Assessing the strength and stability of the Russian regime

Too weak to thrive, too strong to fall?

Throughout modern history, Russia has appeared stable – right until the moment of sudden collapse. Due to its strongly centralised system of government and cohesion among the elites, the political stability of the Russian Federation relies to a large extent on the heartbeat of a single 73-year-old and the ability of elites to adapt to new challenges and situations. Should Vladimir Putin suddenly pass away, or a significant rift appear among the elites, what happens next remains dangerously opaque. 

Since the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the urgency of understanding this uncertainty has gained even more prominence. As Russian relations with the EU have deteriorated, Russia is now increasingly seen as a security threat to the rest of Europe. Understanding the internal and external drivers of the strength and stability of the Russian regime is therefore crucial to assessing the exact nature of this threat. 

As such, this report aims to provide policymakers with a structured way of considering the developments related to the Russian regime’s stability, and thus inform their Russia strategies. In doing so, it draws on Clingendael Institute’s model of 22 influencing factors, which were scored and ranked by an expert group. The findings are informed by an in-depth discussion with that group and a review of recent developments and relevant literature. 

As of August-September 2025, the expert group assessed the overall strength and stability of the Russian regime to be a 7.3 out of 10, indicating that it is not fully stable but is likely in the near future to be still able to continue functioning and resist most shocks to the system. This relative stability results from the following developments:

 

 

 

 

Russia Stability Index

7.35/10

The overall domestic stability of the Russian Federation according to the Russia Watch group, where the lowest score represents an extremely unstable country facing imminent collapse, and the highest score an extremely stable country that is able to withstand significant shocks

Regime Trajectory: Too weak to thrive, too strong to fall?

Domestic Politics

The Kremlin has successfully consolidated the domestic political landscape, in a system still characterised by highly centralised and personalistic features, in which the position of President Putin is key. The space for organised opposition has nearly disappeared, and any movement towards large-scale protests and instability would more likely be a consequence of regime change rather than its cause. The Kremlin’s gradual shifting of power and autonomy away from the regions towards Moscow over the past decades has resulted in a highly uneven relationship of (financial) dependency between not only the regions and Moscow, but also their governors and mayors, on the one hand, and the Kremlin on the other. There are currently no major signs of, or potential openings for, significant instability originating from the regions.

Factor

Importance

Trend

Vladimir Putin’s position and health

▲

 

90.4% of Russia Watch survey respondents rated this factor as highly important.

Constant to Strengthening

Respondents describe the recent influence of this factor as constant (47.6%) or strengthening (42.7%) for the regime.

Importance 90.4% of Russia Watch survey respondents rated this factor as highly important.

Trend Respondents describe the recent influence of this factor as constant (47.6%) or strengthening (42.7%) for the regime.

Elite cohesion

●

 

This is rated as a high-importance factor by 80.1% of respondents.

Constant

Its recent influence on the regime is viewed as constant by 61.9% of the survey respondents.

Importance This is rated as a high-importance factor by 80.1% of respondents.

Trend Its recent influence on the regime is viewed as constant by 61.9% of the survey respondents.

Presence (or lack thereof) & organisational capacity of the opposition

▲

 

78.4% deem this factor to be of little significance.

Strengthening

The influence of this factor on the regime is perceived as strengthening by 62.9% of the group, due to the absence of an effective opposition.

Importance 78.4% deem this factor to be of little significance.

Trend The influence of this factor on the regime is perceived as strengthening by 62.9% of the group.

Relations between federal and regional authorities

●

 

Opinions on the importance of this factor are divided: 42.9% see a low impact, whereas the remainder range from medium (33.3%) to high (23.8%).

Constant

61.9% describe the recent influence on the Russian regime as constant.

Importance Opinions on the importance of this factor are divided: 42.9% see a low impact.

Trend 61.9% describe the recent influence on the Russian regime as constant.

Repressive capacity of the state towards dissent

▲

 

This is considered a high-importance factor by 85.7% of respondents.

Strengthening

Recently, 61.9% of the group have observed a strengthening influence on the regime.

Importance This is considered a high-importance factor by 85.7% of respondents.

Trend Recently, 61.9% of the group have observed a strengthening influence on the regime.

Society

Moods within Russian society remain difficult to assess due to the highly limited nature of the public debate and the criminalisation of opinions that are anti-war or critical of the government. Nevertheless, based on the limited sources, signals, and information available, it can generally be posited that while Russians are not taking to the streets against their government, their support of that government can also be questioned. The general attitude can be described as that of passive acquiescence or apathy, with the occasional outburst of criticism that mostly touches on concrete, local, often non-political issues like deforestation and public transport issues. Occasional outbursts of dissent are possible but are few and far between. For now, a real challenge to the Kremlin is not expected to come from below. Polls show that potential inter-ethnic conflict in Russia constitutes a present cause for concern with many Russians, but this was not assessed as a realistic cause for instability by our group of experts.

