The official answer to the question of why the European Union does not talk about what will happen the day after Vladimir Putin is that his sanctions do not seek regime change, but to suffocate his economy and stop the war. Russian activists and opponents suspect, however, that there is something more at play, such as a lack of faith in their country’s ability to adopt a democratic system or a fear that any change will lead to chaos.
Convincing the EU and, in addition, strengthening democratic forces in the country and in exile was the aim of the two-day conference organized last week by the European Union, the largest and most diverse meeting of those held so far by opponents, civil society representatives and Russian pro-democracy activists. “We all agree that change will only be possible when Putin leaves power,” began economist Sergei Aleksejenko, a member of the Committee against the War. Defeat in Ukraine may or may not trigger it, but we know people die suddenly. We don’t know when it will happen, but one day Putin will be gone and we have to prepare for when it happens. We have the advantage that those who are close to him cannot have this conversation because they are being watched and they are afraid”.
The most likely, pointed out Sergey Guríev, Professor of Economics at Sciences Po, is that when Putin falls someone from his circle will succeed him. But, without the charisma of the current president, the new leaders “will need some kind of legitimacy and it is likely that they will look for it in the economy and ask for the lifting of sanctions. Then the West and Ukraine must set conditions such as the withdrawal of troops, the payment of reparations, accountability before international justice, the release of prisoners and the democratization of Russian political life.”
The problem, warned businessman Mikhail Khodorkovsky, is that most Russians “are convinced that they have to win the war because otherwise Russia will disintegrate” (his theory is that the opposite is what will happen if Putin continues to the power ten more years). “When it falls there will be very little time and Russia will either return to a new cycle of autocratic state or move towards democracy”, therefore, he added, “if we want civil peace, the majority of the population will have to believe that the new political system will represent their interests”.
“If we do not completely defeat the Putin regime, none of this will happen and all these wishes will be castles in the air,” warned the opponent Gennady Gudkov, a former member of the Duma, who urgently asked to find allies within the country, also among the elites, and get involved in the defeat of Putin, because he is “instrumental” for peace in Europe. “Psychologically, Putin today is not ready to use the nuclear weapon because he doesn’t have a bunker to protect himself, but in 2014 he wasn’t ready to invade all of Ukraine either, and in 2022, he is.”
What can history teach us about Russia’s ability to break the cycle of dictatorships and empires? The writer Borís Akunin is a pessimist. Even if something similar to a parliamentary democracy was established after Putin, separatist movements would begin and the leader emerged from the polls “would soon become a new Putin”. The only option, Akunin added, for Russia to preserve its integrity involves becoming a true federation and adopting a decentralized structure. It seems more likely to him that Russia, with or after Putin, will become “a junior partner of China”, “a horrible option for Ukraine and for everyone. That cold war that would end in a hot one”.
The opponent Denís Bilúnov warned of the risk that Putin’s regime would be extended and asked to learn from the case of Cuba. “So that it doesn’t happen to us like the anti-Castro exiles in Florida, we will have to take more risks.” The situation, the opposition Leonid Gózman agreed, is very complicated, more than half of the country supports Putin and it is impossible to oppose. But the goal must be “total de-Putinization”, he said. “It is necessary to explain to the Europeans that if they want peace in Europe, this regime must disappear and surrender completely and without conditions. We cannot live on the same planet as Putin and his regime.”
The integration of Ukraine into the EU and NATO, many speakers emphasized, is a “precondition” for the democratization of Russia. “Our goal was to show the world that Putin is not Russia, that there is another Russia and it is growing every day, because Putin is getting weaker and weaker”, celebrated French MEP Bernard Guetta (Renew) at the end of two days of discussions, held in Russian and English. “It has been two intense and useful days. We continue to coordinate, we continue to help Ukraine in every possible way and to press for more sanctions on Russia and the action of international justice”, proposed Natalia Arno, president of Free Russia. “We do not lose sight of our goal, we believe in a democratic Russia. Maybe its future president is in this room or one of our political prisoners”. MEP Andrius Kubilius, former prime minister of Lithuania, defines himself as a “believer” in the cause. “I always answer the same when I am asked about the possibility of changes in Russia. Before 1985 no one saw any evidence of perestroika, but it happened. At that time, even the political elite saw that if things continued as they were, the USSR would collapse quickly, that’s why they started the reforms”. His German colleague, but born in Russia, Sergey Lagodinsky, puts it another way: “It’s not about whether or not we believe that Russia can be democratized, but about preparing for it.”
