What Comes After Putin: The Shape of Russia’s Next Leader

Thursday 5 February 2026

The question of who might succeed Vladimir Putin as President of Russia is not merely an academic exercise for foreign policy specialists. It is central to understanding how the Kremlin may evolve, how the war against Ukraine could unfold in future years and how the post-Putin order might be consolidated internally within the Russian Federation. For more than a quarter of a century Putin has shaped the Russian state around his own personality, instincts and worldview. That concentration of authority makes succession both unavoidable and deeply destabilising.

Putin himself has publicly acknowledged that he regularly considers the issue of succession and keeps a mental list of potential successors. This admission is revealing. It reflects both an awareness of political mortality and an attempt to manage elite expectations in advance. In a system where power has been personalised to such an extent, the question of who comes next is inseparable from the question of how the regime itself survives.

The Conservative Continuation

The most plausible outcome, at least in the short to medium term, is a conservative successor drawn from within the existing elite who would preserve the core features of Putin’s system. Contemporary Russia is governed by a narrow circle of loyalists, many of whom have backgrounds in the security and intelligence services. These figures owe their influence to personal trust rather than to popular legitimacy, and they share a common interest in regime continuity.

In this context figures such as Andrei Belousov, recently elevated to the position of defence minister, illustrate the type of leadership likely to be acceptable to the Kremlin’s inner circle. Similarly Alexei Dyumin, a former bodyguard and intelligence officer with close personal ties to Putin, is frequently cited in analytical circles as a plausible heir. These names matter less as individuals than as representatives of a broader pattern: a successor chosen for loyalty, discretion and an instinctive understanding of elite power balances.

Such a leader would be expected to prioritise regime stability, internal control and resistance to perceived Western encroachment. Structural reform would be limited, not least because meaningful reform would threaten the interests of those whose support the successor would need most.

The Technocratic Administrator

Another possible, and not incompatible, outcome is the emergence of a technocratic president. This would not represent a break with authoritarian governance, but rather a shift in tone and emphasis. A figure such as Mikhail Mishustin, Russia’s current prime minister, exemplifies this model. Mishustin has built a reputation as a capable administrator, focused on fiscal management, taxation systems and bureaucratic efficiency, while remaining politically unthreatening to the Kremlin’s security establishment.

A technocratic successor might appeal to business elites and regional administrators seeking predictability amidst sanctions, labour shortages and the economic strain of prolonged war. Such a leader would likely avoid ideological grandstanding in favour of pragmatic problem-solving. However technocracy in Russia does not equate to political liberalisation. Any such president would still operate within tightly constrained parameters set by the security services and the presidential administration.

Collective Leadership and Elite Compromise

A further scenario, often underestimated in public discourse, is the emergence of a form of collective leadership. Authoritarian systems with weak institutional succession mechanisms frequently respond to leadership transitions through elite bargaining rather than decisive handovers. In Russia’s case, this could take the form of an informal council comprising senior figures from the security services, the defence establishment and the presidential administration, as happened after the death of Stalin in the Soviet Union.

Under such an arrangement the presidency might become less dominant than under Putin, with real power dispersed amongst competing factions. This would echo aspects of late Soviet governance, where formal authority masked complex internal negotiations. Collective leadership would reduce the risk of any single figure accumulating overwhelming power, but it would also make policy direction more cautious and internally focused.

The Reformist and the Conditions for Rupture

The emergence of a genuine reformist successor remains the least likely outcome under current conditions. Figures such as Alexei Navalny symbolised an alternative political future based on accountability, anti-corruption and civic mobilisation. Yet the systematic repression of opposition movements has ensured that such leadership remains excluded from meaningful power.

For a reformist to assume office Russia would require a profound political rupture, whether triggered by military defeat, economic collapse or internal elite fragmentation. Such moments are historically possible, but they cannot be assumed. Even then, the transition would be turbulent, and the legacy of the security state would remain difficult to dismantle.

Implications for Russia and Ukraine

The nature of Putin’s successor will have profound consequences for both Russia and Ukraine. A conservative or collective leadership is likely to preserve the Kremlin’s confrontational posture, even if the tactics evolve. A technocrat might seek to stabilise Russia’s international position without openly repudiating the ideological foundations of the war. Only a reformist leadership would plausibly pursue a fundamental reassessment of Russia’s relationship with Ukraine and the wider international order.

Ultimately succession in Russia is less about personalities than about structures. The absence of transparent institutions, competitive politics and independent courts means that leadership change will be negotiated amongst elites rather than decided by society. Until that changes, the figure who follows Putin is likely to be shaped by the system he created, rather than to be its undoing.