Factor

Importance

Trend

Public support for the regime

▲

 

Respondents rate this factor’s importance as high (42.9% of responses) to medium (42.9%).

Constant to Strengthening

The recent influence of this factor is seen as constant (47.6%) or strengthening (42.9%).

Importance Respondents rate this factor’s importance as high (42.9% of responses) to medium (42.9%).

Trend The recent influence of this factor is seen as constant (47.6%) or strengthening (42.9%).

(Un)willingness to protest among the population

▼

 

Opinions on its importance lack consensus, leaning primarily toward medium (42.9% of responses).

Weakening

There is no consensus on its recent influence either, although 42.8% of the respondents view it as weakening.

Importance Opinions on its importance lack consensus, leaning primarily toward medium.

Trend There is no consensus on its recent influence either, although 42.8% of the respondents view it as weakening.

Kremlin control over information

▲

 

A high importance factor (90.5% of respondents).

Strengthening

A strengthening (52.4%) to constant (42.9%) influence on the Russian regime recently.

Importance A high importance factor (90.5% of respondents).

Trend A strengthening (52.4%) to constant (42.9%) influence on the Russian regime recently.

Perception of state capacity to deal with challenges

▲

 

This factor is classified as having medium (52.4%) to high (42.9%) importance.

Constant to Strengthening

Although 52.4% of respondents perceive its recent influence on the strength of the regime as constant, views diverge, with 28.6% seeing it as strengthening.

Importance This factor is classified as having medium (52.4%) to high (42.9%) importance.

Trend Although 52.4% of respondents perceive its recent influence on the strength of the regime as constant, views diverge.

Inter-ethnic tensions

●

 

61.9% deem this factor to be of low importance.

Constant

A majority (61.6% of respondents) characterize the recent influence of this factor as constant.

Importance 61.9% deem this factor to be of low importance.

Trend A majority (61.6% of respondents) characterize the recent influence of this factor as constant.

Economy

Russia’s economy proved far more resilient than either the West or Moscow itself had anticipated. The budgetary situation and the resilience of the fossil fuel sector are particularly important for maintaining the political and economic stability of the Russian Federation and the Putin regime. Nevertheless, economic growth has slowed down sharply in 2025 and for the first time since 2022, the economy is at risk of falling into a recession. While there are no concrete signs that the Russian economy is facing an impending collapse, the likelihood of an economic and financial crisis is increasing.

Factor

Importance

Trend

Budgetary situation of the state

▼

 

A large majority (80.9% of the group) consider this to be a high importance factor.

Weakening to Constant

Its recent influence on the regime is characterized as weakening (47.7%) to constant (33.3%).

Importance A large majority (80.9% of the group) consider this to be a high importance factor.

Trend Its recent influence on the regime is characterized as weakening (47.7%) to constant (33.3%).

Resilience of the fossil fuel sector

~

 

This is rated as highly important by a substantial majority (90.5%) of the survey respondents.

Mixed Trend

There is no consensus on its recent influence on the Putin regime, with views split between weakening (47.7%) and strengthening (33.4%).

Importance This is rated as highly important by a substantial majority (90.5%) of the survey respondents.

Trend No consensus on its recent influence on the Putin regime, with views split between weakening (47.7%) and strengthening (33.4%).

Living standards

▲

 

While there is no consensus, 47.6% rate the importance of this factor as medium.

Constant to Strengthening

Views on the recent influence of this factor range from constant (52.4% of respondents) to strengthening (33.4%).

Importance While there is no consensus, 47.6% rate the importance of this factor as medium.

Trend Views on the recent influence of this factor range from constant (52.4%) to strengthening (33.4%).

State of the banking system

▼

 

Among the respondents, 57.1% identify this as a factor of high importance.

Weakening to Constant

Its recent influence is seen as weakening by 42.9% of the group and 38.1% describe it as constant.

Importance Among the respondents, 57.1% identify this as a factor of high importance.

Trend Its recent influence is seen as weakening by 42.9% of the group and 38.1% describe it as constant.

Western economic sanctions

▼

 

Consensus on their importance is absent, ranging from low (38.1%) to high (19%) according to the expert group.

Weakening to Constant

Their recent influence is described as weakening (by 47.6% of respondents) or constant (38.1%) in the expert survey.

Importance Consensus on their importance is absent, ranging from low (38.1%) to high (19%) according to the expert group.

Trend Their recent influence is described as weakening (by 47.6%) or constant (38.1%) in the expert survey.

