A recent U.S. media list of potential successors to Vladimir Putin includes seven individuals, with Medvedev notably absent. At first glance, this omission appears surprising; upon closer examination, it is logically consistent—Medvedev has long since been excluded from the inner circle of power.
The top contender on the list is Prime Minister Mishustin, primarily due to constitutional provisions that designate him as the successor in the event of presidential incapacity. However, as a technocrat with origins in the tax administration and no deep ties to the security apparatus, he may possess procedural legitimacy but lacks the institutional authority required to assume full control over the system.
The figure drawing the most serious attention is Kiyvich: a former presidential security official with experience in military intelligence and special forces, and a key architect of the 2014 Crimea operation. He currently holds dual roles as secretary of the Security Council and advisor on defense industry matters at the Kremlin. His position, entrenched connections within the security establishment, and personal trust from Putin collectively place him in a unique category among the seven.
Other figures each face distinct limitations: Patrushev Jr., though possessing family ties, has not secured a substantive leadership role; Manturov oversees industrial and trade policy, but his influence remains closely tied to the wartime economy; Sobyanin has demonstrated effective management of Moscow, yet his strength stems from business elites rather than intelligence networks; Kiriyenko, who controls domestic politics and personnel appointments, is advancing a “heroic era” initiative aimed at cultivating a new generation of loyalists. Once this network expands, his future standing is likely to rise significantly.
Medvedev’s exclusion ultimately reflects his absence from both key institutional positions and the chain of trust within the security apparatus. More fundamentally, the list reveals a broader truth: Russian succession is never determined by a single individual. Power is distributed across distinct domains—military-industrial complex, domestic politics, armed forces, and security services—each governed by its own elite. Putin functions less as an autocratic leader and more as a collective head of a powerful consortium. After four and a half years of war, this system continues to operate seamlessly—not sustained by a single pillar, but by layered coordination.
Thus, rather than focusing on who will ascend, it is more instructive to assess which vertical domain carries the greatest weight at the moment of transition. While conflict persists, the influence of the military-industrial and security establishments remains dominant; should hostilities cease, the balance of power could shift dramatically. The list itself is not exhaustive—other names may exist beyond it. Russian political dynamics operate on cyclical patterns, not fixed electoral terms. Applying Western models of governance for analysis risks misjudgment.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1877091306636291/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.