A former senior Russian government official has acknowledged that the country's elite circles are now able to "imagine a future without Putin," as the Kremlin's confiscation of oligarch assets accelerates and economic pressures from the Ukraine war mount.
The remarkable admission, reported by Fortune, comes from Vladimir Milov, a former deputy energy minister who left government service during Putin's consolidation of power in the early 2000s. While opposition figures have long predicted Putin's eventual downfall, the statement's significance lies in its reflection of sentiment among current and former members of Russia's governing class.
"What was unthinkable three years ago is now being quietly discussed," Milov told Fortune. "Even people who built their careers and fortunes under Putin are beginning to contemplate succession scenarios. The asset seizures have made many realize they are not safe, regardless of their loyalty."
The Kremlin has dramatically escalated confiscation of private assets since the Ukraine invasion began in February 2022, ostensibly to fund the war effort and punish those deemed insufficiently supportive of Moscow's military campaign. High-profile targets have included oligarchs who fled Russia following Western sanctions, as well as business leaders who made the mistake of questioning the war's costs.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. Vladimir Putin built his power base partially through an implicit bargain with Russia's wealthy elite: they could accumulate vast fortunes in exchange for political loyalty and staying out of politics. That arrangement has unraveled as the war's expenses and international isolation force the Kremlin to seize private wealth.
The asset seizures represent more than fiscal necessity - they signal that no one is immune from state power, breaking the psychological protection that wealth once provided. Prominent businessmen including metals magnate Oleg Deripaska and banking executive Mikhail Fridman have seen holdings confiscated or placed under state administration.
"Putin has essentially eliminated the semi-autonomous business class that emerged in the 1990s and 2000s," said Anders Åslund, a Russia expert at the Stockholm Free World Forum. "What remains is a state-controlled economy where property rights mean nothing and political loyalty is the only currency that matters."
The economic context adds urgency to elite anxieties. Inflation remains elevated despite official statistics, the ruble's value has eroded, and sectors dependent on Western technology and markets have contracted sharply. While oil and gas revenues provide a cushion, they have declined as sanctions bite and Russia is forced to sell energy at discounted prices to China and India.
Perhaps more importantly, the war has become an evident strategic failure despite Kremlin propaganda claiming otherwise. The promised quick victory has devolved into a grinding conflict of attrition that has cost Russia hundreds of thousands of casualties, depleted equipment stockpiles built over decades, and resulted in Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
"Elite Russians can read a balance sheet," Milov noted. "They see sanctions eroding living standards, they see Russia's international isolation, they see Chinese domination of what were once Russian spheres of influence in Central Asia. They ask privately whether this was worth it."
However, imagining a post-Putin future and achieving one are vastly different propositions. Putin has systematically eliminated potential rivals, constructed an extensive security apparatus to detect dissent, and ensured that no institutional mechanisms exist for transferring power. The possibility of palace coup exists, but the risks to conspirators are existential.
The Kremlin's response to elite disquiet has been to tighten control further. Security services have expanded surveillance of business elites, restrictions on capital movement have increased, and examples are made of those who voice even mild criticism. The fate of Yevgeny Prigozhin, whose armed rebellion in 2023 ended with his death in a plane crash, serves as a potent warning.
Nonetheless, historical precedent suggests that authoritarian leaders who lose elite confidence rarely survive indefinitely. The question is not whether Putin's grip will eventually weaken, but what circumstances might trigger defections from his coalition and who might emerge to replace him.
"The Soviet Union appeared stable until it collapsed with stunning speed," said Mark Galeotti, author of several books on Russian security services. "Putin's system may prove similarly brittle when elite consensus fractures. The challenge is that the transition could be chaotic and dangerous, especially in a nuclear-armed state."
For now, Putin maintains firm control through a combination of repression, propaganda, and the genuine support of significant portions of the population who credit him with restoring Russia's great power status. But the acknowledgment from a well-connected former official that elites are contemplating alternatives represents a significant psychological shift.
The West faces difficult questions about how to respond to signs of elite disaffection. Some argue for intensifying pressure to accelerate regime change, while others worry that cornering Putin could provoke dangerous escalation. The challenge is to support democratic forces in Russia while avoiding actions that consolidate nationalist sentiment around the leadership.
As the Ukraine war grinds on and economic costs mount, the space between public loyalty and private doubt within Russia's elite continues to grow. Whether that gap ultimately produces political change remains to be seen, but the conversation has shifted from whether Putin is eternal to what might come next - a transformation that may prove more consequential than any battlefield development.
