After Putinism? Belief in the Everyday

Episode Narrative

In the early 1990s, as the smoke of the Soviet Union's collapse cleared, a new Russia emerged, bristling with uncertainty and hope. This was a time when ideologies collided, as profound as storms battering against the foundation of a once-unified state. The constitutional crisis from 1991 to 1993 became a vivid reflection of these ideological divides — the tumultuous struggle between reformist forces, led by President Boris Yeltsin, and the conservative factions, embodied in parliamentary leader Ruslan Khasbulatov. Here lay the heart of a nation grappling not just with political power, but with its very identity in a post-Soviet landscape that was shifting in dramatic ways.

The threads of this conflict were woven from the fabric of discontent. Economic turmoil had emerged as the backdrop, where hyperinflation surged like an uncontrollable blaze. Poverty spread through the populace, shaking the faith of ordinary citizens in the newfound democratic ideals. Supporters of Yeltsin sought to dismantle the old guard and implement sweeping reforms that would pivot Russia towards a market economy. Yet, in stark contrast, the conservatives clung tightly to the vestiges of a centralized state, fearing the chaos that unregulated capitalism could unleash. In this tension, the ideological tug of war for Russia's future was more than mere political maneuvering; it represented a profound clash of visions for the nation’s soul.

Yet the crisis began not in isolation. The collapse of the Soviet Union had left an ideological vacuum, a chasm where once there was certainty. Leftist movements flickered like candles in the wind, wrestling to redefine themselves against an ever-evolving political landscape. Many found themselves trapped between the temptation of total opposition and the pragmatic need to integrate into the new system. Meanwhile, conservative statist ideas surged, dictating the terms of the national discourse and asserting their claim on Russia’s collective identity.

The narrative was reflected across borders as well, particularly in Ukraine, where political rhetoric shaped a national identity caught between the legacies of Soviet heritage and aspirations for European integration. The post-Soviet identity was a contested space, where the echoes of the past whispered through every debate and political decision. Here, each side wielded language as a tool to secure legitimacy, to construct a vision of the future that resonated with the hearts of the people.

As the 1990s unfolded, Russia’s official discourse began to crystallize, evolving through a series of ideational phases. It became a complex tapestry that intertwined elements of political science, linguistics, and history, reflecting how deeply the roots of the past could influence the branches of the present. The newly constructed national identity was a blend of the Soviet legacy and the emerging ideas of a distinct Russian statehood, creating a landscape where history would be reinterpreted, debated, and often contested. The liberal political tradition that had once thrived in the 19th and early 20th centuries struggled to find footing amidst this tumult, often overshadowed by a rising tide of nationalism and conservatism.

As the millennium approached, Russia embraced neoliberal ideology in a bid to integrate fully into the global economy. This period was a paradox — where economic liberalization and market reform were heralded as pathways to progress, it also seeded a growing rift between liberal and conservative factions. The excitement of newfound opportunities was met with disillusionment as the gap between the rich and poor widened dramatically, casting shadows on the promises of democracy and freedom.

With the arrival of Putin’s era in the early 2000s, the ideological landscape began to shift once more. The adoption of a modernist ideology, combining neo-conservative values with state-led modernization, reflected a consolidation of power that would define Russia’s political narrative for years to come. The state’s narrative grew ever more entwined with the Russian Orthodox Church, which emerged as a moral authority, guiding the populace towards a vision of traditional values against the perceived decadence of the West. Through political repression and anti-Western rhetoric, 2012 marked a decisive turn toward a conservative nationalism that would resonate throughout the nation.

Vladimir Putin's speech at the Valdai Discussion Club in 2013 encapsulated this shift, coining the term "Civilizational Realism." Here, he framed Russia as a unique civilization, a bulwark against Western liberalism. This ideology suggested that Russia was not merely a nation-state but a distinct cultural entity, and in that narrative lay the seeds of a new self-understanding. This self-identity was intricately tied to the historical narratives of “Holy Rus’” and the concept of “Moscow as the Third Rome,” reinforcing the link between the state’s political authority and its spiritual mission.

From 2014 onward, Russia’s foreign policy took a pronounced turn marked by reimperialization efforts. The annexation of Crimea and military interventions in Ukraine illustrated a renewed assertion of power, justified by the state through protectionist narratives aimed at safeguarding Russian speakers and reinstating regional influence. This militarized approach was not a random occurrence but a calculated strategy hinging on the revival of imperial legacies intertwined with contemporary aspirations of greatness. Within Russia, such actions were framed not just as foreign policy but as assertions of identity — proof of a nation's resilience.

As the echoes of these political shifts deepened, the notion of “traditional values” became central to the new political ideology. This rhetoric significantly impacted how Russian identity was communicated and constructed, solidifying a narrative of national unity that resonated with many who felt unmoored by rapid change. Throughout this period, the military became a pillar of state power, reinforcing Putin’s vision and cementing the armed forces’ role in asserting Russia's geopolitical ambitions.

By the 2020s, the cycle of Russian political history persisted, unveiling a pattern of stagnation, crisis, and authoritarian rollback. As the state continued to desecularize, entwining Orthodox beliefs into its identity, a paradox emerged. Despite the official narrative of secularism, the Church’s influence grew exponentially, permeating public life and reinforcing a collective ethos that resonated with a sense of national pride and moral fortitude.

The idea of identity became a battleground, as Russia faced growing anti-Western sentiment fueled by external pressures, economic sanctions, and a burgeoning sense of cultural uniqueness. Russian elites navigated a complex relationship with Western models, selectively borrowing ideas even as they promoted the distinctiveness of their own political and economic pathways. The notion of being uniquely Russian shifted from mere rhetoric to a foundational element of national identity.

In the years leading to 2025, the imperatives of electoral authoritarianism tightened their grip, underpinning a prevailing tension between state control and individual freedom. While electoral processes appeared to exist, they operated within a tightly controlled framework that stifled genuine competition and dissent. Censorship of the media and state interference in the political sphere became mechanisms to legitimate a regime that was increasingly divorced from popular will.

As history unfolded, the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 intensified nationalist fervor and ushered in a wave of militaristic ideologies — a new totalitarianism termed “Ruscism” came to the fore. This ideology amalgamated aggressive nationalism with state repression, promoting a vision of Russia as a stronghold against external threats. Such fervor resonated deeply within a public often yearning for a cohesive national narrative amid the turmoil.

In this complex landscape of belief, the fabric of everyday life in Russia transformed as well. The cultural sphere diversified beyond state-controlled narratives, embracing a broader spectrum of voices and ideas. While some embraced the newly emerging market-driven dynamics, others clung to nostalgia for the past, reflecting the political debates that played out in the lives of everyday citizens. The dichotomy of values revolved around the challenges of navigating between traditionalism and modernity, as individuals sought connections in their daily existence.

As we reflect on this tumultuous journey, we must ask ourselves: what will follow after Putinism? What beliefs will emerge from the everyday struggles of a nation grappling with its identity? The answers lie not in grand declarations, but within the lives of the people — their hopes, their dreams, and their persistent resilience. In the heart of every individual beats the essence of belief, a promise of tomorrow forged from the fires of struggle. How will this belief be expressed in the coming days, and what new narratives will take shape from the lessons of the past? The pages of history remain open, inviting us to witness the unfolding journey of a nation still seeking its place in a world that continues to change.