. Putin’s consolidation of power mirrors the personality cults of past authoritarian figures such as Stalin and Mao. In both cases, these leaders were successful in creating an aura of invincibility, using propaganda and purges to eliminate rivals and instill fear. However, this centralization of power also meant that the stability of the entire state rested on the health and continued dominance of one person. When Stalin died, the Soviet Union underwent a period of significant upheaval, as his successors scrambled to reorganize power and distance themselves from his excesses. Similarly, Mao’s death in China led to a reformation period that sought to undo much of the chaos wrought by his unchecked authority.
The parallels between Putinism and these historical precedents are stark. In His Grand Emptiness, the fragility of regimes built on personality cults is laid bare. The book delves into the hollowness at the core of such systems, where the absence of institutional resilience leaves the state susceptible to instability once the leader’s grip falters. Putin’s efforts to present himself as the indispensable leader of Russia — riding horseback, flying planes, and diving into icy waters — are all part of an orchestrated campaign to cultivate a myth of strength and invincibility. Yet, this reliance on personal imagery over institutional stability makes the system inherently unstable. The cult of personality is not a substitute for sound governance, and the more Putin emphasizes his personal role in Russia’s successes, the more the failures of the state become directly associated with him as well.
This personalization of power has significant long-term consequences. By undermining institutions and focusing authority on himself, Putin has effectively hollowed out the mechanisms that could ensure continuity in governance. There is no clear succession plan, no trusted institutions that can step in to manage the state in his absence. This lack of institutional depth means that the Russian state is vulnerable to a chaotic transition when Putin is no longer able to rule. Unlike democracies, where institutions are designed to outlast individual leaders, Putin’s Russia lacks the structural resilience needed to navigate a leadership transition smoothly. The erosion of independent institutions — whether the judiciary, the media, or regional governments — has left a power vacuum that will be difficult to fill without significant instability.
Moreover, the reliance on personal loyalty over institutional competence has resulted in a government populated by individuals who owe their positions to their allegiance to Putin rather than their abilities. This has fostered a culture of corruption and inefficiency, where decisions are made not based on what is best for the country, but on what will best preserve the power of the leader and his inner circle. The long-term damage to Russia’s governance structures is profound; it will take years, if not decades, to rebuild the institutions that have been weakened under Putin’s rule.
The cult of personality that defines Putinism is both its strength and its Achilles’ heel. While it has allowed Putin to maintain an iron grip on power, it has also made the Russian state deeply vulnerable to his eventual departure. Without strong institutions, the transition from Putin’s rule is likely to be fraught with uncertainty and potential conflict. The hollow nature of the regime — built on image, fear, and personal loyalty — will ultimately be its undoing, as the stability of an entire nation cannot rest solely on the shoulders of one man. As we continue to explore the nature of Putinism, it becomes clear that the very elements that have enabled Putin to consolidate power are also the seeds of the system’s eventual collapse.
Chapter 4: The Propaganda Machine: Keeping the Illusion Alive
One of the key pillars of Vladimir Putin’s power is his mastery of propaganda and media control. The state-controlled media landscape in Russia has been instrumental in shaping public perception, creating an image of Putin as a strong, invincible leader. This chapter examines how propaganda has been used to sustain Putin’s perceived legitimacy, suppress dissent, and control the narrative, drawing parallels with other autocratic regimes and exploring how these strategies have evolved in response to changing technologies and social dynamics.
The role of propaganda in maintaining Putin’s power cannot be overstated. From the moment he ascended to power, the Kremlin has worked tirelessly to build a media apparatus that serves as an extension of the state, ensuring that the public receives a steady stream of curated content designed to reinforce Putin’s image. State-run television, which remains the primary source of information for many Russians, has portrayed Putin as a tireless defender of Russian interests, a leader who is always in control and always acting in the best interest of the nation. By controlling the narrative, Putin has been able to suppress negative stories and amplify messages that bolster his authority.
This strategy is reminiscent of the dystopian society depicted in George Orwell’s 1984, where the state manipulates information to maintain control over the population. In 1984, the concept of “doublethink” allows citizens to hold contradictory beliefs, ensuring that they accept the state’s version of reality without question. Similarly, Russian propaganda has worked to create a parallel reality, one in which Russia is under constant threat from external enemies, where Putin is the only figure capable of defending the nation, and where dissent is equated with betrayal. The constant repetition of these narratives, combined with the suppression of alternative viewpoints, has created a society where many accept the state’s version of events as the only truth.
Misinformation has been a critical tool in Putin’s propaganda machine. By spreading false narratives, the Kremlin has been able to discredit opposition figures, manipulate public sentiment, and maintain a grip on power. For instance, during the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russian state media broadcasted a barrage of misinformation designed to justify the action. The narrative portrayed Crimea as historically Russian, its population as overwhelmingly supportive of reunification, and the Ukrainian government as an illegitimate regime backed by Western powers. This campaign of misinformation helped to shape public perception both within Russia and in occupied territories, suppressing dissent and rallying nationalist sentiment behind Putin’s actions.
Russian state propaganda has also been used to vilify political opponents and protesters. Opposition leaders like Alexei Navalny have been portrayed as Western stooges, intent on destabilizing Russia at the behest of foreign powers. This narrative serves two purposes: it delegitimizes opposition movements by associating them with external threats, and it reinforces Putin’s image as the protector of Russian sovereignty. The message is clear — any challenge to Putin’s rule is a threat to the nation itself, and any opposition must therefore be crushed to ensure Russia’s survival.
The rise of social media and independent journalism has posed a significant challenge to Putin’s propaganda machine. Unlike state-controlled television, social media platforms provide a space for dissenting voices, where information can spread without state oversight. In response, the Kremlin has adapted its propaganda strategy to the digital age. Troll farms, such as those operated by the Internet Research Agency, have been used to flood social media with pro-Kremlin content, drown out dissenting voices, and create the illusion of widespread popular support for the regime. Additionally, Russian authorities have moved to restrict access to independent media and social networks, tightening control over the digital space to maintain their narrative dominance.
Specific examples of propaganda campaigns illustrate the lengths to which the Kremlin will go to control public perception. The narrative surrounding the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in 2014, for instance, was manipulated to shift blame away from Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine. Russian state media propagated numerous contradictory theories — ranging from claims that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian fighter jet to assertions that it was a plot orchestrated by Western intelligence agencies. The goal was not necessarily to convince the public of any one version of events, but rather to sow confusion and create enough doubt that the Kremlin’s responsibility could be obscured.
The evolution of Putin’s propaganda strategy, from traditional media to the internet, reveals the adaptability of the regime in the face of new challenges. While state television remains the dominant source of information for many Russians, the Kremlin has recognized the need to control the narrative in the digital space as well. This evolution highlights both the strengths and weaknesses of the propaganda machine — while it is effective at shaping narratives for older, more traditional audiences, the emergence of independent voices online presents an ongoing threat to the carefully curated image of Putin’s strength.
The propaganda machine that sustains Putin’s illusion of invincibility is formidable, but it is not invulnerable. As more Russians, particularly younger generations, turn to the internet for information, the Kremlin’s control over the narrative becomes harder to maintain. The state’s reliance on misinformation and the suppression of dissent may work in the short term, but the cracks in the facade are beginning to show. The illusion of strength, once shattered, is difficult to rebuild, and as alternative narratives continue to gain traction, the sustainability of Putin’s propaganda-driven power becomes increasingly uncertain.
Chapter 5: The Myth of Stability: Why Putinism’s Control is an Illusion
Vladimir Putin has long portrayed himself as the guarantor of stability in Russia. His leadership, in the official narrative, is credited with ending the chaos of the 1990s and restoring order to a fractured nation. But beneath this surface-level portrayal lies a different reality. The supposed stability brought by Putinism is an illusion, sustained not by genuine social cohesion or institutional strength but by repression, fear, and the suppression of opposition. This chapter will challenge the idea that Putin has truly stabilized Russia, revealing how the control he exerts is built on a fragile foundation.
The appearance of stability in Putin’s Russia is maintained through a combination of repressive tactics. Opposition figures are harassed, jailed, or exiled, while independent media outlets are shut down or brought under state control. Civil society is systematically weakened, with NGOs and grassroots organizations labeled as “foreign agents” and their activities severely restricted. The suppression of dissent is not a sign of strength, but rather an indication of the vulnerability of the regime — an admission that open debate and criticism pose a threat to its survival. Stability built on fear is inherently unstable, as it relies on constant vigilance and coercion to keep the populace in line.
In Why the West Must Hold, the concept of perceived stability as a fragile construct is explored in depth. The book argues that regimes that appear stable on the surface often mask deep-seated weaknesses that can quickly lead to collapse when pressure is applied. Putin’s Russia fits this pattern. The outward appearance of calm belies the economic and social pressures that are building beneath the surface. Decades of corruption, economic mismanagement, and overreliance on natural resources have left Russia vulnerable to external shocks. Sanctions imposed by Western nations, combined with falling oil prices, have strained the Russian economy, reducing the government’s ability to provide for its citizens and maintain the social contract that underpins its rule.
The social pressures facing Putin’s regime are mounting. Economic stagnation has led to growing discontent among ordinary Russians, who have seen their living standards decline while a small elite continues to enrich itself. Younger generations, in particular, are increasingly disillusioned with the lack of opportunities and the stifling political environment. Protests, once rare and easily suppressed, are becoming more frequent and widespread. The demonstrations that followed the imprisonment of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, as well as protests against unpopular policies such as pension reform, are clear signs that the facade of stability is beginning to crack. The more the regime relies on repression to maintain control, the more it risks provoking a backlash from a populace that is growing tired of being silenced.
The illusion of stability is further undermined by the lack of institutional resilience in Putin’s Russia. Unlike democratic systems, where institutions are designed to be adaptable and enduring, the institutions of the Russian state have been hollowed out to serve the interests of the ruling elite. Decision-making is concentrated in the hands of a small circle of loyalists, and there is little room for debate or dissent within the government. This centralization of power means that the stability of the entire state is dependent on the health and continued authority of one man. Should Putin’s grip on power weaken, there are no robust institutions to step in and ensure a smooth transition. This fragility stands in stark contrast to the stability seen in democratic nations, where power transitions are regular, predictable, and governed by established rules and norms.
In democracies, stability is achieved not through repression but through the strength of institutions, the rule of law, and the consent of the governed. The ability of democratic systems to adapt to changing circumstances, to incorporate dissenting voices, and to transfer power peacefully is what gives them their resilience. By contrast, Putin’s approach to stability is rigid and brittle. It cannot accommodate change, and it cannot tolerate dissent. This rigidity makes the system vulnerable to shocks — whether economic, social, or political — that a more flexible system could absorb and adapt to.
The myth of stability in Putin’s Russia is just that — a myth. It is a carefully constructed illusion, propped up by propaganda and maintained through fear and repression. But as economic conditions worsen, social discontent grows, and the cracks in the facade widen, it becomes increasingly clear that Putinism’s control is anything but stable. The true test of a regime’s stability is not how well it can suppress opposition, but how well it can adapt to change and meet the needs of its people. By this measure, Putinism is failing, and the illusion of stability it has worked so hard to create is beginning to unravel.
