The end of 2024 brought a series of significant setbacks for Vladimir Putin: the collapse of the Assad regime, an environmental disaster in the Black Sea, the closure of the main gas pipeline to Europe, and the distancing of key Russian allies like Hungary and Slovakia. Nevertheless, Putin’s New Year’s message remained upbeat. He looked ahead to the upcoming 80th anniversary of the Soviet Union’s victory over Germany in World War II, assuring the nation of its strength. He praised the Russian army for defending the motherland as it had throughout history and insisted that destiny remained on Russia’s side.

What went unmentioned was that this New Year’s Eve marked the 25th anniversary of Putin’s rise to power. At the turn of the millennium, few in Moscow could have predicted the epoch-defining shift that would occur when an unknown and untested figure ascended to the presidency.

In 2000, Vladimir Putin was a relatively obscure bureaucrat with a “deer in the headlights” demeanor, seemingly plucked from nowhere when Boris Yeltsin anointed him as his successor. He had no national reputation, no prominent political allies, and no clear constituency. But we quickly learned more about him. Unlike his predecessors, Putin was the first Russian leader in centuries who had not been born in a village—a sign, perhaps, of a more modern and urbanized era.

We also learned about Putin’s past. His defining Soviet experience was the defense of the KGB headquarters in Dresden during the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Despite this, he was no communist ideologue. He would later criticize Lenin for structuring the Soviet Union as a collection of national republics, a decision he argued paved the way for its dissolution into 15 independent countries. This perspective likely influenced Putin’s decision not to commemorate the 100^th anniversary of the Russian revolution in 2017. 

In Putin’s early years, Russia actively engaged with Western institutions, joining the WTO, the European Court of Human Rights, and the newly renamed (for Russia) G8. However, Putin’s ambition to integrate Russia into the West now is a relic of a bygone era. A genuine return to that trajectory appears unlikely without the rise of a truly post-Soviet generation to reshape Russia’s relationship with the world.

Putin declared in his New Year’s address that the foundations of Russia were solid. But everyday realities contradict this optimism. The list of economic problems – catastrophic interest rates, labor shortages, inflation, a collapsing ruble – all signal that the economic and social tensions lack easy solutions and most likely will linger even after the war ends.

In his speech, Puttin emphasized the issue of sovereignty over all other foreign policy goals, but it turns out that sovereignty is just another catchword for isolation. Russia touts the BRICS expansion to rebut the charge of financial decline, but new members such as Ethiopia, Egypt, and Iran will not overcome European and U.S. sanctions anytime soon. And even China – Russia’s partner in Putin’s new multipolar world – is wary of running afoul of secondary sanctions from the West because of its dealings with Russia. 

One searches for one ray of optimism in Putin’s address, but the only word of encouragement is Putin’s declaration that everything will be fine. But hope is not a strategy. Putin claims that Russia is continuing to advance, but he gives no idea in which direction. Patriotism and love of country can only get you so far. When that fails to sustain social support for his regime, Putin’s only answer will be to double down once again on repression. Putin has already ordered FSB to investigate spies living amongst the Russian people.

After a quarter century in power, Putin fancies himself to be a global leader. In reality, he is an international pariah who cannot travel to many countries because of an outstanding arrest warrant from the ICC for the abduction of children in Ukraine.  

Ironically, Putin faces many of the same challenges that precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union: economic stagnation, a military quagmire and a growing fear of social unrest. Speaking of the Soviet Union, Prime Minister Mishustin just announced his own 5-year plan of economic development that includes major state infrastructure projects and the development of the far east and the Artic Circle. Yet the 1990s and the wild wild east are just faint memories. Instead of foreign investment and the allure of emerging markets, Russia will have to deal with the overhang of Putin’s de-privatization (confiscation) of western companies with no compensation. That is a reckoning that will have to be addressed in the future.

After 25 years in power, Putin somehow needs to start anew. But men in their seventies with decades in power make for poor agents for change. Indeed, Putin’s New Year’s address suggests that a new era of stagnation awaits Russia, punctuated with platitudes about a glorious past and lacking any real basis for optimism or prospects for opportunities. 

Indeed, when I lived in Moscow on the eve of the new millennium, I interacted with many young professionals – lawyers, entrepreneurs, businessmen, journalists, financial consultants – who bet that Russia could change. That bet has been lost. 

So, what awaits Putin’s 26th year in power? There are several draft laws and policy recommendations circulating around the Kremlin that range from bad to worse to hopeless. In order to address Russia’s chronic demographic crisis, Putin has tasked the head of the Federation Council Valentina Matvienko to increase the birthrate to 10 children per woman. There is also draft legislation that in the name of sovereignty, Russia should banish foreign-derived words from its vocabulary. Foreign music is also in the crosshairs of the Duma.

Putin still has his wits about him. His annual marathon call-in show lasted four hours. A considerable feat of stamina and recall for a man his age. His New Year’s message, however, did not inspire similar confidence. After 25 years in power, Putin has run out of ideas.

The opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author and do not reflect the views of the Kennan Institute.