Putin has continued to promote a vivid narrative in defence of his decision to invade Ukraine. Focused on the Great Patriotic War against Nazism, this outlook promotes the idea that the current conflict is connected to such events. However, the influence of this narrative in Russia appears to be somewhat waning.

The unforeseen consequence of the decisions made by Russia's power wielding elites could be the emergence of something entirely new.

Stalinisation – just like the system of the Third Reich – was a source of the greatest tragedy of Europe in the 20th century. It meant deprivation of freedom, forced labour camps (the Gulag), prosecution and massive suffering of millions of people living in Central and Eastern Europe. In its Soviet form, totalitarianism has Stalin’s face.

While Europe has managed to, more or less successfully, hold those who created and implemented the Nazi regime accountable, Stalinism, in its light versions, which are often not associated with crime and genocide, has survived until today. Stalinism was one of the bloodiest and most inhumane forms of communist dictatorship. However, in the West, and especially in France and Italy, light versions of communism and Bolshevism had their own devout admirers.

The Kremlin’s system of control can often seem like a mystery to western audiences. By understanding the Putin regime’s attempts to manipulate language, it is possible to gain a deeper insight into the authoritarian realities faced every day by Russian citizens.

The Kremlin has been eager to draw parallels between its ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the Second World War. Stressing the idea that it is fighting Nazism much like in its “glorious” past, the country’s controversial ideology has been in development ever since Putin came to power.

The ongoing consolidation of Putin's dictatorship has been accompanied by a deepening, though still passive, public dissatisfaction with the political system and the ageing leader. Demands for change are subsequently on the rise. These attitudes may accelerate the erosion of a seemingly stable model of rule.

A review of The Putin System: An Opposing View. By: Grigory Yavlinsky. Publisher: Columbia University Press, 2019.

When exploring the sources of Putin’s popularity at home it becomes clear that foreign policy has had an impact.

A review of Putin’s Totalitarian Democracy: Ideology, Myth, and Violence in the Twenty-First Century. By: Kate Langdon and Vladimir Tismaneanu. Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan, Switzerland, 2019.

At its core, Putinism is characterised by a fundamentally kleptocratic system that appears incapable of meaningful reform. For this reason, it is far more vulnerable to fissure than it may appear.

After nearly 20 years in power, Vladimir Putin has become more than just the symbol of an era – he is arguably its creator. A lawyer and former KGB officer, Putin is perceived by many to be one of the world's most powerful leaders and his cult of personality in Russia is unmatched by any other contemporary Russian politician. His tenure as president (2000-2008; 2012-present) and prime minister (1999-2000; 2008-2012) have left a permanent mark on Russia’s history. But is this regime sustainable? Does “Putinism” mean anything independent of its namesake?