Chapter 6: The Fragility of Putinism: Power Without Succession
One of the most glaring vulnerabilities of Vladimir Putin’s regime is its inability to establish a clear and viable plan for succession. Putin has maintained an iron grip on power for more than two decades, but this prolonged rule has come at a significant cost. The fear of losing power and the potential repercussions of stepping down have prevented him from creating a system that allows for a smooth transition. This chapter will explore how the absence of a succession plan reveals the fragility of Putinism, making it inherently unstable and vulnerable to collapse.
Putin’s fear of losing power is evident in the steps he has taken to ensure that he remains in control. Constitutional changes, the elimination of political opponents, and the careful cultivation of a loyal inner circle all point to an overwhelming desire to retain power indefinitely. Yet this strategy, while effective in maintaining control in the short term, has created a significant weakness: the regime has no mechanism for transferring power when Putin is no longer able to lead. This inability to plan for succession is not only a sign of Putin’s personal insecurity but also a fundamental flaw in the structure of the Russian state.
The lack of a viable succession plan creates a scenario where the stability of the entire nation is dependent on the health and continued authority of one individual. Unlike democracies, where institutions are designed to facilitate the peaceful transfer of power, Putinism offers no such guarantees; and the critical flaws of autocracies lacking peaceful transitions of power laid is bare. Without a clear process for leadership change, autocracies are prone to instability, infighting, and even collapse when the leader’s grip weakens. The absence of a succession plan makes it likely that, when Putin eventually leaves the scene — whether by choice, force, or natural causes — the resulting power vacuum will lead to a period of significant turmoil.
The contrast between Putin’s regime and democratic systems that have thrived on peaceful leadership transitions could not be starker. In democracies such as the United States or many European nations, the process of transferring power is institutionalized and predictable. Elections, term limits, and a respect for the rule of law ensure that no individual becomes indispensable to the functioning of the state. This institutional resilience is what allows democracies to adapt to changing circumstances and to continue functioning smoothly even as leaders come and go. By contrast, the personalization of power in Putin’s Russia means that the state’s stability is inextricably linked to one man, leaving it vulnerable to crisis when that man is no longer in power.
Putin’s unwillingness to create a succession plan is driven in part by the fear that any designated successor might eventually turn against him. History is replete with examples of leaders who have been betrayed by their chosen heirs, and Putin is acutely aware of this risk. By refusing to name a successor or establish a clear path for leadership transition, he has sought to protect himself from potential threats within his own ranks. However, this approach has only served to weaken the Russian state, as it has prevented the development of strong institutions capable of governing in his absence. The lack of an heir apparent or a designated path for transition means that any power shift is likely to be chaotic, with various factions vying for control in the aftermath of Putin’s departure.
Historical examples of autocracies that collapsed due to succession crises provide a stark warning for Putin’s Russia. The Roman Empire, for instance, experienced repeated periods of instability and civil war due to the lack of a clear system for succession. The death of an emperor often led to a scramble for power, with rival factions and military leaders vying for control. More recently, the collapse of Yugoslavia following the death of Josip Broz Tito serves as a reminder of the dangers of failing to establish a mechanism for leadership transition. Tito’s refusal to create a viable succession plan resulted in the fragmentation of the state and a descent into brutal conflict. Putin’s Russia faces a similar risk — without a clear path for succession, the country could easily descend into chaos when he is no longer in power.
The fragility of Putinism lies in its reliance on one man to maintain stability. By refusing to create a succession plan, Putin has ensured that his regime will remain inherently unstable. The fear of losing power and the potential consequences of stepping down have driven him to consolidate control rather than build resilient institutions. But this strategy has created a ticking time bomb — when Putin is gone, the lack of a clear succession plan will leave Russia vulnerable to internal conflict and instability. Unlike democracies, where institutions are built to endure beyond the tenure of individual leaders, Putin’s Russia is built around the persona of a single man, and the consequences of this approach will become painfully apparent when that man is no longer in power.
Chapter 7: The Isolation of Power: Putin’s Inner Circle
One of the defining characteristics of Vladimir Putin’s regime is his reliance on a small, loyal group of oligarchs and trusted confidants. This inner circle forms the core of his power structure, and their loyalty is maintained through a complex web of mutual benefit and coercion. However, this reliance on a narrow group of loyalists also contributes significantly to the brittleness of his regime. The centralization of power within such a limited sphere not only isolates Putin from the broader Russian populace but also creates significant vulnerabilities within his administration.
Putin’s inner circle operates on a loyalty-for-benefit dynamic. The oligarchs who surround him enjoy vast wealth and influence, but their fortunes are tied directly to their continued allegiance to Putin. In return for their loyalty, these individuals are granted monopolies, lucrative state contracts, and protection from legal scrutiny. This arrangement ensures that those closest to Putin have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but it also means that the system is held together by personal relationships rather than robust institutions. Should any member of this circle falter or defect, the repercussions could reverberate throughout the regime, exposing its fragility.
In The Unthinkable Made Real, the dangers of autocratic leaders becoming increasingly isolated from the populace are brought into sharp focus. Putin’s reliance on a small cadre of oligarchs and loyalists has led to a situation where he is insulated from the realities faced by ordinary Russians. The interests of his inner circle are far removed from those of the general public, and as a result, the decisions made by the Kremlin often reflect the priorities of the elite rather than the needs of the broader population. This isolation has created a significant disconnect between the Russian government and its citizens, fostering resentment and disillusionment among the populace.
The consequences of this isolation are evident in the policymaking process. Surrounded by individuals who are invested in preserving their wealth and influence, Putin is shielded from dissenting voices and alternative perspectives. This lack of exposure to differing viewpoints has led to a series of policy failures that could have been avoided had there been more open channels of communication between the government and the people. The decision to raise the retirement age in 2018, for instance, sparked widespread protests and outrage across the country. The policy, which was deeply unpopular among ordinary Russians, was pushed through with little regard for public sentiment, highlighting the extent to which Putin’s government had become disconnected from the concerns of its citizens.
Another example of this disconnect is the Kremlin’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. While Putin’s inner circle focused on maintaining a narrative of control and competence, the reality on the ground was quite different. Many Russians faced inadequate healthcare, economic hardship, and confusion due to inconsistent messaging from the government. The lack of a coordinated response that addressed the needs of ordinary citizens further underscored the extent to which Putin’s inner circle was out of touch with the realities faced by the broader population.
The insulation of Putin from the people is not just a product of his inner circle but also a deliberate strategy to maintain control. By surrounding himself with loyalists who owe their fortunes and positions to him, Putin has minimized the risk of internal challenges to his authority. However, this approach has also left him increasingly reliant on a small group of individuals who may not always provide accurate or honest assessments of the situation within Russia. The result is a leadership that is out of touch, making decisions based on incomplete or distorted information, and ultimately weakening the very stability it seeks to preserve.
The isolation of power within Putin’s regime is both a strength and a vulnerability. While it has allowed him to maintain tight control over the state, it has also created a brittle system that is susceptible to collapse should the loyalty of his inner circle waver. The disconnect between the Kremlin and the Russian people is growing, and as the regime becomes more isolated, the risk of policy failures and public backlash increases. The reliance on a small group of loyalists may have helped Putin consolidate power, but it is also a key factor in the fragility of his rule — a fragility that becomes more apparent with each misstep and each instance of public discontent.
Chapter 8: Economic Mirage: Wealth Without Substance
The economic success that Vladimir Putin has often claimed for Russia is, in many ways, an illusion — a mirage that conceals the fragility and structural weaknesses of the nation’s economy. While on the surface, Russia has appeared to enjoy economic stability and growth, this apparent prosperity is built on an unsustainable foundation. The overreliance on oil wealth and crony capitalism has driven much of Russia’s economic progress, but it is also the root of its vulnerabilities. This chapter will explore how Putin’s economic model has created a facade of wealth without substance, leaving Russia exposed to significant risks.
At the heart of Russia’s economic story under Putin is the country’s dependence on oil and natural gas. These natural resources have provided the lion’s share of government revenue and export earnings, allowing the Kremlin to fund public services, maintain social stability, and project power internationally. However, this reliance on resource extraction comes at a cost. In Esolidus, the vulnerabilities of economies dependent on resource extraction are examined in detail, highlighting the dangers of the so-called “resource curse.” Countries that depend heavily on natural resources often experience slower economic growth, less diversification, and greater susceptibility to price fluctuations in global markets. Russia is no exception. The country’s overreliance on oil and gas revenue has left its economy vulnerable to the volatility of global energy prices, which can lead to sudden and severe economic downturns.
Crony capitalism has further compounded these vulnerabilities. The Russian economy under Putin has been characterized by the close relationship between the state and a small group of oligarchs who control key sectors. These oligarchs, whose wealth and influence are directly tied to their loyalty to Putin, have benefited enormously from state contracts, privatization deals, and favorable regulations. While this arrangement has enriched the elite and allowed the Kremlin to maintain a grip on economic power, it has also stifled competition, innovation, and entrepreneurship. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few has led to an inefficient allocation of resources and hindered the development of a truly dynamic and resilient economy.
The lack of diversification in the Russian economy is a major source of weakness. Unlike more developed economies that have a broad base of industries — from technology and manufacturing to services — Russia remains heavily reliant on a few key sectors. This lack of diversification means that the economy is particularly susceptible to external shocks, such as fluctuations in commodity prices or shifts in global demand. When oil prices fell sharply in 2014, for example, Russia’s economy was hit hard, leading to a recession and a significant decline in living standards for ordinary Russians. The inability to develop other sectors of the economy has left Russia with limited options for generating sustainable growth, making the country’s economic outlook precarious.
International sanctions have further exposed the fragility of Russia’s economic model. Since 2014, following the annexation of Crimea and the intervention in eastern Ukraine, Russia has faced a range of economic sanctions from Western nations. These measures have targeted key sectors, including finance, energy, and defense, and have restricted access to international markets and capital. The impact of these sanctions has been significant, limiting Russia’s ability to attract foreign investment, access new technologies, and grow its economy. While the Kremlin has sought to mitigate the effects of sanctions through import substitution and closer economic ties with non-Western countries, the overall impact has been to deepen Russia’s economic isolation and exacerbate its vulnerabilities.
The economic fragility that lies beneath the surface of Putin’s Russia undermines the illusion of strength that the regime has worked so hard to project. While the Kremlin has been able to use oil wealth to fund military modernization, social programs, and infrastructure projects, these efforts are ultimately unsustainable without a more diverse and resilient economic base. The reliance on oil revenues means that the Russian state is highly exposed to external forces beyond its control, and any significant downturn in global energy markets could have dire consequences for the country’s stability.
In comparison to more diverse and resilient economies globally, Russia’s economic model appears outdated and brittle. Countries like Germany, Japan, and the United States have developed economies that are not only diverse but also innovative, capable of adapting to changing global conditions and driving sustained growth. These nations invest heavily in education, technology, and infrastructure, creating environments where businesses can thrive, competition is encouraged, and new industries can emerge. By contrast, the Russian economy remains trapped in a cycle of dependency, constrained by corruption, a lack of innovation, and a political system that prioritizes control over progress.
The economic mirage that Putin has built is ultimately unsustainable. The appearance of wealth and stability is underpinned by a fragile foundation — one that relies on high oil prices, crony capitalism, and the suppression of competition. As the global economy shifts, and as Russia faces mounting challenges from sanctions, a lack of diversification, and internal inefficiencies, the illusion of economic strength will become harder to maintain. The facade of prosperity that Putin has worked to create is beginning to show cracks, and the consequences of this economic fragility will have profound implications for the future of his regime and the stability of Russia as a whole.
