In the wake of Russia’s invasion of his country in February 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy pleaded with Western countries to leave Russia. Hundreds of U.S. and EU-based companies heeded his call to “make sure that the Russians do not receive a single penny,” with Western politicians reportedly predicting that the exodus “would help strangle the Russian economy and undermine the Kremlin’s war effort,” while Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and his four co-authors declared that “business retreats and sanctions are catastrophically crippling the Russian economy.” Predictions of Russia’s economic meltdown continued into 2023, with the New Republic diagnosing Russia as “going broke fast” and Business Insider editors describing Russia’s economy as “spiraling.” The future has looked dim even to some of the lead players in the Russian economy. One of Putin’s own oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska, predicted in March 2023 that Russia may run out of money in 2024 and would need foreign investment to prevent that. 

Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the U.S. presidential race and support his VP Kamala Harris has Russian officials and scholars of U.S.-Russian relations divided on whether a Democrat can defeat the GOP’s Donald Trump in November. Boris Mezhuev, a Moscow-based political scientist, told pro-Kremlin conservative analytical portal Vzglyad in reference to Harris: “I think her prospects can be described as positive. The gap in ratings with Donald Trump is only a few percent.” According to Russian foreign policy veteran Sen. Alexey Pushkov, however, “in the battle for the presidency, Trump defeated Biden ahead of schedule.” Pushkov’s colleague, and deputy chairman of the Russian Senate Konstantin Kosachev, also believes Trump is more likely to win. Interestingly, Vladimir Pastukhov, a self-exiled opposition-minded Russian political scientist, concurs, predicting that Harris’s chances to defeat Trump are dim, while U.S.-based opposition-minded Russian scholar Konstantin Sonin is less pessimistic, putting her chances of Harris winning at 50/50.

The Levada Center has released the results of its monthly polling of Russians on Russia’s war in Ukraine and its broader stand-off with NATO. Some results, such as a record level of support for peace talks, may seem to be encouraging to doves, but the devil is in the details. More worrisome, the share of Russians who believe that an armed conflict between Russia and NATO could erupt has increased, as did the share of Russians who believe the use of nuclear weapons by their country in the context of “the current conflict in Ukraine” would be justified. In fact, every third Russian now shares this alarming belief, according to the poll’s findings, which I present and discuss in the order they have appeared in Levada’s latest poll on the conflict with Ukraine.

The shooting of Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Pennsylvania—which the ex-president survived and which the FBI is investigating as an assassination attempt—has elicited a roar of comments by Russian politicians, experts and journalists, both pro-Putin and anti-Putin. A number of commentators from both camps agreed that the incident boosts Trump’s electoral chances. As Russian self-exiled liberal expert Boris Pastukhov put it: “It was Trump that was being shot at, but it was Biden who got hit.” Experts on both sides of Russia’s political divide  noted that the attempt will contribute to the polarization of America, with one liberal Russian expert noting that the Kremlin will benefit from this trend. Commenting on Trump’s survival, some pro-Kremlin writers wondered if the heavens intervened to save him. Meanwhile, at least two of Russia’s major online retailers tried to profit from the incident.

The Russian defense ministry has just launched a multi-phase exercise near Ukraine meant to prepare its forces for using non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs). In addition to the obvious purpose of preparing Russian troops to use tactical nuclear weapons in battle, the multi-stage exercise is also meant to signal to the West that it should refrain from escalating assistance to Ukraine, as well as to warn the U.S. and its allies that Russia may liberalize its conditions for using nuclear weapons. Finally, the exercise may be evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to retain Valery Gerasimov as head of the General Staff, at least for now.

That the Russian armed forces are planning a NSNW wargame became publicly known on May 6, when the country’s defense ministry (MoD) issued a statement disclosing that Putin—who is the commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces—had ordered an exercise in the Southern Military District (SMD) to have MoD units practice using tactical nuclear weapons. The wargame is supposed to prepare these units for what the ministry described as “unconditionally ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Russian state in response to provocative statements and threats of individual Western officials against the Russian Federation,” according to the statement.¹ The defense agency’s rather curt announcement was followed by a longer statement from the country’s foreign ministry (MFA), which said that the planned wargame “should be considered in the context of recent bellicose statements by Western officials and sharply destabilizing actions taken by a number of NATO countries that are aimed at building forceful pressure on the Russian Federation and at creating additional threats to the security of our country in connection with the conflict in and around Ukraine.”  

Sworn in for yet another presidential term, Vladimir Putin is firmly on the path to becoming Russia’s longest ruler, surpassing even Josef Stalin, who governed Soviet Russia for almost 31 years. For many, a future Russia without Putin remains a black box. Some fear a civil war, perhaps triggered by a coup attempt and followed by chaos. Others believe there will be a more or less orderly changing of the guard. 

The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and its Russia Matters project have recently hosted a conversation to discuss these and other scenarios. Entitled “Post Putin Russia: What Comes Next?”, the discussion featured Anatol Lieven, director of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and Leon Aron, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. It was moderated by the Belfer Center’s Ambassador Paula Dobriansky.

