

As Putin’s successor, Medvedev operates within the inherited, clannish framework of “overmanaged democracy”, while Putin retains significant influence, now as a prime minister. The emergence of a second power center creates further uncertainty in a political system that faces inevitable change, driven by the myriad of social and economic challenges the country faces. Of particular importance is the strengthening and modernization of Russia’s weakened institutions.
Current economic, social and political conditions are more likely to push Russian voters toward opposition candidates than United Russia’s candidates, with potentially significant ramifications for the ruling party.
The wildfires and heat wave that recently ravaged central Russia brought climate change to the forefront of the country’s domestic agenda and provide the Kremlin with an opportunity to prove its commitment to energy efficiency as well as economic modernization.
The Kremlin’s decision not to nominate Kaliningrad Governor Georgy Boos to serve a second term was a response to large scale popular demonstrations and the complaints of the opposition.
Relations between the state, business and society in Russia are fragmented. Interconnected, three-way dialogues between these three groups are practically nonexistent.
While Russia’s short-term economy will largely depend on oil prices and the country’s demographic challenges, its medium-to-long-term outlook will be influenced by the lessons that leaders take from the crisis, which will affect Russia’s economic structure and policies for many years to come.
While autocratic governments that incorporate elements of democracy may be stable in the short term, such systems cannot be sustained in the long term. In Russia’s case, the system is unlikely to survive Putin himself.