Part 2: His Emptiness Revealed
Chapter 9: The Nihilism of Putinism: Power for Power’s Sake
At the core of Vladimir Putin’s regime lies an uncomfortable truth: Putinism is built on nothing but the pursuit of power for its own sake. Unlike other political systems that may at least attempt to justify their actions with ideological or moral reasoning, Putinism lacks any overarching vision or guiding principles beyond the consolidation and perpetuation of power. This nihilistic approach to governance has become the defining feature of the Kremlin’s domestic and foreign policies, creating a regime that is fundamentally hollow — driven by the desire for control rather than the pursuit of a greater purpose.
In His Grand Emptiness, the emptiness of Putinism is explored in depth, revealing that the regime’s lack of ideological or moral grounding is not just a weakness but a defining characteristic. Unlike the Soviet Union, which justified its authoritarianism with the ideology of communism, or even Nazi Germany, which used the twisted logic of racial superiority, Putinism is bereft of any broader mission. It is a system that exists solely to maintain Putin’s power, and as such, it has no ideological core to inspire or rally its citizens. This absence of any meaningful vision has reduced the regime to a mere exercise in survival, relying on propaganda, repression, and cronyism to maintain control.
This nihilism is reflected in every aspect of Putin’s policies, both domestic and foreign. Domestically, the regime’s policies are often reactive rather than proactive — designed to stifle dissent, eliminate political competition, and maintain the status quo. There is no meaningful effort to address the deep-seated issues facing Russia, such as economic inequality, corruption, or the declining quality of public services. Instead, the focus remains on consolidating power and eliminating perceived threats, even if it means ignoring the needs and aspirations of the Russian people. The Kremlin’s approach to governance is characterized by a lack of long-term vision, with decisions made based on short-term considerations rather than any coherent plan for the future.
In foreign policy, the same emptiness is evident. Russia’s aggressive actions on the world stage — whether it is the annexation of Crimea, the intervention in Syria, or the interference in foreign elections — are not part of a grand strategy to advance a specific ideology or vision for the world. Instead, they are designed primarily to project power, create chaos, and reinforce the image of Putin as a strong leader. The goal is not to achieve a particular outcome that benefits the Russian people but to maintain a perception of strength and influence that bolsters Putin’s standing at home. This pursuit of power for power’s sake has led to a series of costly and often counterproductive actions that have isolated Russia economically and diplomatically.
The implications of this nihilistic approach for Russia’s future are profound. Without a guiding ideology or clear set of principles, Putinism offers no basis for meaningful reform or long-term stability. The focus on maintaining control at all costs has left Russia without a roadmap for the future, and the regime’s reliance on repression and propaganda means that any attempts at reform are viewed as threats rather than opportunities. This lack of vision not only limits the potential for positive change but also creates a climate of stagnation, where the only goal is to preserve the existing power structure. As a result, the Russian state is left ill-prepared to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, from economic modernization to demographic decline.
The nihilism of Putinism also undermines the regime’s ability to inspire loyalty beyond personal allegiance to Putin himself. In the absence of a unifying ideology or a sense of common purpose, the loyalty of those within the regime is based on personal gain rather than shared beliefs or values. This creates a system that is inherently unstable, as loyalty can quickly evaporate if the benefits of allegiance are no longer forthcoming. The lack of any deeper sense of commitment to a cause means that Putin’s support network is vulnerable to fragmentation, particularly in times of crisis. Without an ideology to rally around, the regime is dependent on the continued perception of Putin’s invincibility — once that perception begins to fade, the entire system is at risk of collapse.
The pursuit of power for power’s sake is ultimately a hollow endeavor. It may provide short-term stability and allow for the suppression of dissent, but it offers no foundation for a sustainable future. The nihilism of Putinism has left Russia with a leadership that is focused solely on its own survival, rather than the well-being of its people or the advancement of the nation. As the cracks in the facade of strength begin to show, the emptiness at the core of Putin’s regime will become increasingly apparent, revealing a system that is not built to endure.
Chapter 10: The Failures of Expansion: Russia’s Imperial Ambitions
Vladimir Putin’s attempts to restore Russia’s imperial influence have ultimately weakened his position both domestically and internationally. The military campaigns in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria were meant to project strength, reassert Russia’s influence over its near-abroad, and re-establish it as a global power. However, these efforts have fallen far short of their objectives, revealing the limitations of Russia’s military and economic capabilities, and leaving the country more isolated on the world stage. This chapter will examine how these imperial ambitions have exposed the fragility of Putinism and the significant costs associated with these failed expansions.
The military campaigns in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria serve as prime examples of Putin’s efforts to reclaim Russia’s influence over territories that were once part of the Soviet Union or within its sphere of control. The 2008 invasion of Georgia, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the ongoing involvement in eastern Ukraine all reflect Putin’s desire to restore what he perceives as Russia’s rightful influence over its neighboring states. In Syria, Russia intervened to support Bashar al-Assad, aiming to secure a foothold in the Middle East and demonstrate its capacity to shape global affairs. While these interventions showcased Russia’s willingness to use military force, their long-term impact has been far less successful than Putin intended.
In The Unthinkable Made Real, it becomes clear how these attempts at expansion have laid bare the weaknesses of Russia’s military and economic infrastructure. The annexation of Crimea, while initially a popular move domestically, has become an economic burden. It led to significant international sanctions that have drained Russia’s economy and limited its access to global markets and technology. The ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine has similarly exposed the limitations of the Russian military, which has struggled to achieve decisive victories against Ukrainian forces, despite significant investments in modernizing its capabilities. In Georgia, while Russia successfully asserted its dominance, the broader geopolitical gains have been limited, and the region remains a point of tension rather than a secured asset.
These campaigns have also highlighted the vulnerability of Russia’s economic model. The sanctions imposed by Western nations in response to Russian aggression have significantly impacted the country’s economy, limiting foreign investment, restricting access to international financial systems, and stunting economic growth. Russia’s overreliance on oil and natural gas exports, which has already made its economy susceptible to global price fluctuations, has further compounded the effects of these sanctions. The economic isolation resulting from these military adventures has put immense pressure on the Russian state, forcing the government to cut social spending and drawing public discontent as the population bears the brunt of economic hardship.
Internationally, Putin’s attempts at expansion have led to growing diplomatic isolation. Far from re-establishing Russia as a global power, these actions have instead alienated much of the international community. Western nations have largely united in their condemnation of Russian aggression, imposing sanctions and providing support to nations like Ukraine that have been targeted by the Kremlin. Even countries that have maintained relationships with Russia, such as China and India, have done so out of opportunism rather than genuine alliance, limiting the strategic value of these partnerships. The result is a Russia that is increasingly cut off from the global economy, reliant on a narrow set of allies, and unable to wield the kind of influence that Putin envisioned.
The consequences of these failed expansions have also been felt internally. The economic costs of maintaining military engagements in multiple regions, combined with the impact of sanctions, have strained Russia’s budget and contributed to economic stagnation. This, in turn, has fueled public discontent, particularly among younger generations who see little hope for economic advancement in a country where opportunities are limited, and the state appears more focused on foreign adventures than on improving the lives of its citizens. Protests against the government, although often met with harsh repression, have become more frequent, highlighting the growing disconnect between Putin’s ambitions and the needs of the Russian people.
The pursuit of imperial ambitions has, therefore, weakened Putin’s position rather than strengthening it. While the initial displays of military force may have bolstered his image as a strong leader, the long-term consequences have exposed the fragility of his regime. The failure to achieve lasting influence in Ukraine, Georgia, and Syria, combined with the economic and diplomatic costs of these campaigns, has left Russia more isolated and less stable than it was before. The costs of Putin’s imperial ambitions have not only undermined his standing on the global stage but have also eroded the foundations of stability within Russia itself, revealing the emptiness at the core of his expansionist dreams.
Chapter 11: Putin’s Failing Health and the Fragility of One-Man Rule
Vladimir Putin’s advancing age and failing health have exposed the inherent fragility of a political system built around a single individual. For more than two decades, Putin has maintained a tight grip on power, but as he grows older, the physical realities of aging are beginning to take their toll. This chapter examines how Putin’s health issues and reluctance to designate a successor have created a climate of uncertainty and instability within Russia, highlighting the vulnerabilities of one-man rule.
Throughout history, autocrats who have relied on personal power rather than institutional strength have faced significant challenges as they aged. Leaders such as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro all struggled to maintain their authority as their health deteriorated. In each of these cases, the lack of a clear succession plan led to periods of instability and uncertainty, both within the ruling elite and among the general populace. As Putin ages, the same vulnerabilities are becoming evident. The Russian state has been built around his persona, and his refusal to allow for a successor has left the country without a clear path forward when he inevitably becomes unable to govern.
Putin’s reluctance to designate a successor has created an environment of uncertainty within Russia. By keeping potential successors at arm’s length, he has ensured that no one within the elite poses a threat to his authority. However, this strategy has also left the ruling class without a clear understanding of what will happen when Putin is no longer able to lead. The Russian elite, whose power and wealth are tied to their loyalty to Putin, now face an uncertain future. This uncertainty has led to growing anxiety among those who depend on the stability of the current system for their own survival. Without a clear succession plan, there is a real risk of infighting and power struggles within the elite, which could destabilize the entire country.
The broader Russian populace is also affected by this uncertainty. For many Russians, Putin has been the only leader they have known, and his image as a strong, decisive ruler has been central to the regime’s legitimacy. As his health declines and questions about his ability to govern grow, the illusion of invincibility that has sustained his rule begins to fade. The lack of a designated successor or a clear plan for the future has created a sense of unease among the public, who are left to wonder what will happen when Putin is no longer in power. This uncertainty undermines the stability that Putin has long claimed to provide and raises the possibility of social unrest as Russians grapple with an unpredictable future.
Putin’s health issues have also affected his decision-making and public appearances, contributing to the perception of weakness. In recent years, there have been numerous reports and speculations about his declining health, ranging from visible physical ailments to rumors of more serious conditions. While the Kremlin has worked hard to project an image of vitality, there have been noticeable changes in Putin’s public behavior — fewer appearances, more controlled settings, and an increasing reliance on pre-recorded messages rather than live engagements. These changes have not gone unnoticed by the Russian public and the international community, and they have contributed to a growing perception that Putin is no longer the formidable figure he once was.
The fragility of one-man rule is evident in the way that Putin’s health issues have reverberated throughout the Russian political system. A regime built around a single individual is inherently vulnerable to the physical limitations of that individual. As Putin’s health declines, the lack of institutional mechanisms for transferring power becomes a glaring weakness. Unlike democratic systems, where leadership transitions are regular and institutionalized, the Russian state has no established process for replacing its leader. This lack of a clear succession plan not only threatens the stability of the regime but also leaves the country vulnerable to crises that could have been avoided with a more robust system of governance.
Putin’s advancing age and failing health are exposing the inherent weaknesses of a system that relies on one man to maintain control. The refusal to plan for a future without Putin has created a climate of uncertainty and instability, both among the elite and the general populace. As the perception of Putin’s strength fades, the fragility of his rule becomes increasingly apparent, revealing a regime that is unprepared for the inevitable realities of time. The consequences of this fragility will likely become more pronounced in the coming years, as Russia faces the challenges of navigating a transition that has been deliberately left undefined.