International Relations

Amongst Russia’s international relations, China is by far its most important partner under the current geopolitical circumstances. That relationship is nonetheless highly unequal, considering the sizes of the two economies and the power balance in the relationship skewing towards China. Russia’s dealings with the US, another important relationship, have been much more volatile, ranging between apparent mutual understanding and hostile rhetoric and acts. Relations with the EU, a low importance factor according to our expert group, have remained hostile. Russia has maintained active working relationships across Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and manages to convince countries across the world of its positions vis-à-vis Ukraine. It is in large partly thanks to these relationships that the Russian Federation is not as internationally isolated as Western observers and policy makers initially had hoped for. The war in Ukraine is an exceedingly important factor for the strength and stability of the Putin regime. In the second half of 2025, Russia still has the initiative on the battlefield – albeit at a slow pace. The Russian armed forces have adapted since the outbreak of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, to what has become a positional war of attrition.

Factor

Importance

Trend

Russia’s relations with China

▲

 

A large majority (85.7%) consider this factor as being of high importance.

Strengthening

80.9% see a strengthening influence on the Russian regime recently.

Importance A large majority (85.7%) consider this factor as being of high importance.

Trend 80.9% see a strengthening influence on the Russian regime recently.

Russia’s relations with the United States

▲

 

This is regarded as a high-importance factor by 45.7% of the respondents.

Strengthening

The recent influence of this factor on the regime is viewed as strengthening by 57.2%.

Importance This is regarded as a high-importance factor by 45.7% of the respondents.

Trend The recent influence of this factor on the regime is viewed as strengthening by 57.2%.

Russia’s relations with the European Union

▼

 

66.7% rate this as a factor of low importance.

Constant to Weakening

The influence of this factor is seen as constant (52.4%) to weakening (47.6%) in the expert survey.

Importance 66.7% rate this as a factor of low importance.

Trend The influence of this factor is seen as constant (52.4%) to weakening (47.6%) in the expert survey.

Russia’s relations with the rest of the world

▲

 

This is primarily a medium-importance factor (61.9%).

Strengthening to Constant

Respondents describe the influence as strengthening (47.6% of respondents) or constant (42.9%).

Importance This is primarily a medium-importance factor (61.9%).

Trend Respondents describe the influence as strengthening (47.6% of respondents) or constant (42.9%).

Developments in the war in Ukraine

▲

 

71.4% assign high importance to this factor.

Strengthening to Constant

The influence of this factor is perceived as strengthening (42.8% of the group) to constant (38,1%).

Importance 71.4% assign high importance to this factor.

Trend The influence of this factor is perceived as strengthening (42.8% of the group) to constant (38,1%).

Security & Defence

Finally, on security and defence, the way the war of aggression against Ukraine will end is both highly uncertain and of crucial importance for Russia’s future stability. Its domestic industry is producing at maximum capacity for the war effort (except for drones) which enables the armed forces to continue a war of attrition for now. The state security apparatus is not exhibiting any significant cracks and remains under full Kremlin control despite internal shifts – including some high-level arrests and replacements. Unsurprisingly, no alternative security actors and leaders have emerged to challenge the Kremlin.

Factor

Importance

Trend

Performance of the armed forces in Ukraine

●

 

The importance of this factor is rated as high (47.6%) to medium (42.9%).

Constant

Its recent influence lacks consensus but is primarily seen as constant (38.1%).

Importance The importance of this factor is rated as high (47.6%) to medium (42.9%).

Trend Its recent influence lacks consensus but is primarily seen as constant (38.1%).

Kremlin control over the state security apparatus

▲

 

This is unanimously rated as a high-importance factor (100%).

Strengthening to Constant

Views on its recent influence extend from strengthening (53.4% of the group) to constant (47.6%).

Importance This is unanimously rated as a high-importance factor (100%).

Trend Views on its recent influence extend from strengthening (53.4%) to constant (47.6%).

Emergence and loyalty of alternative security actors

●

 

A solid 61.9% of survey respondents rate this factor as highly important.

Constant

Recently, 61.9% have observed a constant influence on the regime.

Importance A solid 61.9% of survey respondents rate this factor as highly important.

Trend Recently, 61.9% have observed a constant influence on the regime.

The authors would like to thank all those who contributed to this study by filling out the Russia Watch expert survey, with the following contributors explicitly consenting to have their names listed: Joris Van Bladel (Egmont Institute), Tom Casier (University of Groningen), Samuel Charap (RAND), Maxine David (Leiden University), Sabine Fischer (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik; SWP), Mark Galeotti (Mayak Intelligence), Pavel Havlicek (Association for International Affairs), Sijbren de Jong (NATO SHAPE), Stefan Meister (German Council on Foreign Relations; DGAP), Alexandra Prokopenko (Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center), Tony van der Togt (Clingendael), and Laura Vansina (Vrije Universiteit Brussel).