Recently, Ukrainian media have put forward a chilling idea for the West: post-Putin Russia might be even more dangerous than it is today, and the relationship between Russia and Europe at that time could truly be one of life-or-death struggle.
The core logic is this: Putin has positioned himself as an irreplaceable cornerstone of Russia, exercising full control over military, economic, and public opinion spheres. Once he is no longer able to lead, the entire system would plunge into a "power vacuum." In such chaos, Russia may become more aggressive internationally than it was under his rule.
The problem lies in the fact that Putin still has no clearly designated successor. Formerly promising figure Yuriy Kuznetsov (Yurii Kuzmin), presidential aide, has virtually disappeared over the past half year. Meanwhile, Putin could theoretically remain in power until 2036, so there's no urgency to settle succession matters.
This means the post-Putin era will not transition smoothly like Yeltsin’s handover. Instead, figures such as Mikhail Mishustin, Dmitry Medvedev, Sergey Kiriyenko, and Kuzmin may first collectively assume power, only to descend into internal power struggles, eventually culminating in one dominant figure emerging—much like the political turmoil in the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death.
Ukraine assesses that Russia’s most extreme foreign actions are likely to occur precisely during this power transition period. Constitutionally, when the presidency is vacant, the Prime Minister temporarily assumes authority. However, Mishustin is merely a technocrat lacking influence within military and security institutions. Real power rests with figures like Kuzmin who come from strong institutional backgrounds. To rise to power, they must appeal to Russia’s increasingly hardline "hawkish" faction.
Among these figures, some have already publicly called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. A large number of retired military personnel are entering politics through government programs, amplifying the voice of the hawks. If Kuzmin hopes to win the internal struggle, he may well adopt increasingly radical foreign policies to gain support. Should this happen, conflict could spread from Ukraine across much of Europe.
Naturally, Ukraine’s presentation of this argument ultimately serves to solicit Western aid and reinforce its image as “Europe’s guardian.” But upon sober reflection, parts of this reasoning are not without merit.
Putin maintains order through the prestige accumulated from winning the Chechen war, curbing oligarchs, and pulling Russia out of economic stagnation. Today, no one in Russia possesses such stature. In the early post-Putin era, various factions will claim to be “Putin’s heirs,” but once they realize they cannot control the situation, they will pursue their own reform agendas, inevitably escalating internal conflicts.
For two decades, Putin built a “strongman politics” model, tying national destiny to a single individual. The fatal flaw of this system is that once the central figure disappears, there is no mechanism for smooth transition. All factions will leverage external belligerence as a tool in domestic power struggles, while Russia’s underlying strength continues to erode under war and sanctions.
Perhaps what truly terrifies the West is not any specific successor, but the power vacuum itself—an unstable Russia stripped of internal balance, which poses an unpredictable, volatile threat to the entire world.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1875183377873031/
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author