Russia - political stability I
About the fundamental political structures in Russia: regime character and political unity.
The war in Ukraine is now a year old. For the time being there is a frontline through the regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson, where forces of The Armed Forces of Ukraine oppose the expedition from The Russian Federation. These regions, in Russian, such administrative units are named ‘oblasts,’ were annexed by Russia in 2022 hence to Russia they are now part of Russia, but to the rest of the world these oblasts are not a part of Russia. It is an enormous country, Russia, but the instability in these regions will count proportionately more in an assessment of political stability in Russia like the Caucasus did at the turn of the millennium: The whole situation in Ukraine, the war, perceived by Kremlin as an attempt from The West to weaken Russia, leaves an impact on Russian stability, not least through the political effects from the economic sanctions on the regime in Kreml. Of other sources of pressure on the political order in Russia, we the effects on social mobilization from the draft, and the cultural and economic effects of the general reorientation of Russians away from The West and more towards The Rest. In measuring Russian stability, we begin on the surface, and dig ourselves down into the core of the matter towards an evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian state in a ten-year prospect. Here in Russia - political stability I we assess the political unity and the support for the regime, by investigating its basic features: What is the glue keeping Russia together?
Concerning current political unity in Russia:
Are the masses in Russia more united or are they less united around the regime in Kremlin?
Are the elites in Kremlin more united or more fragmented?
These questions guide this preliminary probe. Political unity is very important when we assess the duration of regimes. In our perspective here, we look at mass formation and elite formation: does the population subject to the state? Does the elites subject to Putin? These are the important questions.
From empire to nation-state
Modern Russian Federation is a multinational state formed in the wake of the collapsing Soviet empire. On the vast territory designated to Russia, scores of peoples live in oblast of very different ethnic composition but nearly all with a substial ethnic Russian population. Russia was formed from The Grand Dutchy of Moscow as a princely state around 1471, where suzerainty of The Golden Horde was broken.
Map 1 Muscovy Rus territorial expansion 1300 - 1547
Soon Russia spread through a territorial state in the 18th century into an empire, ruled by ethnic Russians. At the time of the Soviet Union, Russia was an enormous land mass, where peoples were moved around by Kremlin as if they were chess pieces on a bord. Kremlin was then the center of a world empire. As the empire fell apart, Russia emerged as a nation-state in the 1990ies.
Map 2 The Russian Federation (1991 - ?) and its borders
When The Russian Federation emerged, it was very fragile and experienced an active bid for separatism in the southwestern regions At the turn of the millennium, the regime changed, and soon intra-state conflict was brought to a halt. The new political constitution was centered around the former head of the secret police Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin under the national-economic doctrine that the emerging oligarchy would give the leader of the Kremlin half of what they earned and in return he would provide them with stability to exploit the economy under the new political order of Russia. In political theoretical terms, this amounts to an autocracy with a stable oligarchic class around the king, or as the Russians like to perceive it, the Tzar. It is a strong construction if the social contract is kept in place: prosperity for loyalty. Many from the former plutocracy fled. Note that each time dissidents flee or are silenced, political unity is intensified.
The sovereignty doctrine
Besides the military doctrine and the national economic doctrine, Putin based the new regime on balancing the corruption in the Kremlin and local administrations by forming wealthy political elites out of the nomenclature for of the money passing through his office. When corruption is endemic and a regime is facing an anarcho-liberal condition, the only way to stabilize is apparently to take control of corruption by making sure that the administrative classes are only bribed by the sovereign and no one else. This creates a relatively loyal and relatively uncorruptable central administration. Putin was able to attempt this change from plutocracy and rampant corruption by means of surveillance and the regime was able to establish a managable polity. The aim was stability and administrative efficacy through loyalty by dependence. Corruption in Russia has halved throughout the reign of the current regime but corruption still persists to a substantive degree. The regime in Moscow parades a 160.000 strong riot police force that it can also lend to vassals like Belarus and Kazakhstan on demand. In Russia there is rule by law, but no way near rule of law. This has hampered economic development in St. Petersburg and Moscow where business met obstacles of state intervention through the legal system. The public order is also marked by the legal order. Protest is scarce. Political unity is upheld through deterring opposition. It is important to understand, that those who remember how it was before, are very happy to have escaped the political conditions of the 1980ies and 1990ies.
Political unity amongst the Russians
In The Russian Federation the ideology of unity is basically nationalistic. Here the history of Russia plays a large role. Russia is a distinct cultural order, with a deeply penetrating folklore, great artists, composers, and men of letters. Economically, Russia controls an abundancy of resources. The sources of national pride are legion. Just look at the sheer size of this country. Its political myth is fabulous. Its national epic of vast proportions: A tale of hardship and pressure from western strongmen like Napoleon and Hitler dominates recorded history, where Russia prevails in even the most extreme assaults on its territory by western powers. Internally, ethno-political tensions are the order of the day, but under the current regime, not much seems to be won by protest and separatism. Russia is home to around 200 ethnic groups. 75+% are considered ethnic Russians, but how exactly to demarcate the learned will debate; note in the map that it is stressed that Ukrainians are the second largest ethnic group in Russia followed by Tartars, by seeking to separate Russian and Ukrainian ethnicity inside Russia. More than 10 million are refugees from former Soviet States amongst them around 1,1 million Armenians.
Map 3 Ethnic dominance by oblast.
Note that the current war in Ukraine is fought against a specific ultra-nationalistic elite in Kiev, constructed by the Russians as national socialist and sought placed on the side of the pre-WWII German regime. Russia has a clear appointed enemy as reference to its own national unity hence despite ethno-political diversity. Weshall return to this aspect of political stability later, but the idea of there being the potential for socio-political turmoil in Russia today is a pipe dream until there is a fundamental destabilization of the current regime. And a change of guard within the regime is much more likely than a change of regime. With a firm grip on the public order and public discourse the regime is ready to develop its institutionalization of mass formation, thus strengthening political unity. Lately, a limited mobilization to the armed forces, led some, especially young men, to flee. Here, the demarcation between patriotism and individualism bolster political unity since The Ukraine Question is considered an existential question in Russian public discourse, and dissidents fleeing only strengthens political unity. In this way, the war can lead to a new national revival and a new tale about the positioning of the Russian polity in the world.
Political unity amongst elites
The people love their tzar. Putin is very popular and demands 60+% loyalty from the electorate. A fast breakdown of the 60% would be that 25% do not care much about the political, 25% will believe anything Kremlin says through the state run media, and 10% would argue that what Putin does is the clever policy for Russia in the long run. Russia is a very new country and nationalism may display chauvinistic tendencies but be ready for these Russians knowing quite a bit about what is going on and that they have few illusions about how things are done. In Russia, 40 % of the electorate is reserved in their enthusiasm but by and large quiet about it. Putin and his regime are heralded for stability and economic prosperity as well as not lying flat on the tummy for NATO, that since the bombing of Serbia has been understood by most Russians as a chauvinistic western project directed against Russia and the Slavic culture. NATO has certainly played its role in sustaining that image, which is used in Kremlin to legitimate interventions in its near abroad by reference to Western influences. An autocracy like this, where the oligarchs are bought, elite consensus is very strong. The fragility of the regime is that it is very dependent on one man. Replacing the current leadership in Kremlin would not be easy and a primitive junta type replacement would most likely mean disaster for political unity.
Prospect
Fragmentation of Russia would have devastating consequences for global political stability. It seems to be the goal of NATO to destabilize Russia by exhaustion hence political stability of Russia is an issue in the Global Polity. Russian political unity seems to be intact albeit the attack on the Russian economic order. More on that in the following post: Political Stability - Russia II.