What explains Russia’s resilience against sanctions and conflict?

A recent analysis by the Center for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) sheds light on the inner workings of Vladimir Putin’s system of governance, revealing why Russia has proven unexpectedly resilient in the face of unprecedented sanctions and the ongoing war in Ukraine. Often described simplistically as a “vertical of power,” Putin’s regime is more than a top-down hierarchy: it is a sophisticated blend of centralised political control and delegated economic autonomy, allowing Moscow to maintain loyalty and operational efficiency across its vast and diverse regions.

CEPA highlights that Russia’s economic resilience during the war has surprised many observers. Nearly 24,000 Western sanctions were expected to cripple Moscow, yet trade with China, India, and countries in the Global South has largely offset lost Western markets. Natural resources, from energy to raw materials, underpin these alternative trade relationships. However, the CEPA analysis makes clear that market adaptation is only part of the story; the structural organisation of Russia’s political system has been equally decisive in maintaining regime stability and supporting wartime operations.

Central to Putin’s model is the delegation of authority to regional governors. While Moscow retains ultimate decision-making power, governors manage operational responsibilities including mobilising troops, delivering social support for military families, and promoting patriotic messaging. Their political loyalty is crucial: throughout the war, no governor has openly defied the Kremlin. This loyalty is maintained through a careful balance of reward and threat—operational freedom paired with the looming risk of dismissal or criminal prosecution for failing to meet federal expectations. In August alone, 99 senior officials faced legal action, underscoring the Kremlin’s ongoing enforcement mechanisms.

CEPA emphasises that the Kremlin’s governance strategy is a marked departure from Soviet-era practices. Unlike the centralised ideological and economic control of the USSR, Putin separates political authority from economic autonomy. Governors operate within a market economy with wide latitude in regional management, as long as they deliver core political outcomes—votes for the president, support for Kremlin-backed candidates, and implementation of patriotic initiatives. This selective enforcement enables the central government to maintain uniformity where it matters while allowing flexibility in administrative operations.

The system’s resilience derives from its adaptability. By clearly defining the “red lines” for political compliance, the Kremlin delegates operational authority without risking regional insubordination. Governors inhabit what CEPA describes as a “spacious cage”: they enjoy significant freedom to manage local affairs while remaining under the watchful eye of Moscow. This arrangement has proven especially effective during wartime, enabling regions to contribute manpower, resources, and political support efficiently.

CEPA also considers potential vulnerabilities. The model could erode only if Moscow experiences sustained weakening, forcing regional authorities to pursue independent survival strategies—an outcome reminiscent of the 1990s post-Soviet fragmentation. Short of such a scenario, regional governors and Moscow share a mutual interest in preserving the status quo, ensuring stability in a system designed to weather both economic shocks and military pressures.

In sum, CEPA’s analysis reveals a paradox: Putin’s regime combines strict political centralisation with operational decentralisation, creating a flexible yet controlled system capable of sustaining prolonged conflict. The structure leverages loyalty, legal enforcement, and economic autonomy to maintain stability across one of the world’s largest and most heterogeneous countries, offering a stark lesson in modern authoritarian governance.

By Vugar Khalilov