Why is Putin not winning the war? On the Russian side, there are problems such as corruption, incompetence, and canny leadership. On the Ukrainian side, there are problems such as corruption, incompetence, and canny leadership.
The death of Queen Elizabeth II helped illuminate a weakness of the Russian president. His regime doesn’t have the mystical quality that we call legitimacy.
Power and legitimacy are different things. Power can be exercised effectively despite trials and transitions. Even though the authority isn’t delivering prosperity and peace, it’s still political authority. When rulers call their societies to sacrifice, it’s what they reach for.
There are only two foundations for legitimacy in most of the world today. Outside of the Middle East and a few other places, the legitimacy of hereditary monarchy has washed away. The ideological authority invoked by the Beijing Politburo and the religious authority invoked by the mullahs in Tehran are alternative claims to legitimacy.
The House of Windsor is an exception that shows the rule. The British monarchy has retained a pre-modern, pre-democratic legitimacy; in the wake of the death of the queen, there was still a feeling that she was God-ordained to sit on the throne. The royal family has given up most of its power but still has legitimacy.
Personal political power is much greater in Moscow than it is in King Charles III. Putin is a pseudo-czar but not a real one. His system is actually a polyglot imperium. Regular elections are not free or fair.
Success is all he needs to justify his power. A Russia richer and more stable than in the years before he took the presidency is one of the things he has delivered.
Now comes the test, the gambit that hasn’t delivered, the specter of defeat, and what is he going to do? The authority of a czar is not enough to mobilize the Russian people as feudal subjects. It is not the authority of a national leader to fight for self-determination. He can’t have his war policy vindicated in an election because any election would be a ruse.
In recent years, as authoritarian leaders have gained ground around the world, there’s been a fear that they have a stronger hand to play than the dictators of the past.
Putin’s situation suggests that this subtler authoritarianism is not as strong as it could be. The people’s republic, the rule of the master race, was the unique claim of the 20th century’s totalitarian regimes. Putin needs to legitimize his ambitions in the frameworks of his enemies in order to be a revolutionary.
There are parallels between the internal politics of the United States and the movement towards authoritarianism in the country. Donald Trump has to say that the will of the people was defeated in 2020. The push from the left to cancel or de-platform is usually justified in the name of protecting democracy.
Even though Putin’s legitimacy problems make his invasion less destructive, there are still dangers in our politics. As Elizabeth II is laid to rest, it helps to see that our crises are still happening inside the lines of late modernity.