Since the early 2000s, Vladimir Putin has dominated the political scene in post-Soviet Russia. Re-elected with more than 88% of the vote in March and embroiled in a war that he himself provoked, the occupant of the Kremlin seems more firmly established than ever. The acceleration of political repression, symbolized by the death in prison of the main opposition leader, Alexei Navalny, testifies to his desire to strengthen his power.
However, Westerners should prepare for the possibility of an end to Putin’s reign, tells us Liana Fix, historian and political scientist at the American think tank Council on Foreign Relations. For the researcher, Europe and the United States must not only maintain and strengthen their support for the Ukrainian war effort, but also better anticipate the different scenarios of a change of power in Russia.
L’Express: In a interview give to The EconomistEmmanuel Macron reaffirmed his position regarding the possibility to send ground troops in Ukraine. Is this the right posture to adopt towards Putin’s Russia?
Liana Fix: Emmanuel Macron’s position has evolved since the start of the war. Initially, he was more open to discussion with Russia, because he was worried about a “Versailles” scenario. Just like Germany after the First World War, which felt humiliated and emerged even more aggressive than before, Macron feared too harsh treatment with Russia and pushed for dialogue.
Two years later, he seems to have abandoned the hope of a rational discussion with Putin, simply because he sees that it is not a good way to defend the interests of France and Ukraine. He is now convinced that Putin only understands the balance of power. It is for this reason that he raised the idea of sending ground troops, not because he plans to carry it out immediately, but because he wants to instill doubt in Putin’s mind , so that he knows that there are limits that must not be crossed.
The problem is that for this strategy to work, the threat must be credible in Putin’s eyes. Unfortunately, this credibility is lacking, especially since the United States shows no sign of willingness to deploy troops. The White House considers that the risk of escalation between NATO members and Russia is too high. This reluctance is shared by Olaf Scholtz, the German chancellor, who sees clearly that Western public opinion is opposed to the idea of a greater commitment.
“Putin is not undefeatable, it is imperative that the West prepares for this eventuality”
In an article, you wrote that Westerners must now prepare for the possibility of Putin leaving power. For what ?
When discussing Russia’s future, analyzes tend to overestimate or underestimate the stability of Vladimir Putin’s power. For example, at the time of the attempted mutiny of Yevgeny Prigozhin, the former head of Wagner, many people expected Russia to collapse. Conversely, once the situation stabilized, the reading grid completely changed: suddenly, the narrative was that Vladimir Putin would remain in power forever.
The reality is more nuanced, but it is certain that Putin is not undefeatable. The Russian regime is not as stable as it seems, because it is a hierarchical and dictatorial system where everything depends on Vladimir Putin, which deprives him of any flexibility. This rigidity makes it extremely vulnerable to external shocks. Therefore, an economic crisis or military setback in Ukraine could seriously threaten Vladimir Putin’s continued rule, and it is imperative that the West prepare for this eventuality.
For the moment, however, the Russian regime seems relatively stable. How do you explain this stability, despite the war, the sanctions…
Russia has managed to adapt to international sanctions by strengthening ties with China, Iran and North Korea. These new partnerships help it circumvent sanctions, and therefore retain its revenues from oil and gas. They also offer military support in the war against Ukraine. In particular Iran, which delivers many drones.
As far as the Russian economy is concerned, it is not doing too badly. Firstly because it is still based on oil revenues, the sanctions, as I have just explained, having been circumvented. But above all, it was transformed into a highly centralized war economy, almost entirely focused on military supply. Many Russians are employed in state companies focused on one goal: winning the war in Ukraine. But when the war ends, the Russian economy will actually have no competitive advantage, due to its overreliance on the oil and military sectors.
We often hear that Putin enjoys support from Russian society, how does this manifest itself in practice? How can you measure it, as a researcher?
Russia being a dictatorial society, it is difficult to rely on opinion polls, because people respond according to the expectations of those in power. However, despite this, we find interesting results.