Chapter 12: Putinism vs. The People: Growing Discontent
In recent years, the disconnect between Vladimir Putin’s regime and the Russian people has become increasingly evident, particularly among younger generations. Putinism, once seen as a guarantor of stability and national pride, is now viewed by many as an oppressive force that stifles freedom, opportunity, and progress. This chapter explores the growing discontent within Russian society, focusing on the rise of political opposition, the role of social media in amplifying dissent, and the economic stagnation that has fueled public dissatisfaction.
One of the most significant challenges facing Putin’s regime is the growing disillusionment among younger generations. Unlike their parents, who may have experienced the chaos of the 1990s and view Putin as a stabilizing figure, young Russians have grown up in an environment where opportunities are limited, and political freedoms are restricted. Many of them are increasingly frustrated by the lack of economic prospects, the corruption that pervades every aspect of Russian society, and the authoritarian nature of the government. In Why the West Must Hold, the disillusionment of younger generations with authoritarian regimes is highlighted as a critical factor that can undermine such systems from within. For Putin, this generational shift represents a significant threat, as it erodes the base of support that has kept him in power for so long.
The rise of political opposition and protests has been a visible manifestation of this growing discontent. Figures like Alexei Navalny have become symbols of resistance against the regime, rallying support from those who are tired of the corruption and lack of accountability that characterize Putin’s government. Navalny’s anti-corruption campaigns, coupled with his ability to connect with younger Russians through social media, have made him a focal point for opposition. Despite the Kremlin’s efforts to suppress dissent — through imprisonment, intimidation, and even attempted assassination — Navalny and other opposition figures have managed to galvanize a significant portion of the population. The protests that followed Navalny’s arrest in 2021 were some of the largest in recent years, demonstrating the extent of public frustration with the regime.
Social media has played a crucial role in amplifying dissent and mobilizing protest. Unlike state-controlled media, which presents a carefully curated narrative designed to portray Putin as a strong and benevolent leader, social media platforms have provided a space for alternative voices to be heard. Young Russians, in particular, have used platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Telegram to share information, organize protests, and challenge the official narrative. The Kremlin has attempted to crack down on these platforms, imposing restrictions and fines, but the decentralized nature of social media makes it difficult to control. As more Russians turn to these platforms for information, the state’s grip on the narrative weakens, further deepening the divide between the government and the people.
Economic stagnation has also played a significant role in fueling public dissatisfaction. For years, the Russian economy has struggled to grow, hampered by sanctions, low oil prices, and a lack of diversification. The government’s focus on maintaining control rather than fostering innovation has stifled economic opportunities, particularly for young people. Many young Russians see little hope for advancement in a system where success is often determined by connections rather than merit. The lack of opportunities has led to a growing sense of frustration and hopelessness, which has only been exacerbated by the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the government has failed to address these issues, the discontent has only grown, further eroding the legitimacy of Putin’s rule.
Specific incidents of protest and repression have highlighted the increasing divide between the government and the people. The pension reform protests in 2018, which saw thousands of Russians take to the streets to oppose raising the retirement age, were a clear sign of public dissatisfaction with the government’s policies. The harsh response to these protests, including mass arrests and the use of force, only served to deepen the resentment felt by many Russians. Similarly, the protests following Navalny’s arrest in 2021 were met with a heavy-handed response, with thousands of demonstrators detained across the country. Rather than quelling dissent, these actions have often had the opposite effect, galvanizing opposition and highlighting the regime’s inability to engage with its citizens in a meaningful way.
The growing discontent within Russian society poses a significant challenge to Putinism. The disconnect between the regime and the people, particularly among younger generations, is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. As economic stagnation continues and the government’s repressive tactics fail to silence dissent, the cracks in the facade of stability are becoming more apparent. The rise of political opposition, the role of social media in amplifying dissent, and the lack of economic opportunities are all contributing to a growing sense of frustration and disillusionment. For Putin, the challenge is no longer just about maintaining control — it is about addressing the underlying issues that threaten to undermine his rule from within.
Chapter 13: The Propaganda Crumbles: The Truth Breaking Through
For years, Vladimir Putin’s regime has relied on a sophisticated propaganda machine to maintain control over the Russian populace. State-controlled media has presented a carefully curated narrative of strength, stability, and benevolence, designed to reinforce the image of Putin as the indispensable leader of Russia. However, cracks are beginning to show in this once impenetrable wall of propaganda, as dissenting voices emerge and challenge the state’s version of events. This chapter explores how the propaganda machine that has sustained Putin’s power is beginning to fail, and how the truth is breaking through the carefully constructed facade.
In George Orwell’s 1984, the concept of state-controlled narratives is central to maintaining the power of the Party. The Ministry of Truth works tirelessly to rewrite history, control information, and suppress dissenting voices, creating a reality in which the Party is infallible. However, even in Orwell’s dystopia, cracks eventually begin to form, and the truth cannot be entirely suppressed. In many ways, Putin’s Russia mirrors this dynamic. For years, the Kremlin’s control over the media allowed it to craft a narrative that suited its interests, portraying Putin as a strong leader who restored order to a chaotic nation. Yet, just as in 1984, the emergence of independent voices and alternative sources of information is beginning to unravel this carefully constructed reality.
Independent journalism, social media, and international media have played a crucial role in challenging the state’s narrative. Despite the Kremlin’s efforts to suppress independent media outlets and restrict access to social media platforms, a growing number of Russians are turning to these alternative sources for information. Journalists like those at Meduza, Novaya Gazeta, and other independent outlets have worked tirelessly to expose corruption, economic mismanagement, and human rights abuses, often at great personal risk. Their reporting has provided a stark contrast to the sanitized version of events presented by state media, offering Russians a glimpse of the truth that the government would rather keep hidden.
Social media has also been instrumental in breaking the propaganda machine. Platforms like YouTube, Telegram, and Twitter have allowed ordinary Russians to share their experiences and challenge the official narrative. The use of social media by opposition figures like Alexei Navalny has been particularly effective in reaching younger audiences, who are less likely to trust state-controlled television. Navalny’s investigative videos, which expose the corruption and opulence of Russia’s elite, have garnered millions of views and have helped to erode the credibility of the government. The state’s attempts to block these platforms or limit their reach have largely been unsuccessful, as tech-savvy Russians find ways to bypass restrictions and access the information they seek.
International media has also played a role in exposing the flaws in the Kremlin’s narrative. Coverage of Russia’s economic struggles, military failures, and human rights abuses by outlets like the BBC, CNN, and The New York Times has provided an alternative perspective to the one offered by Russian state media. While the Kremlin has tried to dismiss these reports as Western propaganda, the fact that they are reaching Russian audiences through social media and other channels has made it increasingly difficult for the government to control the narrative. The more the regime tries to discredit these reports, the more attention they seem to draw, further undermining the state’s efforts to maintain control over information.
There have been several specific instances where the truth has broken through the propaganda, revealing the weaknesses of the regime. Reports on corruption within Putin’s inner circle, such as the investigation into the lavish palace allegedly built for Putin on the Black Sea, have resonated deeply with ordinary Russians. The stark contrast between the opulence of the ruling elite and the economic struggles faced by the average citizen has fueled resentment and disillusionment with the government. Similarly, reports on the mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the underreporting of cases and deaths, have further eroded trust in the state. The inability of the government to effectively address the economic and social impacts of the pandemic has only added to the growing sense of frustration.
The regime’s attempts to control information are becoming less effective, and the carefully constructed facade of stability and strength is beginning to crumble. The more the government tries to suppress dissenting voices, the more it highlights the very weaknesses it seeks to hide. The growing awareness among the Russian population of the realities of corruption, economic stagnation, and political repression is creating a situation where the state’s narrative is increasingly at odds with the lived experiences of ordinary people. As the truth continues to break through, the propaganda machine that has sustained Putin’s power is losing its grip, and the foundation of his regime is being steadily undermined.
The crumbling of the propaganda machine is a significant development in the story of Putin’s Russia. As more Russians become aware of the realities that the government has tried to conceal, the disconnect between the regime and the people grows wider. The emergence of independent journalism, the rise of social media, and the influence of international media have all contributed to the weakening of the state’s control over information. The truth, once suppressed, is now breaking through, and the consequences for Putin’s regime could be profound.
Chapter 14: Global Isolation: The Decline of Russian Influence
Vladimir Putin’s attempts to position Russia as a global power have increasingly been undermined by economic struggles and diplomatic isolation. Despite the Kremlin’s efforts to project strength on the world stage, Russia’s influence has steadily declined, leaving the country more isolated than ever. This chapter examines how international sanctions, economic vulnerabilities, and opportunistic alliances have weakened Russia’s global standing and limited its ability to shape international events.
International sanctions have had a profound impact on Russia’s economy and its ability to project power abroad. Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has faced a range of economic sanctions from Western nations, targeting key sectors such as finance, energy, and defense. These sanctions have restricted Russia’s access to international financial markets, limited foreign investment, and made it difficult for the country to acquire advanced technology. The result has been a stagnating economy, with limited growth prospects and a declining standard of living for ordinary Russians. The sanctions have also hindered Russia’s ability to modernize its military and maintain its influence in regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
In Esolidus, the vulnerabilities of an economy reliant on resource extraction are laid bare. Russia’s overreliance on oil and natural gas exports has made it particularly susceptible to fluctuations in global commodity prices and to the effects of international sanctions. While energy exports have provided the Kremlin with significant revenue, they have also left the economy exposed to external pressures. The drop in oil prices in recent years, combined with the effects of sanctions, has further strained Russia’s finances and limited its ability to fund foreign interventions and maintain its global presence. Unlike more diversified economies, Russia lacks the economic resilience needed to withstand prolonged economic pressure, making it increasingly difficult for Putin to sustain his ambitions on the world stage.
Russia’s relationships with key allies, such as China and Iran, are more opportunistic than strategic, limiting their long-term value. While the Kremlin has sought to strengthen ties with these countries as a way of countering Western influence, these relationships are built more on mutual convenience than on shared values or long-term strategic interests. China, for example, views Russia primarily as a source of raw materials and as a partner in counterbalancing the influence of the United States. However, Beijing is careful not to fully align itself with Moscow, as it has its own global ambitions that do not always align with Russia’s interests. Similarly, Russia’s relationship with Iran is based on a shared desire to challenge Western influence in the Middle East, but the two countries have competing interests in the region that limit the depth of their cooperation. These opportunistic alliances provide some short-term benefits for Russia, but they do not offer the kind of reliable partnerships needed to build lasting influence.
The decline of Russia’s influence is evident in its inability to shape global events in the way it aspires to. Despite its military interventions in Syria and Ukraine, Russia has struggled to achieve its broader geopolitical goals. In Syria, while the intervention helped to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s regime, it did not result in a significant increase in Russian influence over the broader Middle East. The costs of the intervention have been high, and Russia’s presence in the region remains limited compared to that of other global powers. In Ukraine, Russia’s actions have led to a prolonged conflict that has drained resources and further isolated the country from the West. Rather than reasserting Russia’s dominance over its neighbors, the intervention in Ukraine has instead solidified NATO’s presence in Eastern Europe and strengthened the resolve of countries that fear Russian aggression.
Russia’s declining influence is also evident in its inability to effectively counter Western diplomatic initiatives. The Kremlin has tried to position itself as a leader of a new global order, one that challenges Western hegemony and promotes a multipolar world. However, Russia’s economic struggles and diplomatic isolation have made it difficult to gain traction for this vision. Many countries are reluctant to align themselves with Russia, given its economic weaknesses and the risks associated with defying Western sanctions. Even within the United Nations, Russia’s ability to shape outcomes has been limited, as its position is often undermined by its lack of economic clout and its growing isolation from the broader international community.
