On March 25, 2025, it will be 25 years since Vladimir Putin first became President of Russia. Since then, he has not released his grip on power, and today, he appears stronger than ever. Yet beneath the surface of apparent stability, troubling signs of weakness are becoming increasingly visible.
From Illusory Democracy to Open Autocracy
When the 48-year-old former KGB officer was elected president in March 2000, few could have predicted he would remain in power for decades. After a formal power rotation with Dmitry Medvedev in 2008, Putin returned to the Kremlin in 2012 with a harsher tone and more authoritarian actions. According to Tagesschau, Putin’s return marked a turning point: he crushed mass protests and began a systematic restriction of democratic freedoms.
The economic growth that had supported an unspoken agreement with the population — “stay out of politics and we’ll ensure stability and prosperity” — came to an end. Repression replaced prosperity. Following the death of Alexei Navalny in 2024, the opposition was left weakened, fragmented, and mostly in exile.
Strength Through the Weakness of Others
On the international stage, Russia is behaving more aggressively. Not only Ukraine, but other neighboring countries fear they could share the same fate. According to German intelligence agency BND, Russia may be capable of launching a military conflict against NATO by 2030.
Although experts warn of the risks Russia faces from transforming into a wartime economy — including potential overheating — in the short term, much of the population is benefiting from higher incomes in the defense sector. Alliances with authoritarian regimes like Iran and China help sustain the prolonged conflict in Ukraine.
Putin continues to use nuclear threats, disinformation, and sabotage to spread fear, creating the illusion that Russia is stronger than it really is. As Tagesschau points out, Putin’s real strength lies in exploiting the weaknesses of others.
Loyalty Over Competence
According to experts such as Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy, Putin’s system treats the country and its people as resources to maintain power. This is evident in the lack of accountability for tragic incidents, as shown by investigations from Russian journalists Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov. Rather than punishing those responsible, security officials are often rewarded and promoted.
The foundation of the system is the security apparatus, primarily the FSB. Despite serious failures — including misjudging the situation in Ukraine before the 2022 invasion — the structure remains unchanged. Putin avoids reform, favoring control and loyalty.
Generational Change Without Systemic Reform
There is, however, a generational shift in the political apparatus. The “second wave” includes technocrats like Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. The “third generation” features figures like Dmitry Patrushev, the son of the former FSB chief, now serving as Deputy Prime Minister.
These new politicians often follow a predictable career path: university education, time in the economy or security sector, a regional governor post, and finally promotion to government or the presidential administration. Potential successors to Putin include Alexei Dyumin — his former bodyguard — and Sergei Kiriyenko, deputy chief of staff.
Deliberate Absence of a Successor
Analysts believe Putin intentionally avoids naming a clear successor to prevent being seen as a “lame duck.” He maintains control through absolute loyalty, often backed by kompromat — compromising material reportedly gathered in detailed dossiers, as described by Hill and Gaddy.
Even the most consequential decisions — such as the annexation of Crimea or the February 24, 2022 invasion of Ukraine — are made within a tiny inner circle, allegedly excluding even key figures like Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
A Paralyzed Apparatus and Illusion of Control
Political scientist Mark Galeotti argues that Putin suffers from decision-making paralysis, which hampers the government’s responsiveness. A recent example is his delayed reaction to a ceasefire proposal in Ukraine: while Putin remained silent for days, his advisors and the media scrambled to interpret his stance.
In his podcast In Moscow’s Shadows, Galeotti explains that radical public statements by figures like Dmitry Medvedev or ideologue Alexander Dugin often aim to influence Putin or cast him as a moderate in comparison.
Fragility Behind the Façade
Events such as Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutiny, the 2024 terrorist attack in a Moscow shopping mall, or the accidental missile strike on a passenger plane near Grozny all raise doubts about the state’s ability to respond effectively. The latter incident, in particular, gave Azerbaijan a strong diplomatic leverage over Moscow.
Though the system appears unshakable from the outside, internally it may be decaying. As Tagesschau concludes, autocratic regimes seem stable — until a single crisis exposes their fragility and the entire structure collapses.
This article was prepared based on materials published by Tagesschau. The author does not claim authorship of the original text but presents their interpretation of the content for informational purposes.
The original article can be found at the following link: Tagesschau.
All rights to the original text belong to Tagesschau.
