Forbes analysis: Military, economic and political challenges could shake Vladimir Putin’s position

A recently published analytical article by Forbes assesses that Russian President Vladimir Putin is entering a period marked by military, economic and political pressures which, according to the author, could significantly weaken his position in the years ahead.

According to this analysis, not only developments in the war in Ukraine, but also growing dissatisfaction inside Russia as well as increasing pressure on the political elites, could create the conditions for an internal crisis in the Kremlin.

The author also focuses on the continued drone attacks by Ukraine against military targets and energy infrastructure in Crimea, which, according to him, have complicated fuel supplies on the peninsula.

The analysis says that, after damage to supply routes, the Kerch Bridge has remained the main logistical corridor for Russian forces and for this reason is seen as a target of strategic importance. The author claims, referring to sources that cannot be independently verified, that there is a possibility of a new attack on this bridge.

The article also emphasizes that, beyond the situation on the front line, great weight is carried by the way the war is perceived by the public. According to the author, repeated strikes on Russian territory and damage to military and civilian infrastructure are harming the Kremlin’s image and raising questions about the leadership’s ability to guarantee the country’s security.

A separate section of the analysis is devoted to signs of dissatisfaction within Russia. As a concrete case, it mentions military blogger Aleksandr Lunin, who published videos critical of conditions in the army and asked President Putin to listen to the concerns of military personnel. According to the author, after these videos were published, Lunin was arrested, while footage also circulated on social media showing soldiers expressing opposition to their commanders.

The same analysis also includes reports of public dissatisfaction related to military mobilization, fuel shortages in some regions and the economic consequences of the war. According to the author, these elements could increase pressure on the Russian authorities and affect public support for the war.

Another aspect addressed is the stance of the political elites and the security structures. The analysis assesses that if the war continues to produce high military and economic costs, senior officials and influential figures may begin thinking about a possible transition of power in order to protect their interests.

The author also draws historical comparisons with the political changes that came after the First World War and the Soviet war in Afghanistan, arguing that prolonged military conflicts have previously brought major transformations in Russia’s leadership as well. However, the analysis does not provide evidence that such a scenario is inevitable under the current circumstances.

Finally, it presents several possible scenarios for political developments in Russia, including a controlled transition of power, clashes among elites or a broader institutional crisis. According to the author, such events could be influenced by intensified Ukrainian attacks, internal tensions or changes in China’s stance toward Moscow.

However, all of these remain the author’s assessments and predictions. There are no official confirmations or independent evidence supporting the claim that an imminent change of power in Russia is inevitable or that President Vladimir Putin will leave power within a specific timeframe.