The decline of Russian influence is a direct result of the limitations of Putin’s approach to foreign policy. By focusing on projecting strength through military interventions and opportunistic alliances, rather than building sustainable economic and diplomatic relationships, Putin has left Russia isolated and struggling to maintain its position on the world stage. The economic vulnerabilities highlighted in Esolidus, the impact of international sanctions, and the lack of reliable strategic partnerships have all contributed to this decline. As Russia’s influence continues to wane, the gap between Putin’s ambitions and the reality of Russia’s capabilities becomes increasingly apparent, revealing the hollowness at the core of his grand strategy.
Chapter 15: The Hollow Vessel: Putinism Compared to Trumpism
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, two of the most prominent political figures of the 21st century, have both constructed political movements centered around their own personalities. Putinism and Trumpism, though distinct in their origins and contexts, share striking similarities that reveal them to be hollow vessels — built on personal authority, sustained by propaganda and nationalism, and fundamentally lacking in substance or lasting ideals. This chapter draws parallels between these two movements, exploring the vulnerabilities inherent in building political power around individuals rather than sustainable institutions.
Both Putinism and Trumpism rely heavily on the image and persona of their leaders to maintain control. In both cases, the leader is presented as a savior — Putin, the strongman who restored order and national pride to a chaotic post-Soviet Russia; Trump, the outsider who promised to “drain the swamp” and restore American greatness. The political movements built around them are not defined by coherent ideologies or policy platforms but rather by the personal authority of the leader. Loyalty to Putin or Trump is paramount, and dissent within their respective circles is met with swift punishment. The result is a system in which the leader’s personality becomes the defining feature of the movement, leaving little room for ideological or institutional continuity.
Nationalism, propaganda, and the undermining of institutions have been key tools for both leaders in maintaining their grip on power. Putin has used state-controlled media to craft a narrative of Russian strength, portraying himself as the defender of the nation against foreign threats and internal enemies. Trump, similarly, leveraged right-wing media outlets and social media to build a narrative of American exceptionalism, casting himself as the only one capable of defending the country from perceived threats, both foreign and domestic. In both cases, nationalism is used not as a unifying force for genuine national progress, but as a tool to rally support around the leader and to divide the populace against perceived enemies — be they Western powers in Russia’s case or immigrants and political opponents in the United States.
The undermining of institutions is another critical similarity between Putinism and Trumpism. Putin has systematically weakened Russia’s democratic institutions, consolidating power in the presidency, suppressing political opposition, and undermining the independence of the judiciary. Trump, during his presidency, frequently attacked the legitimacy of American institutions, from the media to the judiciary to the electoral system itself. Both leaders have sought to erode public trust in the institutions that serve as checks on their power, framing these institutions as part of a corrupt establishment that must be overcome. By undermining these institutions, they have made their political movements more dependent on their personal authority, further entrenching the hollow nature of their regimes.
In His Grand Emptiness, we explore the parallels between Putinism and Trumpism, highlighting the similarities in the use of fear and manipulation by both leaders. Putin has long relied on the specter of external enemies — NATO, the West, and internal traitors — to justify his authoritarian measures and to rally public support. Trump, too, has used fear as a tool, painting a picture of an America under siege by immigrants, radical leftists, and a so-called “deep state.” By creating a climate of fear, both leaders have been able to position themselves as the protectors of their nations, using manipulation to maintain control over their followers. However, this reliance on fear also reveals the emptiness at the core of their movements, as it is not driven by a positive vision for the future but rather by the perpetuation of division and distrust.
The lack of an ideological foundation makes both Putinism and Trumpism vulnerable to collapse once their leaders are gone. Unlike political movements that are built on enduring ideas or values, these movements are intrinsically tied to the persona of a single individual. When that individual is no longer in power, the movement loses its central pillar. In the case of Putinism, the absence of a clear successor and the lack of institutional strength to support a transition of power create significant risks for the future stability of Russia. Similarly, Trumpism, in the absence of Trump, has struggled to find a coherent direction, with different factions vying for influence and no unifying ideology to hold them together. The vulnerability of both movements lies in their inability to outlast their leaders, as there is no deeper ideological commitment to sustain them once the charismatic figurehead is gone.
The long-term consequences of building political movements around individuals rather than sustainable institutions are profound. In Russia, the centralization of power around Putin has weakened the country’s political infrastructure, making it highly susceptible to instability in the event of a leadership transition. The lack of institutional checks and balances means that there is no mechanism in place to ensure a smooth transfer of power, creating the potential for internal power struggles and a loss of control. In the United States, Trump’s attacks on democratic institutions have left a lasting impact, eroding public trust in the electoral process and deepening political polarization. The legacy of Trumpism is not one of lasting policy achievements but of division and institutional damage, with the Republican Party struggling to define itself in the post-Trump era.
Putinism and Trumpism are ultimately hollow vessels — political movements that are built not on lasting ideals or a vision for the future but on the authority and personality of a single individual. The reliance on nationalism, propaganda, and the undermining of institutions to maintain control reveals the emptiness at the core of these movements. As the leaders who define them age or lose power, the fragility of these systems becomes increasingly apparent. The lesson from both Putinism and Trumpism is clear: political movements built around individuals, rather than ideas and institutions, are destined to falter once the leader is no longer there to hold them together.
Part 3: The Collapse of the Hollow Regime
Chapter 16: The Fragility of Fear: Why Putin’s Rule is Unsustainable
Vladimir Putin’s regime has been built largely on the strategic use of fear. Fear of external enemies, fear of internal dissent, and fear of economic instability have all been used to maintain control over the Russian populace. However, the reliance on fear as a tool of governance makes Putin’s system inherently unstable. History has shown that regimes built on repression and the manipulation of fear are ultimately fragile, lacking the resilience needed to endure in times of crisis. This chapter examines the fragility of Putin’s fear-based rule, drawing comparisons to other historical examples of autocracies that collapsed under the weight of their own repression.
Throughout history, autocratic regimes that relied heavily on fear to maintain control have often proven to be unsustainable. The Soviet Union under Stalin, for example, was characterized by widespread purges, mass arrests, and a climate of constant fear. While these tactics allowed Stalin to maintain power, they also created a society that was stifled by paranoia, lacking in creativity, and unable to adapt to changing circumstances. Similarly, East Germany’s Stasi used fear and surveillance to control the population, but this only served to create a brittle society that collapsed almost overnight when the pressure became too great. Putin’s Russia, with its use of repression, propaganda, and the silencing of dissent, follows a similar pattern. By relying on fear to maintain control, Putin has created a system that appears stable on the surface but is deeply fragile beneath.
In His Grand Emptiness, the hollowness of Putin’s regime is explored in depth, revealing how systems based on fear lack the resilience needed to withstand crises. Fear may be effective in the short term, but it does not foster loyalty, genuine support, or the kind of social cohesion needed for long-term stability. Instead, it breeds resentment, distrust, and a lack of engagement among the populace. When a regime is built on fear, it cannot inspire its citizens to work toward a common goal or to innovate in ways that benefit society as a whole. This lack of resilience becomes particularly problematic in times of crisis, when the ability to adapt and the willingness of the people to endure hardships are essential for survival.
The effects of fear-based governance on the Russian populace are profound. The climate of fear that permeates Russian society under Putin has stifled creativity, dissent, and progress. Those who speak out against the government face harsh consequences — imprisonment, harassment, or worse. Independent journalists, political opponents, and activists are routinely targeted, creating an environment in which dissent is dangerous and costly. This suppression of free expression has led to a society that is risk-averse, where people are afraid to challenge the status quo or propose new ideas. The result is a stagnation of culture, innovation, and political thought, as the fear of retribution stifles the very creativity and dynamism that are needed for a society to thrive.
Fear-based governance also has a corrosive effect on the social fabric of a nation. When people are encouraged to distrust one another — whether through the use of informants, surveillance, or propaganda — it becomes difficult to build the kind of social cohesion that is necessary for a stable society. In Russia, the state’s use of fear has created a climate of suspicion, where individuals are wary of their neighbors, colleagues, and even family members. This lack of trust weakens the bonds that hold society together, making it more susceptible to internal divisions and less capable of collective action. In times of crisis, this lack of social cohesion can be fatal, as people are less willing to work together to overcome challenges or to support one another in the face of adversity.
The increasing internal repression seen in Russia in recent years is not a sign of strength, but rather a sign of weakness. As Putin’s popularity wanes and economic conditions deteriorate, the regime has responded by cracking down even harder on dissent. The arrest of opposition figures, the suppression of protests, and the tightening of control over the media are all indicative of a regime that is struggling to maintain its grip on power. Rather than addressing the underlying issues that are driving discontent — such as corruption, economic inequality, and a lack of political freedoms — Putin has chosen to double down on repression. This approach may buy him time, but it also highlights the fundamental fragility of his rule. A regime that must rely on ever-increasing levels of repression to maintain control is one that is inherently unstable and ultimately unsustainable.
The fragility of Putin’s rule lies in its reliance on fear as the primary tool of control. While fear can be an effective means of suppressing dissent and maintaining order in the short term, it does not create the conditions needed for long-term stability. The lack of genuine support, the suppression of creativity and innovation, and the erosion of social cohesion all contribute to the inherent weakness of a fear-based system. As history has shown, regimes built on fear are ultimately destined to collapse, unable to withstand the pressures of a changing world. Putin’s Russia is no exception, and the cracks in the facade of stability are becoming increasingly visible as the regime struggles to maintain its hold on power.
Chapter 17: The Post-Putin Vacuum: What Comes Next
Vladimir Putin has ruled Russia for more than two decades, and during that time, he has built a political system that revolves almost entirely around his leadership. As a result, the question of what comes after Putin is one fraught with uncertainty and potential danger. This chapter explores the potential scenarios that could unfold in Russia once Putin is out of power, analyzing the risks associated with a power vacuum, the role of the Russian elite and oligarchs, and the prospects for either democratic reform or a continuation of authoritarianism.
The departure of a long-standing autocrat often leaves behind a power vacuum that can be highly destabilizing. With Putin’s system so reliant on his personal authority, his exit — whether voluntary, forced, or due to failing health — could lead to a period of significant instability in Russia. In The Unthinkable Made Real, historical examples of power vacuums following the fall of authoritarian leaders illustrate the dangers inherent in such situations. The fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, for example, led to a prolonged civil war and the rise of extremist groups, as various factions vied for power in the absence of a strong central authority. Similarly, the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq led to widespread unrest and the emergence of violent insurgencies. In Russia, the absence of a clear succession plan means that the country could face a similar period of turmoil, with no obvious leader to take Putin’s place and multiple factions within the government and security services potentially competing for control.
One of the key risks associated with a post-Putin power vacuum is the potential for civil unrest and the rise of extremist groups. The repression of political opposition and civil society under Putin has left Russia without a robust framework for political competition, meaning that any transition of power is likely to be chaotic. In the absence of legitimate political institutions capable of managing a leadership transition, there is a real risk that various power centers — such as regional governors, security agencies, and oligarchs — could turn against one another. This could lead to widespread unrest, as different factions seek to assert control and protect their own interests. Moreover, the vacuum created by Putin’s departure could provide an opportunity for extremist groups, both nationalist and Islamist, to gain influence, taking advantage of the instability and the lack of effective governance.
