Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
March 15, 2025
The Kremlin has long operated under the paradigm of an unshakable vertical power structure. However, the nature of governance is such that, without a steady influx of resources and public consent, it inevitably begins to erode. Modern Russia increasingly resembles not a centralized state but a collection of regional enclaves bound to Moscow by little more than formal declarations of loyalty.
The economic model that sustained the Russian Federation for decades is showing clear signs of fracture. The Moscow-centric system, accustomed to redistributing resource revenues and subsidizing the regions, now finds itself with little left to allocate. This growing shortfall will drive regional elites to seek alternative economic partnerships. These alternatives are not difficult to find—neighboring countries are already forging new alliances.
Primorsky Krai, Kamchatka, and Chukotka, as well as the so-called Pacific Federation (Khabarovsk), are increasingly reliant on Chinese trade. Meanwhile, Turkish influence is rising in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan, while Kazakhstan is advancing the Trans-Caspian trade route, reducing its dependence on Russian transit corridors. Financial flows are shifting, and Moscow’s ability to control the regions through traditional economic levers is rapidly diminishing.
Regional Nationalism: From Cultural Identity to Political Agency
Ethnic regions are asserting their agency with growing confidence. Sakha, Buryatia, and Tuva are gradually distancing themselves from Moscow’s direct control. In Siberia, China’s economic footprint is expanding, while in the Caucasus, connections with Islamic states are deepening. In the Far East, calls for greater autonomy are becoming increasingly vocal.
The key question is: how long can the balance between nominal loyalty and de facto autonomy hold? While Tatarstan still maintains the facade of unity with Moscow, in the occupied Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, this balance has long been broken. The Kadyrov regime, operating as a proxy for Moscow, effectively governs on its own terms, disregarding federal laws and directives. This trend is likely to spread to other regions.
Turkey is methodically expanding its influence through economic cooperation, humanitarian projects, and cultural engagement. In the Tyumen region, trade with Ankara has tripled, while Turkish business networks are gaining an ever-stronger foothold in Tatarstan and Bashkortostan.
Simultaneously, China is intensifying its economic expansion in Siberia and the Far East, positioning itself as a key trade partner and investor. However, to avoid merely replacing Moscow’s colonial grip with Beijing’s, the future independent states of the post-Russian space must proactively develop partnerships with Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Mongolia, the United States, Canada, the European Union, and other global players.
Kazakhstan, for its part, is promoting new trade routes that bypass Russian transit networks altogether. The Moscow-centric imperial model is now a passive observer of this transformation, lacking a coherent response to its neighbors’ growing economic assertiveness. Instead of strategic planning, the Kremlin has resorted to tightening control over the regions—an approach that will only accelerate their eventual detachment.
The Kremlin does not govern its captive nations and colonial regions—it merely holds them by force. While security apparatuses continue to uphold the illusion of stability, this is a temporary measure. Rule by fear and repression cannot provide long-term sustainability. The question is not whether Russia will fragment, but when and how the process will unfold.
History has seen this trajectory before—from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the decline of post-colonial empires. The last colonial empire in Europe is now following the same path. The only question that remains is which of the still-occupied nations and regions will be the first to assert their right to full sovereignty and independence.
The illusion of stability is crumbling. The objective reality is that Russia is transforming into a landscape of competing spheres of influence, with Moscow playing an ever-diminishing role. History has shown that when the center ceases to provide progress, the regions will seek it elsewhere.
