The question of regime stability in Russia under Putin has been a focal point of global political discourse, particularly since the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022. Putin’s rule, spanning over two decades, has transformed Russia into a centralized authoritarian state, blending elements of nationalism, state control over the economy, and aggressive foreign policy.
Discussions about a potential coup or the “liquidation” of his regime – terms that evoke scenarios ranging from internal elite reshuffles to more dramatic upheavals – often arise in the context of economic strains, military setbacks, and international isolation.
Let’s talk about possible pathways to such changes, drawing on analyses, historical precedents and current geopolitical dynamics. It emphasizes that while regime change is a recurring theme in Russian history, the current system’s resilience makes abrupt shifts unlikely without significant catalysts.
Russia’s political history is replete with instances of abrupt power shifts, often through palace intrigues or military interventions rather than popular revolutions. The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, while revolutionary, was preceded by elite dissatisfaction with Tsar Nicholas II. In the Soviet era, leadership changes like the ousting of Nikita Khrushchev in 1964 were orchestrated by party elites in a bloodless coup. The 1991 attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev by hardliners failed, leading to the USSR’s dissolution, but it highlighted the role of security services and military in regime dynamics.
Post-Soviet Russia saw Boris Yeltsin’s resignation in 1999, effectively handing power to Putin in a managed transition. Analysts note that Putin’s ascent was itself a form of elite-engineered continuity to prevent chaos. Recent events, such as the 2023 Wagner Group mutiny led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, echoed these patterns but ultimately reinforced Putin’s control through purges and consolidations. This historical lens suggests that any coup against Putin would likely stem from internal fractures rather than external forces, as external interventions (e.g., Western-backed regime change) are often portrayed in Russian narratives as the root of instability, such as the 2014 events in Ukraine.
Putin’s regime is characterized by a “power vertical” – a hierarchical structure where loyalty is enforced through a mix of patronage, repression, and propaganda. Key pillars include the siloviki (security elites from backgrounds in the FSB, military, and law enforcement), oligarchs tied to state resources, and a controlled media ecosystem. Despite challenges like Western sanctions, the ongoing war in Ukraine and domestic discontent, the regime has demonstrated remarkable durability.
Our analyses vary on its vulnerabilities. Some Western observers argue that the war has exposed weaknesses: economic strain from mobilization, high casualties, and elite infighting could erode support. For instance, reports suggest that a loss in Ukraine might trigger elite defections, as the military and business leaders bear the costs. Russian sources, however, emphasize stability, portraying Putin as a guarantor against chaos, with the regime evolving toward a more totalitarian model. Public opinion polls, though potentially skewed, show sustained approval ratings, bolstered by narratives framing external threats.
Critics like those from the Atlantic Council outline scenarios where internal pressures—such as health issues or succession battles—could destabilize the system. Yet, the regime’s adaptability, including constitutional changes in 2020 allowing Putin to run indefinitely, mitigates immediate risks. A key insight is that while the regime appears monolithic, it relies on a delicate balance: fear of repression outweighs incentives for rebellion among elites.
Analyses of potential coups in Russia typically categorize them into elite-driven, military-led, popular, or externally influenced pathways. These are hypothetical constructs based on patterns observed in authoritarian regimes globally, such as the fall of dictators in the Arab Spring or Latin American juntas. In Russia’s case, the “liquidation” of the regime could mean Putin’s removal via resignation, arrest, or more violent means, followed by a transitional government.
The most frequently discussed scenario is a “palace coup,” where key insiders – siloviki, oligarchs or technocrats – coordinate to oust Putin to preserve their interests. This could be triggered by war failures, economic collapse, or personal rivalries. For example, if battlefield losses in Ukraine lead to blame-shifting, figures like Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu or FSB head Alexander Bortnikov might maneuver against Putin. Historical parallels include the 1964 removal of Khrushchev by Brezhnev and allies.
A reluctant reconciliation post-war loss where elites unite to remove Putin and negotiate peace, or a “neo-Stalinist fortress” where a hardliner successor emerges. Sources suggest this requires losing support from a few hundred key figures, potentially accelerated by health problems. Outcomes might include liberalization or further repression, but history shows Russian transitions often lead to initial thawing.
A military-led overthrow, inspired by events like the Wagner rebellion, is another option. The armed forces, strained by the Ukraine war, could rebel if orders lead to unacceptable losses or if generals fear purges. Reports from 2025 indicate alleged coup planning within the General Staff, driven by fears of repression and doctrinal failures. This scenario might involve seizing key sites like the Kremlin, but success depends on coordination and loyalty splits.
Post-2030 possibilities – military dissatisfaction culminates in a takeover. However, Putin’s strategy of balancing military factions reduces this risk. If successful, it could lead to a junta-style rule, potentially more aggressive externally.
Mass protests, fueled by economic hardship or war fatigue, represent a bottom-up pathway. Scenarios envision bankruptcy causing soldier desertions and chaos, or protests escalating into revolution. The 2024 death of opposition figure Alexei Navalny highlighted latent discontent, but repression stifles organization.
Putin’s death can be the most likely trigger for change, with uprisings less probable due to the “repressive machine.” Russian opposition figures argue that without military support, protests remain symbolic. A chaotic collapse, as in Politico’s analysis of Prigozhin’s mutiny, could sideline opposition, leading to fragmented power.
Western narratives often frame regime change as desirable, but Russian sources decry it as foreign meddling, akin to the 2014 “coup” in Ukraine. Hybrid options include sanctions weakening elites, leading to internal shifts, or cyber/information operations amplifying dissent. However, these are viewed skeptically, as they could unify the regime against “external enemies.”
Some analyses suggest Ukraine’s military successes could indirectly force change by exhausting Russia. Ethnic regional nationalism might also fragment the federation, but this is secondary to central power dynamics.
Several variables shape these scenarios:
War in Ukraine: Defeat could catalyze change, but stalemate sustains the regime.
Economic Pressures: Sanctions and oil dependency strain resources, potentially alienating oligarchs.
Succession Planning: Putin’s lack of a clear heir creates uncertainty, risking power struggles.
Repression vs. Legitimacy: High repression deters action, but eroding legitimacy (e.g., via corruption scandals) could tip the balance.
International Context: Alliances with China and India bolster Putin, countering isolation.
Biased viewpoints abound: Western media may overestimate fragility, while Russian state narratives exaggerate invincibility.
Regime change might not yield democracy; it could usher in harder authoritarianism or fragmentation. Positive scenarios include liberalization. Risks include civil war, nuclear instability, or a “nuclear Iran”-like isolation. The 2024 turbulent year tested but did not break the regime.
While possible options for a coup in Russia exist – from elite plots to military uprisings – the regime’s design prioritizes survival, making liquidation improbable without multiple converging crises. Analyses underscore that change, if it occurs, would likely be elite-driven and chaotic, with uncertain benefits for democracy or stability. As global dynamics evolve, monitoring indicators like elite cohesion and war outcomes remains crucial. Ultimately, Russia’s future hinges on internal balances rather than external wishes, reminding us that authoritarian systems often endure longer than anticipated.