The role of the Russian elite and oligarchs will be crucial in determining the country’s future after Putin’s departure. Throughout his rule, Putin has relied on a network of loyalists, including wealthy oligarchs and powerful figures within the security services, to maintain his grip on power. These individuals have benefited enormously from their proximity to Putin, and their wealth and influence are tied to the stability of his regime. In a post-Putin scenario, these elites will likely play a key role in shaping the direction of the country. Some may push for a continuation of the status quo, seeking to install a figure who can maintain the system that has served them well. Others, however, may see an opportunity for change, particularly if maintaining the current system becomes untenable. The actions of these elites — whether they choose to compete for power, cooperate in an orderly transition, or support democratic reforms — will be a major factor in determining Russia’s future.
There is also the potential for democratic reform in a post-Putin Russia, though the obstacles to such a transition are significant. The repression of political opposition, the lack of independent media, and the absence of strong democratic institutions all make a smooth transition to democracy unlikely in the short term. However, there are segments of the Russian population, particularly among the younger generation, who are eager for change and who could push for a more open and democratic society. The rise of figures like Alexei Navalny, despite the severe repression they face, suggests that there is an appetite for political reform among many Russians. If the right conditions were to emerge — such as a split within the elite, a weakening of the security services, or mass mobilization by the public — there is a possibility that Russia could move toward a more democratic system. However, this outcome would require significant political will and the ability to overcome deeply entrenched interests that are invested in maintaining authoritarian control.
On the other hand, there is also the possibility that Russia could continue down the path of authoritarianism, with a new leader stepping in to maintain the existing system. Given the lack of democratic institutions and the power vested in the security services, it is entirely possible that a successor to Putin could emerge from within the current power structure, continuing the policies of repression and control that have characterized Putin’s rule. This could take the form of a figure from the security services, such as the FSB, who has the backing of key power centers and the ability to maintain order through force. Such a scenario would likely lead to a continuation of the status quo, with limited political freedoms, continued economic stagnation, and a focus on maintaining control at the expense of genuine reform.
The future of Russia in a post-Putin era is uncertain, and the potential scenarios range from civil unrest and a continuation of authoritarianism to the possibility of democratic reform. The risks associated with a power vacuum, including the rise of extremist groups and internal power struggles, are significant, and the actions of the Russian elite will play a crucial role in determining the country’s path forward. Whether Russia can move toward a more open and democratic society or whether it will continue down the path of repression and control will depend on a complex interplay of factors, including the willingness of the public to demand change and the ability of the elite to navigate a challenging transition. The collapse of Putin’s personalist rule will leave a vacuum that could either be an opportunity for positive transformation or a descent into further instability.
Chapter 18: Restoring the Lands: The Reclamation of Sovereignty
One of the most significant consequences of Vladimir Putin’s rule has been the annexation of territories that rightfully belong to neighboring nations. Crimea, forcibly annexed from Ukraine in 2014, stands as the most glaring example of this breach of international law and disregard for sovereignty. In the aftermath of Putin’s downfall, a critical question will be how these lands can be restored to their rightful peoples, and what legal and political processes must be undertaken to achieve this goal. This chapter examines the reclamation of sovereignty for annexed territories, the challenges involved in this process, and the importance of international law and cooperation in ensuring a peaceful transition.
The restoration of lands annexed under Putin’s rule will be a complex process, requiring a combination of legal actions, diplomatic negotiations, and, above all, political will. The first step in this process would likely involve the establishment of a legitimate and recognized authority in Russia that is willing to acknowledge the illegality of the annexations and commit to reversing them. This will require a significant shift in the Russian government’s stance, as Putin’s narrative of restoring Russian greatness through territorial expansion has been central to his regime’s propaganda. Any new leadership that emerges in the post-Putin era will need to navigate the complex task of undoing these illegal annexations while maintaining domestic stability.
Once a commitment to restitution has been made, international law will play a crucial role in guiding the process. In Why the West Must Hold, the importance of upholding sovereignty and international norms is emphasized as a foundation for global stability. The return of annexed territories such as Crimea would need to be conducted in accordance with international law, respecting the rights of the people living in these regions and ensuring that their voices are heard. This could involve referendums under international supervision to determine the future of these territories, as well as negotiations with the governments of Ukraine and other affected nations to establish a mutually acceptable framework for the transition. The involvement of international bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) would be essential in legitimizing and overseeing the process, ensuring that it is conducted fairly and transparently.
The political processes involved in restoring these territories would also require careful consideration of the interests of neighboring countries and the international community. The annexation of Crimea and other territories has had profound implications for regional stability, straining relations between Russia and its neighbors and prompting a strong response from Western nations in the form of sanctions and diplomatic pressure. The potential restitution of these lands would undoubtedly be met with a mix of reactions. For Ukraine, the return of Crimea would be a significant victory, symbolizing the restoration of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. For other neighboring countries, the reversal of Putin’s expansionist policies could help to alleviate fears of further aggression and contribute to a more stable regional environment. However, there would also be concerns about the potential for unrest and the challenges involved in reintegrating these territories after years of Russian control.
The challenges involved in ensuring a peaceful transition of control over these territories are considerable. Crimea, for example, has been under Russian control for nearly a decade, and during that time, significant changes have been made to the region’s infrastructure, governance, and demographics. Reversing these changes will require careful planning and a commitment to minimizing disruption for the people living in these areas. This will likely involve a period of transitional governance, during which international peacekeepers or monitors could be deployed to maintain order and ensure that the rights of all residents are respected. Economic support from the international community will also be crucial, as the affected regions will need assistance in rebuilding their economies and reintegrating with their rightful nations.
Another significant challenge will be addressing the narratives that have been propagated by Russian state media regarding these territories. Under Putin’s rule, the annexation of Crimea was framed as a restoration of historically Russian land, and many Russians have come to view it as an integral part of their country. Overcoming this narrative and building public support for the return of annexed territories will require a concerted effort to re-educate the populace and to foster a sense of reconciliation and respect for international law. This will be a delicate process, as nationalist sentiment runs deep, and any perceived concession of territory could be seen by some as a betrayal. The role of independent media, civil society, and international partners will be essential in shaping public discourse and building support for a peaceful resolution.
The international community will also have a significant role to play in supporting the restitution of annexed lands. The return of these territories will require not only diplomatic and legal support but also economic assistance to help rebuild the affected regions and to ensure that they can successfully reintegrate with their rightful nations. This will be particularly important in Crimea, where years of Russian control have left the region isolated from Ukraine both economically and politically. International aid, investment, and technical assistance will be needed to rebuild infrastructure, support local governance, and create opportunities for the people living in these areas. The success of this process will depend on the willingness of the international community to provide sustained support and to remain engaged in the region over the long term.
Restoring the lands annexed under Putin’s rule is a daunting task, but it is also a necessary one if the principles of sovereignty and international law are to be upheld. The legal and political processes involved will be complex, requiring careful negotiation, international oversight, and a commitment to ensuring a peaceful transition. The reactions of neighboring countries and the international community will be crucial in determining the success of this endeavor, as will the willingness of the Russian leadership to acknowledge the illegality of the annexations and to work towards their reversal. Ultimately, the reclamation of sovereignty for these territories is not only about correcting past injustices but also about building a foundation for a more stable and peaceful future in the region.
Chapter 19: Restoring the Lands: The Reclamation of Sovereignty
One of the most significant consequences of Vladimir Putin’s rule has been the annexation of territories that rightfully belong to neighboring nations. Crimea, forcibly annexed from Ukraine in 2014, stands as the most glaring example of this breach of international law and disregard for sovereignty. In the aftermath of Putin’s downfall, a critical question will be how these lands can be restored to their rightful peoples, and what legal and political processes must be undertaken to achieve this goal. This chapter examines the reclamation of sovereignty for annexed territories, the challenges involved in this process, and the importance of international law and cooperation in ensuring a peaceful transition.
The restoration of lands annexed under Putin’s rule will be a complex process, requiring a combination of legal actions, diplomatic negotiations, and, above all, political will. The first step in this process would likely involve the establishment of a legitimate and recognized authority in Russia that is willing to acknowledge the illegality of the annexations and commit to reversing them. This will require a significant shift in the Russian government’s stance, as Putin’s narrative of restoring Russian greatness through territorial expansion has been central to his regime’s propaganda. Any new leadership that emerges in the post-Putin era will need to navigate the complex task of undoing these illegal annexations while maintaining domestic stability.
Once a commitment to restitution has been made, international law will play a crucial role in guiding the process. In Why the West Must Hold, the importance of upholding sovereignty and international norms is emphasized as a foundation for global stability. The return of annexed territories such as Crimea would need to be conducted in accordance with international law, respecting the rights of the people living in these regions and ensuring that their voices are heard. This could involve referendums under international supervision to determine the future of these territories, as well as negotiations with the governments of Ukraine and other affected nations to establish a mutually acceptable framework for the transition. The involvement of international bodies such as the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) would be essential in legitimizing and overseeing the process, ensuring that it is conducted fairly and transparently.
The political processes involved in restoring these territories would also require careful consideration of the interests of neighboring countries and the international community. The annexation of Crimea and other territories has had profound implications for regional stability, straining relations between Russia and its neighbors and prompting a strong response from Western nations in the form of sanctions and diplomatic pressure. The potential restitution of these lands would undoubtedly be met with a mix of reactions. For Ukraine, the return of Crimea would be a significant victory, symbolizing the restoration of its territorial integrity and sovereignty. For other neighboring countries, the reversal of Putin’s expansionist policies could help to alleviate fears of further aggression and contribute to a more stable regional environment. However, there would also be concerns about the potential for unrest and the challenges involved in reintegrating these territories after years of Russian control.
The challenges involved in ensuring a peaceful transition of control over these territories are considerable. Crimea, for example, has been under Russian control for nearly a decade, and during that time, significant changes have been made to the region’s infrastructure, governance, and demographics. Reversing these changes will require careful planning and a commitment to minimizing disruption for the people living in these areas. This will likely involve a period of transitional governance, during which international peacekeepers or monitors could be deployed to maintain order and ensure that the rights of all residents are respected. Economic support from the international community will also be crucial, as the affected regions will need assistance in rebuilding their economies and reintegrating with their rightful nations.
Another significant challenge will be addressing the narratives that have been propagated by Russian state media regarding these territories. Under Putin’s rule, the annexation of Crimea was framed as a restoration of historically Russian land, and many Russians have come to view it as an integral part of their country. Overcoming this narrative and building public support for the return of annexed territories will require a concerted effort to re-educate the populace and to foster a sense of reconciliation and respect for international law. This will be a delicate process, as nationalist sentiment runs deep, and any perceived concession of territory could be seen by some as a betrayal. The role of independent media, civil society, and international partners will be essential in shaping public discourse and building support for a peaceful resolution.
The international community will also have a significant role to play in supporting the restitution of annexed lands. The return of these territories will require not only diplomatic and legal support but also economic assistance to help rebuild the affected regions and to ensure that they can successfully reintegrate with their rightful nations. This will be particularly important in Crimea, where years of Russian control have left the region isolated from Ukraine both economically and politically. International aid, investment, and technical assistance will be needed to rebuild infrastructure, support local governance, and create opportunities for the people living in these areas. The success of this process will depend on the willingness of the international community to provide sustained support and to remain engaged in the region over the long term.
