An eerie calm: The fragile equilibrium of Putin’s Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s long-standing domestic calm, skillfully engineered over 25 years in power, is now under mounting strain. As noted by Foreign Affairs, initially crafted through a blend of economic incentives, ideological nationalism, and selective repression, this “eerie calm” insulated most Russians from political risk and foreign policy entanglements.

But the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 threatens to unravel that internal balance, forcing Putin to choose between sustaining domestic stability and pursuing geopolitical ambitions.

The domestic equilibrium, rooted in material comfort and low political expectations, enabled Putin to cultivate passive public consent.

His consolidation of power began early: oligarchs were subordinated to the state, independent media weakened, and elections hollowed out. Yet, rather than a Stalinist terror state, Putin built a "representative autocracy," where selective punishment of dissenters sent signals to the wider public while sparing them from broad coercion—unless they became visibly oppositional.

Patriotism surged after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, but it required no significant sacrifice. By 2022, Putin had perfected his dual strategy: assertiveness abroad and minimal disruption at home. Economic opportunity in war-related industries and record-low unemployment softened the blow of sanctions. Most Russians could remain apolitical as long as they avoided overt dissent.

However, this model was predicated on short, successful conflicts. The Ukraine war has become a prolonged quagmire. With the war nearing its fourth year, Russia is spending heavily with limited returns.

Strategic positions in the Middle East and South Caucasus have weakened, and China’s support remains transactional, not transformative. Meanwhile, Ukraine's resilience, Western unity, and new military aid—especially following Trump’s reversal—suggest that Russia faces a well-resourced, determined adversary.

Internally, pressures are building. Economic stagnation, high inflation, and looming recession chip away at the prosperity that underpinned Putin’s social contract. A mutiny by Wagner chief Yevgeny Prigozhin in 2023 exposed cracks within the military elite. Should dissatisfaction spread among veterans or military families, Putin could face serious legitimacy challenges.

The Russian elite, while loyal on the surface, may harbor growing doubts. Although overt rebellion seems unlikely, calls for a more measured foreign policy could surface, especially if the war continues to drain resources and prestige. To pre-empt such risks, Putin may abandon his careful balancing act, opting instead for open authoritarianism.

If pushed to the brink, Putin could escalate to mass mobilization and intensified repression—waging not only a “fanatic’s war” abroad but embracing a full-scale dictatorship at home. The infrastructure for this exists: media control, security services, and a pliant judiciary. But such a shift would destroy the relative autonomy and quiet prosperity many Russians currently enjoy, marking a dramatic transformation of Putin’s regime from tacit autocracy to overt tyranny.

In conclusion, the eerie calm that once defined Putin’s Russia is no longer sustainable. The war in Ukraine has become both the fulcrum of his foreign policy and the fault line of his domestic order. As the Kremlin tightens its grip to avoid defeat, it may shatter the very stability it once so carefully constructed.

By Aghakazim Guliyev