The fragility of Putin’s regime: A view from within

The crisis facing Moscow is multidimensional, spanning military setbacks at the front, economic erosion, and growing anxiety among the political elite. While some analysts point to falling popularity polls as a sign of imminent collapse, Scherf cautions against reading too much into data generated under strict state control. Even if official polling institutes acknowledge a decline in support for the war, the Kremlin may be using this narrative to justify future shifts in policy, whether toward further escalation or a tactical exit.

Putin’s primary dilemma lies in his inability to end the conflict without securing a narrative of victory. A withdrawal would force the reintegration of battle-hardened soldiers into a fragile domestic society, a prospect the Kremlin views as an existential risk. Because the regime is built on the performance of strength, any concession to Ukrainian pressure is rejected as a sign of weakness. Consequently, the West has largely exhausted its non-military tools. Secondary sanctions, often discussed in Washington, remain diplomatically fraught and difficult to enforce without damaging the interests of the United States and its allies. Ultimately, the trajectory of the war rests on internal developments within Russia. As strikes on energy infrastructure and economic isolation persist, they contribute to a cumulative erosion of the status quo that may eventually force a decisive, if unpredictable, turning point.