Restoring the lands annexed under Putin’s rule is a daunting task, but it is also a necessary one if the principles of sovereignty and international law are to be upheld. The legal and political processes involved will be complex, requiring careful negotiation, international oversight, and a commitment to ensuring a peaceful transition. The reactions of neighboring countries and the international community will be crucial in determining the success of this endeavor, as will the willingness of the Russian leadership to acknowledge the illegality of the annexations and to work towards their reversal. Ultimately, the reclamation of sovereignty for these territories is not only about correcting past injustices but also about building a foundation for a more stable and peaceful future in the region.
Chapter 20: The End of Russian Imperialism
The collapse of Vladimir Putin’s regime will mark the end of Russia’s attempts to reclaim its imperial past — a past defined by expansionism, territorial conquests, and a desire to exert influence over its neighbors. Putin’s ambition to restore Russia’s historical sphere of influence has been a central pillar of his foreign policy, but this imperialist agenda has come at a significant cost. With the downfall of Putin, Russia has an opportunity to chart a new course, one focused on internal development and regional stability rather than external expansion. This chapter explores how the end of Russian imperialism could bring about positive changes for both Russia and its neighbors, ultimately contributing to a more stable and prosperous region.
Russia’s attempts to reclaim its imperial past have been driven by a combination of nationalism, historical grievances, and a desire to project strength on the global stage. However, the pursuit of these imperial ambitions has come with substantial economic and social costs. In Esolidus, the economic vulnerabilities of nations that prioritize military expansion over domestic development are laid bare. Putin’s efforts to annex Crimea, support separatist movements in eastern Ukraine, and intervene in Syria have drained significant resources that could have been used to address pressing domestic issues, such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. The cost of maintaining an imperialist agenda has left Russia with a stagnating economy, limited growth prospects, and a populace that is increasingly disillusioned with the lack of progress at home.
The collapse of Putin’s regime presents an opportunity for a fundamental shift in Russian foreign policy. A new leadership, unburdened by the legacy of imperial ambitions, could focus on internal development rather than external expansion. This shift would not only benefit Russia economically but also socially, as resources previously allocated to military interventions and territorial conquests could be redirected towards improving the quality of life for ordinary Russians. Investments in healthcare, education, infrastructure, and technological innovation could help to modernize the country and create opportunities for a new generation. By prioritizing the well-being of its citizens over the pursuit of geopolitical dominance, Russia could begin to rebuild trust between the government and the people, laying the foundation for a more stable and prosperous society.
The end of Russian imperialism would also have significant benefits for Russia’s neighbors and the broader international community. For countries like Ukraine, Georgia, and the Baltic states, the collapse of Putin’s expansionist policies would bring a sense of relief and security. These nations have lived under the constant threat of Russian aggression, and the end of imperial ambitions would allow them to pursue their own paths of development without fear of interference. The cessation of Russian meddling in the affairs of its neighbors would also contribute to a more stable regional environment, fostering cooperation and economic integration rather than conflict and division.
For Russia, ending its imperial ambitions could lead to a transformation in its relationships with its neighbors and the international community. Rather than being viewed as a threat, Russia could become a partner in regional development and security. By shifting its focus inward and addressing the needs of its own people, Russia could build stronger, more positive relationships with neighboring countries, based on mutual respect and cooperation rather than coercion. This could open the door to increased trade, cultural exchange, and collaboration on shared challenges, such as climate change and regional security. The benefits of such a transformation would be felt not only in Russia but across the entire region, as countries work together to build a more stable and interconnected future.
A more inward-focused Russia could also play a key role in contributing to regional stability. By ending its imperial ambitions, Russia would no longer feel the need to engage in confrontational behavior with NATO, the European Union, or other regional organizations. This could lead to a de-escalation of tensions and a reduction in the militarization of Eastern Europe, creating an environment in which diplomacy and dialogue take precedence over military posturing. A Russia that is focused on its own development, rather than seeking to dominate its neighbors, would be better positioned to contribute to collective security arrangements and to participate in multilateral efforts to address shared challenges. This shift could ultimately lead to a more peaceful and cooperative regional order, benefiting not only Russia but all of its neighbors.
The end of Russian imperialism is a necessary step towards building a stable and prosperous future for both Russia and the region as a whole. The collapse of Putin’s regime presents an opportunity for a fundamental reorientation of Russian foreign policy, away from expansionism and towards internal development and regional cooperation. By embracing this new path, Russia can begin to address the economic and social costs of its imperial ambitions, improve the lives of its citizens, and build stronger, more positive relationships with its neighbors. The potential benefits of ending imperial ambitions are immense — not only for Russia but for the entire region — as it opens the door to a future defined by stability, cooperation, and shared prosperity.
Chapter 21: The World Moves On: Russia After Putin
The end of Vladimir Putin’s reign will bring significant changes not only to Russia but also to the international landscape. As the world adapts to a post-Putin Russia, new opportunities for diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation, and security arrangements will emerge. However, the challenges of addressing the legacy of corruption, authoritarianism, and strained international relations will remain. This chapter examines how the world will adapt to a post-Putin Russia, focusing on the role of Western nations in supporting Russia’s transition, the strategies for integrating Russia into the international community, and the opportunities and obstacles that lie ahead.
A post-Putin Russia will present a unique set of opportunities for the international community to reshape relations with the country. For years, Putin’s aggressive foreign policy and disregard for international norms have made Russia a destabilizing force, contributing to tensions in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and beyond. With Putin’s departure, there is an opportunity for a fundamental shift in Russian foreign policy — one that could prioritize diplomacy, cooperation, and peaceful engagement over confrontation and expansionism. Western nations will play a crucial role in supporting Russia’s transition to a more stable and less aggressive state, but this will require a careful balancing of incentives, pressures, and support to ensure a positive outcome.
In His Grand Emptiness, strategies for integrating Russia into the international community are explored, emphasizing the importance of offering both economic incentives and diplomatic engagement to encourage a peaceful transition. One of the key strategies will be to offer Russia a path to reintegration into the global economy through the lifting of sanctions, contingent upon meaningful reforms and adherence to international law. This would involve a phased approach, where economic sanctions are gradually lifted in response to specific actions taken by the new Russian leadership — such as withdrawing from annexed territories, respecting the sovereignty of neighboring countries, and releasing political prisoners. By offering a clear path to economic recovery, Western nations can create incentives for the new leadership to pursue a more cooperative foreign policy and to break with the confrontational stance of the past.
Another critical aspect of integrating Russia into the international community will be fostering diplomatic engagement and cooperation on shared challenges. Issues such as climate change, regional security, arms control, and counterterrorism are areas where cooperation between Russia and Western nations is not only possible but necessary. By emphasizing common interests and encouraging dialogue, the international community can help to create a framework for Russia’s peaceful reintegration. Multilateral forums such as the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), and the G20 will be essential in providing platforms for dialogue and collaboration, helping to rebuild trust and establish new norms of engagement.
The opportunities for economic engagement with a reformed Russia are substantial. Russia is a country with vast natural resources, a well-educated population, and significant potential for economic growth — if it can overcome the structural issues that have held it back under Putin’s rule. Foreign investment, trade partnerships, and technological cooperation could help to modernize the Russian economy, diversify its industries, and improve the standard of living for its citizens. Western nations, along with other international partners, could play a key role in supporting this economic transformation by providing technical assistance, investment, and access to international markets. By integrating Russia into the global economy, the international community can help to create a more stable and prosperous Russia — one that has a vested interest in maintaining peaceful and cooperative relations with its neighbors.
However, significant challenges remain in addressing the legacy of corruption and authoritarianism that has defined Putin’s Russia. Under Putin, corruption has become deeply entrenched in both the public and private sectors, with oligarchs and political elites benefiting at the expense of ordinary citizens. Dismantling these networks of corruption will be a difficult and time-consuming process, requiring strong political will and the support of the international community. Legal and institutional reforms will be necessary to establish transparency, accountability, and the rule of law — key elements that are essential for building a stable and prosperous society. Western nations can support these efforts by providing expertise, funding, and technical assistance to help build the capacity of Russian institutions and to strengthen civil society.
The legacy of authoritarianism also poses a significant obstacle to Russia’s transition. For over two decades, Putin has systematically weakened democratic institutions, suppressed political opposition, and curtailed civil liberties. Reversing these trends will require not only political reform but also a cultural shift within Russian society — a shift that embraces democratic values, tolerance, and respect for human rights. This will be a challenging process, as years of state propaganda and repression have left many Russians skeptical of Western-style democracy and wary of change. Civil society organizations, independent media, and grassroots movements will play a crucial role in driving this cultural shift, but they will need support from the international community to succeed.
The international community will also need to be mindful of the potential for instability during Russia’s transition. The collapse of Putin’s regime could lead to a period of political uncertainty, with various factions vying for power and the potential for internal conflict. Western nations must be prepared to support a peaceful transition by offering diplomatic support, mediation, and, if necessary, peacekeeping assistance to prevent violence and ensure stability. The goal should be to create an environment in which Russia can move toward a more open and democratic system, without the risk of descending into chaos or authoritarian retrenchment.
The world will undoubtedly move on after Putin, but the way in which it engages with a post-Putin Russia will determine whether this transition leads to a more stable and peaceful international order or whether the old patterns of confrontation and mistrust continue. By supporting Russia’s transition to a more stable and less aggressive state, fostering economic and diplomatic engagement, and addressing the challenges of corruption and authoritarianism, the international community can help to shape a positive future for Russia and its neighbors. The opportunities are immense, but so are the challenges — and the success of this transition will depend on the willingness of both Russia and the international community to embrace change and work together for a better future.
Chapter 22: Justice for the Oppressed: Reckoning With Putin’s Crimes
The legacy of Vladimir Putin’s rule is marred by numerous human rights abuses, political repression, and violence against those who dared to challenge his authority. As Russia moves into a post-Putin era, one of the most pressing questions will be how to ensure justice for those who have suffered under his regime. Political prisoners, marginalized communities, and victims of state violence deserve accountability, and the pursuit of justice will be critical in dismantling the legacy of authoritarianism. This chapter explores the potential avenues for achieving justice, the challenges of holding powerful figures accountable, and the importance of truth and reconciliation in healing a divided nation.
Putin’s rule has been characterized by the systematic repression of political opposition and the targeting of those who posed a threat to his authority. Political opponents such as Alexei Navalny, journalists who dared to speak truth to power, and countless activists have been subjected to harassment, imprisonment, and even assassination. Marginalized communities, including LGBTQ+ individuals and ethnic minorities, have faced persecution, discrimination, and violence, often with the tacit approval of the state. Victims of state violence — whether during protests, in Crimea, or in other conflict zones — have seen little recourse for justice. In the aftermath of Putin’s downfall, it is essential that these crimes are addressed, and that those responsible are held accountable.
The need for justice for those oppressed under Putin’s regime is not only about punishment; it is about acknowledging the suffering of victims and ensuring that such abuses are never repeated. One potential avenue for achieving justice is through the establishment of international tribunals or domestic courts to address human rights abuses. In His Grand Emptiness, the importance of accountability in dismantling authoritarian legacies is emphasized, highlighting that without a reckoning for past crimes, the cycle of repression is likely to continue. An international tribunal, similar to those established for the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, could be a powerful tool for holding those at the highest levels of Putin’s regime accountable for their actions. Such a tribunal would send a clear message that human rights abuses will not be tolerated and that even the most powerful figures are not above the law.
