After the adoption of the constitutional changes in Russia in 2020 the issue concerning who would be Vladimir Putin’s successor was seemingly disarmed as he could now legally stay on in office until 2036. However, the full-scale invasion launched against Ukraine in February 2022 has increased the need for studying the issue, as the war has come to be so closely associated with Putin personally. This article discusses how official Russian discourse, as mirrored through the presidential website kremlin.ru, has dealt with the issue of presidential succession during Putin’s fourth term in office (2018–24), and how the subject has been taken off the public agenda during this time. The argument is that the silence on the matter is indicative and intentional. The regime acts as if Putin’s continued incumbency is taken for granted and accepted as legitimate by default by the public. In Weberian terms, the regime has shifted from relying on charismatic and legal-rational legitimation to claim instead what can be described as neo-traditional legitimacy.

As was the case with other federal states, Russia’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic was decentralized and devolved responsibility toregional governors. Contrary to the common highly centralized governance in Russia, this approach is thought to have helped insulate the government from criticism. Using local research and analysis based on a national representative survey carried out at the height of the pandemic during the summer of 2021, the article charts the public response to the pandemic across Russia. It examines the regionalization of the response, with an in-depth focus on two of the Russian cities with the highest infection rates but differing responses to the pandemic: St. Petersburg and Petrozavodsk. There are two main findings: at one level, the diffusion of responsibility meant little distinction was made between the different levels of government by the population; at another level, approval of the pandemic measures was tied strongly to trust levels in central and regional government.

Fallacies and wishful thinking: on Russia studies, Putin, and the lead-up to the warWhen President Putin over the years repeatedly raged and ranted about how Russia had been deceived by the West over NATO’s eastward expansion, how Ukraine’s rightful president allegedly had been illegally overthrown in a coup instigated by the West, and how these actions had the hidden purpose of bringing destruction and devastation to Russia, few were inclined to believe that he was not just repeat-ing a mantra, but actually believed in what he said and prescribed a program of action. This essay provides a background to the steady growth of the authoritar-ian essence of the Putin regime and its growing ambitions beyond Russia’s borders and discusses what academic area studies specialists in the West and other Russia pundits generally should have been able to foresee about Russia’s aggressiveness and its upcoming assault on Ukraine. Perhaps the current situation could have been avoided, had there been a greater inclination to bring together the clues that were there and take preventive action to meet the danger

Vladimir Putin’s power position has long been sustained by the successful communication of major political myths and his acclaimed role in them. This chapter discusses such myths to assess whether they are still useful for the regime as tools of legitimation after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, launched on February 24, 2022, and Russia’s lack of success on the battlefield thereafter. I introduce the distinction between overarching master myths and more supplementary myths, arguing that the master myths about Russia’s pre-determined great power status, Russia as a phoenix rising from the rubbles of another Time of Troubles, and Russia as a bulwark against the evil West retain their relevance and are ruthlessly exploited by the regime. Several supplementary myths have most likely had their credibility reduced. However, unless the master myths are affected, the regime is not likely to face a major loss of legitimacy among the population at large.