The author writes:

• The system formed to a large extent under the current president is trying desperately to survive, and in places (such as the financial-economic bloc), it’s not doing a bad job. It still seems collectively to consider the preservation of the status quo, however risky and devoid of prospects, as preferable to the dangers of attempted change. Yet this precarious balance is being recalculated daily by actors and interest groups who cannot fail to realize that, for better or worse, the “Putin era” is entering its final stage, however drawn out that stage may be.
• Bureaucratic structures in Russia often house experienced professionals in a range of fields. The social and financial advantages of positions in the finance and economic ministries and regional governments, along with the need to contribute substantively, have prevented negative selection. This contrasts with the top echelons of the siloviki, where impunity, lack of accountability, and the constant rewarding of loyalty over competence have yielded the opposite effect. It is conceivable that the country’s ruling mechanism—bureaucratic institutions—may outlast the personalism that has been both a burden and an asset. This vast network of civil servants, technocrats, and administrators forms a modestly resilient framework that endures beyond individual political decisions, providing continuity and ensuring the steady day-to-day functioning of the government. 

Read the full article on the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace website.

The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author. Photo by US Department of State shared under a United States government work licence.