Alternatively, domestic courts could play a key role in addressing the crimes committed under Putin’s rule. A reformed Russian judiciary, free from the influence of the state, could be empowered to investigate and prosecute those responsible for human rights abuses. This approach would have the advantage of being more accessible to victims and could help to build trust in Russia’s legal institutions. However, the challenges of reforming a judiciary that has been deeply compromised by years of state control should not be underestimated. It would require significant political will, resources, and support from the international community to ensure that the judicial system is capable of delivering impartial justice.
One of the greatest challenges involved in holding powerful figures accountable is the entrenched network of elites who have benefited from Putin’s rule. Many of those who played a role in the repression of political opponents and the violation of human rights are deeply embedded within the political, economic, and security structures of Russia. Dismantling these networks and bringing those responsible to justice will be a complex and potentially dangerous endeavor. There is also the risk that efforts to hold powerful figures accountable could provoke resistance from within the security services or other elements of the state, leading to further instability. Despite these challenges, accountability is essential if Russia is to break free from the cycle of impunity that has defined its recent history.
In addition to legal accountability, the process of truth and reconciliation will be crucial in healing a divided nation. The years of repression under Putin have left deep scars on Russian society, with families torn apart, communities divided, and a pervasive climate of fear and mistrust. A truth and reconciliation process, similar to those undertaken in South Africa or Chile, could provide a forum for victims to share their stories, for the truth about state abuses to be brought to light, and for society to begin the process of healing. Such a process would not only help to address the trauma experienced by victims but also foster a broader understanding of the abuses that took place, helping to ensure that they are not repeated.
Truth and reconciliation are not about forgetting the past or absolving those who committed abuses, but about creating a space for dialogue, understanding, and healing. It is about recognizing the suffering of victims, holding perpetrators accountable, and building a foundation for a more just and democratic society. For Russia, a country that has experienced repeated cycles of authoritarianism and repression, the importance of such a process cannot be overstated. It offers a chance to break with the past, to confront the painful realities of what occurred under Putin’s rule, and to lay the groundwork for a future in which human rights are respected, and justice is accessible to all.
The pursuit of justice for the oppressed in a post-Putin Russia will be neither simple nor quick. It will require a combination of legal accountability, international support, and a commitment to truth and reconciliation. Holding powerful figures accountable for their crimes is essential to dismantling the legacy of authoritarianism and ensuring that Russia can move forward as a more just and democratic society. At the same time, the process of truth and reconciliation will be critical in healing the wounds left by years of repression and in building a society that values human rights, justice, and equality. Only by confronting the past can Russia hope to build a future that is free from the shadows of its authoritarian history.
Chapter 23: A New Russian Identity: Moving Beyond Authoritarianism
The collapse of Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime offers Russia a unique opportunity to redefine itself, to move beyond the legacy of repression and build a society grounded in democratic values, human rights, and respect for international norms. In a post-Putin Russia, the possibility for democratic reforms and a return to international respectability is not only desirable but necessary for the country to prosper. This chapter imagines what a new Russian identity might look like, focusing on the role of civil society, independent media, grassroots movements, and the cultural shifts that could help shape a democratic future for the nation.
A post-Putin Russia would have the opportunity to undergo significant democratic reforms, allowing for the establishment of a government that is accountable to its people. Democratic institutions — such as an independent judiciary, a representative legislature, and free elections — could be strengthened to ensure that power is no longer concentrated in the hands of a single individual or a small group of elites. The return of genuine political competition, transparency, and respect for human rights would enable Russia to regain its standing on the international stage, transforming it from a pariah state to a respected member of the global community. This shift would require a deep commitment from both the new leadership and the Russian people to break away from the authoritarian practices of the past and embrace democratic principles.
Civil society, independent media, and grassroots movements will be critical in shaping a new Russian identity. Under Putin’s rule, civil society has been systematically weakened, with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and activists facing severe restrictions and persecution. However, the spirit of activism has never been fully extinguished, and in a post-Putin era, civil society can be revitalized as a force for positive change. NGOs focused on human rights, social justice, and community development can play a key role in holding the government accountable, advocating for reforms, and empowering citizens to participate in the political process. Grassroots movements, driven by ordinary Russians who are committed to building a better future, can help to foster a culture of civic engagement and collective action.
Independent media will also be essential in shaping the new Russian identity. For years, state-controlled media has dominated the narrative, promoting propaganda and suppressing dissenting voices. In a post-Putin Russia, the emergence of independent media outlets, free from state control, will be crucial in providing accurate information, fostering open debate, and holding those in power accountable. A free press is a cornerstone of any democracy, and its role in educating the public, exposing corruption, and facilitating dialogue cannot be overstated. By supporting independent journalism, Russia can begin to rebuild trust between the government and its citizens and create an informed electorate capable of making decisions that reflect the best interests of the nation.
In Why the West Must Hold, the importance of human rights and democratic values in rebuilding a national identity is emphasized as a fundamental component of any stable and prosperous society. For Russia, embracing these values will be key to moving beyond the legacy of authoritarianism and building a new identity that is based on respect for individual freedoms, equality, and justice. Human rights must be at the center of this transformation, ensuring that all citizens — regardless of their ethnicity, religion, or political beliefs — are treated with dignity and respect. By embedding human rights into the fabric of Russian society, the country can create a foundation for lasting peace and stability.
The potential for a cultural renaissance in Russia is immense, as the country moves away from the repression of Putinism and embraces new possibilities for artistic, intellectual, and social expression. Throughout its history, Russia has been home to some of the world’s greatest artists, writers, and thinkers. However, under Putin’s rule, cultural expression has been stifled by censorship and state control. In a post-Putin era, the lifting of these restrictions could lead to a flourishing of creativity and innovation, as artists, writers, musicians, and intellectuals are once again free to explore new ideas and challenge old norms. This cultural renaissance could play a significant role in shaping a new national identity — one that celebrates diversity, encourages critical thinking, and values the contributions of all members of society.
Education and open discourse will be crucial in fostering a society that values freedom, innovation, and progress. Under Putin, the education system has been used as a tool for promoting nationalist propaganda and suppressing critical thought. In a post-Putin Russia, education must be reformed to encourage open-mindedness, critical thinking, and a willingness to engage with different perspectives. By teaching the next generation about the importance of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, Russia can lay the groundwork for a future in which authoritarianism has no place. Open discourse — both in educational institutions and in the broader public sphere — will be essential in creating a culture of debate, tolerance, and intellectual curiosity, helping to ensure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
A new Russian identity, built on the principles of democracy, human rights, and respect for individual freedoms, is within reach. The collapse of Putin’s regime provides an opportunity for Russia to break free from the cycle of authoritarianism and to build a society that values the contributions of all its citizens. Civil society, independent media, and grassroots movements will play a key role in shaping this new identity, while a cultural renaissance and a reformed education system will help to foster a spirit of creativity, innovation, and open discourse. By embracing democratic values and committing to the protection of human rights, Russia can move beyond the repression of Putinism and build a future that is defined not by fear and control, but by freedom, opportunity, and hope.
Chapter 24: The Lessons of His Grand Emptiness
The rise and fall of Vladimir Putin’s regime offer important lessons about the nature of authoritarian power and the fragility of systems built on fear, propaganda, and personal authority. Putinism, with its emphasis on consolidating power in the hands of a single individual and relying on the suppression of dissent, has proven to be ultimately unsustainable. As the era of Putin comes to a close, it is crucial to reflect on the lessons learned from his rule and the inherent weaknesses of such a system. This chapter serves as a summation of those lessons, emphasizing the need for resilient institutions, the dangers of authoritarianism, and the hope for a future based on accountable leadership.
One of the key lessons of Putin’s reign is the inherent fragility of regimes built on fear. Throughout his time in power, Putin relied heavily on the use of fear — fear of dissent, fear of foreign enemies, fear of chaos — to maintain control. This fear-based approach created an environment in which dissent was suppressed, opposition was silenced, and the people were conditioned to accept authoritarian rule as a necessary means of preserving stability. However, as His Grand Emptiness illustrates, systems built on fear lack resilience. They may appear stable on the surface, but they are inherently brittle, prone to collapse when confronted with crisis or internal dissent. Fear may keep people in line for a time, but it does not inspire loyalty or foster genuine stability. When the foundation of fear begins to crumble, the entire system is at risk of collapse.
Propaganda, another cornerstone of Putinism, has also proven to be a weak foundation for lasting power. State-controlled media and misinformation were used extensively to shape public perception, control the narrative, and create an illusion of strength. However, the reliance on propaganda to maintain power ultimately eroded trust in the government, as the gap between the official narrative and the lived reality of ordinary Russians grew wider. The lessons of His Grand Emptiness show that propaganda may be effective in the short term, but it is no substitute for genuine governance and cannot sustain a regime indefinitely. The truth, once uncovered, has a powerful way of breaking through the facade of lies, and the consequences for regimes that rely on deception can be severe.
Perhaps the most significant lesson from the fall of Putinism is the danger of building a political system around personal authority rather than resilient institutions. Putin’s regime was defined by its centralization of power — everything revolved around him, and loyalty to Putin was prioritized over loyalty to institutions or the rule of law. This personalization of power created a system that lacked continuity, with no clear mechanism for leadership transition or succession. As a result, when Putin’s power began to wane, the entire system was thrown into uncertainty. This is a key weakness of authoritarian regimes: by relying on the authority of a single individual, they become inherently unstable and prone to collapse once that individual is no longer able to maintain control. In contrast, democracies that build strong, independent institutions are far better equipped to manage leadership transitions and maintain stability over the long term.
The collapse of Putinism can also serve as a warning to other authoritarian regimes around the world. The weaknesses inherent in Putin’s system — reliance on fear, propaganda, and personal authority — are not unique to Russia. Many other authoritarian leaders use similar tactics to maintain control, but the lessons of His Grand Emptiness demonstrate that these methods are ultimately unsustainable. The downfall of Putinism should serve as a reminder that true stability and prosperity cannot be achieved through repression and control, but rather through governance that respects the rights and dignity of all citizens. Authoritarian leaders may be able to maintain power for a time, but the underlying fragility of their systems makes them vulnerable to collapse when confronted with internal dissent, economic challenges, or a loss of legitimacy.
Looking ahead, there is hope for a future where leadership is based on service, accountability, and the well-being of the people. The end of Putin’s regime provides an opportunity for Russia to build a new system — one that values democracy, transparency, and the rule of law. This future will require the development of resilient institutions that can withstand the challenges of leadership transitions, economic pressures, and social change. It will require leaders who see themselves not as rulers, but as servants of the people, accountable to the citizens they represent. By embracing these values, Russia — and indeed any nation emerging from the shadow of authoritarianism — can build a society that is not only stable but also just, prosperous, and free.
The lessons of His Grand Emptiness are clear: regimes built on fear, propaganda, and personal authority are destined to fail. True strength lies not in the power of a single individual, but in the resilience of institutions, the participation of an engaged citizenry, and the commitment to justice and human rights. The collapse of Putinism is a reminder that authoritarian power is ultimately empty — a hollow vessel that cannot stand the test of time. By learning from these lessons and building a future based on service, accountability, and the well-being of the people, there is hope for a world where freedom, dignity, and justice prevail.
Copyright © John R Raymond, 2024. All rights reserved.