For example, while a majority of Russians say they support the war, their enthusiasm largely diminishes when asked if they would be willing to go and fight. Additionally, a statistical analysis of last March’s presidential election results indicates an unprecedented level of falsification and fraud. This puts the real level of public support for Vladimir Putin into perspective and reveals a notable apathy within Russian society.
This is why a revolution that would come “from below” seems unlikely to me. On the other hand, a change of power could come from a coup d’état orchestrated by Russian elites who, in a moment of instability, would be led to question Putin’s ability to lead the country properly.
If Vladimir Putin were to leave power, what would be the likely scenarios?
In the paper that I wrote with Maria Snegovaya, we are considering several scenarios. The first is the radicalization scenario. It is the one that Westerners fear the most, because Vladimir Putin would be succeeded by an even more radical and irrational leader, very anti-Western, who would be ready to go as far as using nuclear weapons. Such a leader would likely emerge from the Russian security services. I am thinking, for example, of someone like Nikolai Patrushev, close to Putin, secretary of the Russian Security Council, known for his numerous diatribes against the West.
Fortunately, this scenario seems unlikely to us. History shows that when a “radical” Russian leader like Putin is in office, his successor tends to be more moderate. It is for this reason that we believe that the most likely scenario is the so-called “retrenchment scenario”. It is characterized by the “continuation” of the Putinian system without Putin, with a leader less messianic than Putin regarding the war. His priority would be to preserve the stability of the Russian regime, focusing on improving the economic situation, easing political repression and reducing international tensions.
In short, it would be a Khrushchev-style scenario, named after Stalin’s successor in 1953 who initiated the de-Stalinization of the USSR.
In your view, America’s security depends largely on Ukraine’s ability to hold on. Is US military and economic aid of $61 billion going in the right direction?
“European leaders must recognize that they cannot rely solely on American support”
Absolutely. Without this help, we would have seen major Russian breakthroughs this summer. But the fact remains that the six-month delay in granting this aid has already had visible repercussions: the Russian army has progressed and it will be difficult to reverse this situation.
The procrastination of the United States has also exposed the flaws in European support. Europe certainly has great financial power, but it does not have the military equipment nor the defense industrial base necessary to completely replace American military aid. European leaders must therefore take the events of recent months as a warning, recognizing that they cannot count solely on American support. They must build their own defense industry.
As the American elections approach, are you concerned about the continuity of this aid? What would be the consequences of Trump coming to power?
I am worried because the approved aid only lasts one year. However, in November the American presidential elections will be held. Donald Trump could be elected, or we could have a Congress with a Republican majority that would be against supporting Ukraine…
European aid is more substantial and more committed, but for the moment it is more of a financial aid, while Ukraine mainly needs military support.
In a recent interview, Donald Trump reaffirmed his desire for Europe to fulfill its end of the bargain and pay its fair share. But Europeans should be wary of Trump’s words, they should not believe that if they spend 2% of their GDP on defense, as required by NATO rules, this will guarantee support for America under Trump. He is someone who thinks in terms of transactions, he does not believe in alliances.
Europe must therefore prepare for the worst-case scenario, namely that Trump stops his military support for Ukraine and calls into question American participation in NATO.
“Vladimir Putin could attack Moldova”
You write, the future and security of countries like Moldova, Georgia, etc. also depend on the sustainability of support for Ukraine.
Absolutely, this is a risk that should not be underestimated. For a long time, Westerners believed that the Russian military had been so weakened by the war in Ukraine that it would not be able to engage in another conflict, at least for the next five to ten years.
Today we see that with the help of China, Iran and North Korea, Russia has been able to rebuild its military much faster than expected. If we find ourselves in a situation where Ukraine no longer receives support from Europe and the United States, then Vladimir Putin could, for example, attack Moldova.
Is this why the Moldovan president recently declared that the EU should develop a “Marshall Plan” for Moldova and Ukraine?
Exactly. Moldova knows full well that it could be next in line if Ukraine were to fall. By referring to the Marshall Plan (loans granted in 1948 by the United States to European countries affected by the fighting of the Second World War; Editor’s note), she says something important. Even if Ukraine wins the war, it will remain dependent on external aid to rebuild its economy and infrastructure.
.