After Putin: Continuity or Collapse in Russian Geopolitics

Few modern leaders have changed their country’s image as much as Vladimir Putin. Since he came to power in the late 1990s, he has represented Russia’s return to global strength: assertive, defiant, and firmly opposed to Western influence. For over twenty years, Putin has been more than just a president; he has embodied the Russian state itself. Now, as his time in power enters its third decade, a critical question arises: what will happen to Russia when Putin is no longer in charge?

To find the answer, one must look beyond Putin and consider the forces that shaped him. Russia’s geopolitical behaviour did not start with him, and it probably will not end with him. The country’s vast geography, long history of invasions, and ongoing sense of insecurity have always pushed its leaders to seek control over their environment. From the tsars to the Soviet Union, the belief that Russia must dominate its region to survive has been a recurring theme. Even after the Soviet Union fell apart, that strategic instinct remained.

Putin’s rise was more a revival than a revolution. When he took office in 1999, Russia was demoralized and economically weak. He promised stability, order, and the restoration of national pride. He delivered just enough of each to rebuild the state’s authority. He centralized political power, reasserted state control over key industries, and revived the idea that Russia was destined to be a great power again. His message was simple but impactful: only strength could ensure survival and a prosperous life. For many Russians who had lived through the chaos of the 1990s, that promise was hard to resist.

Over time, Putin turned this promise into a framework that combined domestic control with foreign ambition. His rule relies on three main ideas: a strong centralized state, an economy based on natural resources, and the use of external conflict to create internal unity. This has led to what many call Putinism, a mix of nationalism, security-state authoritarianism, and managed capitalism. This model keeps Russia stable but also ensures that its politics centre around one man.

Even if Putin were to disappear tomorrow, the structures he created would remain. The institutions that uphold his power, such as the military, the intelligence services, and the political bureaucracy, are all deeply entrenched. They have become part of the Russian state’s functioning. In this way, Putin is more of a product of the system than its creator.

Thinking about a post-Putin Russia leads to several possible outcomes. The most probable scenario is a carefully managed succession in which a loyal individual from the current elite takes over. Such a transition would maintain continuity while permitting minor shifts in tone and approach. A successor might adopt a softer stance toward the West, but the fundamental logic of Russian geopolitics—suspicion of NATO, desire for influence over neighboring countries, and the pursuit of a multipolar world—would stay the same.

A less orderly transition could occur if competing factions within the Kremlin vie for power. This would create uncertainty, but most elites still have a strong interest in keeping the current system intact. The likelihood of a dramatic shift in foreign policy is slim. The most extreme scenario, a complete breakdown of central authority, remains unlikely. Russia’s political system is designed to prevent collapse, and memories of the Soviet Union’s fall weigh heavily on those in power.

Regardless of what happens, Russia’s long-term geopolitical instincts will not easily change. Geography, history, and identity hold significant influence. Future leaders might prefer subtler strategies like cyber influence, energy diplomacy, or closer ties with non-Western partners, but the core priorities will persist. Russia will continue seeking security through control, legitimacy through strength, and respect through resistance to the West.

Speculating about life after Putin raises the question of whether one man can define an entire nation. In many ways, Putin has represented the Russian state, but he has also been shaped by it. His rule reflects the lasting characteristics of Russian power: a centralized system, deep distrust of outsiders, and an unyielding desire to be acknowledged as a great power.

If he were to step down tomorrow, Russia might adjust its tone, but not its direction. The person at the top would change, but the mindset underneath would stay the same. Putin may eventually leave the political scene, yet the forces that brought him there; fear, pride, and the pursuit of strength, are likely to endure. In that sense, Russia after Putin may not signal a new beginning, but rather a continuation of an old story, just told in a slightly different way.