"Is the Russia-China relationship truly an alliance?" This pivotal question framed a recent seminar hosted by the Belfer Center and Russia Matters, entitled "Russia-China: A Long-Term Alliance?" as part of the series "Russia's Past, Present, and Future." Moderated by Paula Dobriansky, a senior fellow with Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, the seminar featured insights from Harvard’s S.T. Lee Professor of U.S.-Asia Relations Rana Mitter and senior research scientist at the China and Indo-Pacific Studies Division at CNA, Dr. Elizabeth Wishnick. Both Wishnick and Mitter agreed that alignment defines the current Sino-Russian relationship, not alliance. Over the course of the ensuing discussion, the nuances of this alignment were explored in detail; Mitter and Wishnick delved into the essence of the Russia-China relationship, probing whether this partnership signifies a long-standing alliance, the potential role of China in a post-Putin Russia, the prospects for cooperation or discord and the broader implications of this relationship for the Indo-Pacific region.

In her opening remarks, Wishnick underlined that while she dislikes the term “marriage of convenience” to describe the Sino-Russian relationship, the relationship between the two countries, which have not entered any official military pacts with each other, falls short of an alliance. She then explained which features of this relationship make it an alignment. Among these, she pointed to deepening military and aerospace cooperation, mutual support in international venues and expanding trade. Wishnick also emphasized two distinct aligning factors in the relationship: a shared animosity for the United States and both countries’ search for regime security as authoritarian states. These factors are the prevailing glue that anchors their alignment rather than the “non-insignificant” personal relationship between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Wishnick also emphasized that while Russian public opinion vis-à-vis China has improved, Russians remain concerned about becoming an energy appendage of China. In addition, deeper integration faces challenges, including complicated border relations in Russia’s east and China’s northeast, as evidenced by agreements of cooperation between non-contiguous border regions. 

The share of Russians who would like to leave Russia for permanent residence in another country has reached a record low, according to the results of a national poll conducted by Russia’s Levada Center on March 21-27, 2024. 

This center has been measuring Russians’ attitudes toward emigration since 1990, registering peaks in the share of Russians who would like to leave for greener pastures in May 2011, May 2013 and May 2021. In all three instances, the share of Russians who answered “definitely yes” or “likely yes” when asked “Would you like to move abroad for permanent residence?” totaled 22% (see Figure 1). In comparison, Levada’s more recent measurements show that right after Vladimir Putin sent troops to re-invade Ukraine in February 2022, this share was 10% (March 2022), which then increased to 11% in February 2023, before declining again in March 2024 to an all-time record low of 9%. At the same time, in the period since Russia’s re-invasion of Ukraine, the share of those who would not want to move abroad increased from 79% to a record high of 90% (see Figure 1). These measurements by Levada, which is the most renowned of Russia’s independent pollsters in spite of increasing constraints on the activities of such pollsters, aligns with the findings of the state-owned Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM), which claims that its March 2024 poll revealed that the share of Russians who want to leave Russia for permanent residency abroad and the share of Russians who don’t reached a record low (5%) and a record high (93%), respectively, since 1991.

“Does Russia still matter?” That was the central question of a recent discussion with leading American national security expert Fiona Hill, hosted by Russia Matters and moderated by Graham Allison, the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard University, and former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center. Hill’s answer to that question was in the affirmative, rooted in what she described as Russia’s perennial significance in global affairs, ranging from climate change to European insecurity and from Middle Eastern power dynamics to nuclear security. 

Russia's Enduring Significance 

It was Allison, a renowned expert on U.S. national security and defense policy, who opened the Feb. 6 discussion by observing that at the very least, Russia has a primary claim to global importance because of its nuclear arsenal. Agreeing with Allison’s opening remarks, Hill elaborated: “Russia is not going anywhere, and it will always matter … Russia will continue to matter and so will Putin.” She noted that while the state of relations with Russia is a “tragedy,” Russia’s intrinsic attributes, including its size and resources, allow Russia to significantly impact U.S. security. Despite facing international scrutiny and sanctions, Russia maintains an "incredible cultural impact" globally and remains an "influential player on the Eurasian landmass," according to Hill. 

She went on to advocate for a 360-degree view to understand the Kremlin's comprehensive strategy, which spans beyond mere energy politics to include nuclear power and technological advancements and combating climate change. Hill warned against underestimating Russia's capabilities and intentions, emphasizing the need for the United States to create a cohesive Russian strategy instead of reinventing its approach with each administration. Hill added that while U.S. presidents have come and gone, Vladimir Putin has been in power for nearly 25 years and remains “very predictable in certain aspects.”

On March 13, President Vladimir Putin granted an interview, in which he again delved into the conditions under which he says he would initiate the use of nuclear weapons. His remarks were so ambiguous that it caused mainstream Western media organizations—which tend to agree on what to emphasize in news out of the Kremlin—to put divergent headlines on the news stories that they ran about this particular interview. “Putin, in Pre-Election Messaging, Is Less Strident on Nuclear War. The Russian leader struck a softer tone about nuclear weapons in an interview with state television,” was the NYT’s headline. In contrast, the FT’s headline was “Russia ‘prepared’ for nuclear war, warns Vladimir Putin. President resumes bullish rhetoric over use of atomic arsenal if west threatens Moscow’s sovereignty,” while CBS News ran with “Putin again threatens to use nuclear weapons, claims Russia's arsenal ‘much more’ advanced than America's” and WSJ led with “Putin Rattles Nuclear Saber Ahead of Presidential Elections; Raising specter of nuclear confrontation.”

So, which is it? Has Putin just struck a softer tone about nuclear weapons or has he rattled his nuclear saber yet again? The answer is both.