Nicolai Haugsted
Russian author warns the country’s next crisis will be over ownership.
Russia’s future will not be decided solely by elections, constitutional reform or the day Vladimir Putin eventually leaves power.
According to Russian journalist and author Maxim Trudolyubov, the country’s greatest post-war challenge may instead revolve around a more fundamental question: who will have the legitimacy to shape a new Russia—the people who openly resisted the regime at enormous personal cost, or those who remained inside the country, protecting businesses, homes and livelihoods while navigating dictatorship and war?
Two competing visions of citizenship
In an essay published by Meduza, Trudolyubov argues that modern Russia is divided between two very different understandings of citizenship.
One is rooted in moral responsibility. It is represented by dissidents, political prisoners and opposition figures who challenged the Kremlin despite the personal consequences. The other is grounded in ownership and long-term commitment to the country through property, businesses, family ties and everyday life.
Rather than dismissing either group, Trudolyubov argues that both possess legitimate claims to Russia’s future.
He notes that those who remained in Russia often stayed silent because they had something tangible to lose, while those who resisted embodied a different form of civic duty centered on moral obligation rather than legal status.
Property could become the next battleground
Trudolyubov believes one of the most contentious issues after Putin will concern ownership.
Russia’s economy now contains assets accumulated over decades alongside businesses that benefited directly from wartime redistribution or state favoritism.
Determining which property rights should be protected and which should be challenged could become one of the defining political struggles of any transition.
He warns that a large segment of Russian society—including entrepreneurs, homeowners and business owners—is less interested in another redistribution of wealth than in preserving what they have spent years building.
Elite loyalty may be fading
The essay also suggests that Russia’s political and economic elite may no longer view Putin as the guarantor of stability they once believed him to be.
For years, loyalty rested on expectations that the system would safeguard private property, businesses and inherited wealth. Trudolyubov argues that the war has steadily undermined that assumption by increasing uncertainty through nationalizations, prosecutions and pressure on private assets.
As unpredictability has become a governing tool, many influential figures now have growing incentives to seek a more stable political order, even if they remain publicly silent.
Transition without repeating the past
Looking beyond Putin, Trudolyubov warns against replacing one system of politically driven property redistribution with another.
He argues that the temptation to confiscate assets in the name of justice could be strong during a transition, particularly after years of war and repression.
Instead, he advocates rebuilding independent courts, strengthening property rights and distinguishing between returning unlawfully seized assets and launching a fresh wave of politically motivated redistribution.
According to Trudolyubov, Russia’s long-term stability will depend not only on who takes power after Putin, but on whether the country chooses institutional reconstruction over repeating the mechanisms that have sustained the current regime.
