Putins Quest for Immortality Reveals Deep Concerns Over His Legacy and Succession

The elderly autocrats strolled together, leading a group of international leaders to observe a military parade in Beijing.

In an unexpectedly revealing exchange, a live microphone captured President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping talking about ways to extend human life.

“Organs can be perpetually transplanted,” Putin’s translator was heard stating. “The longer you live, the younger you become, and [it’s possible to] even attain immortality.”

For Putin, the subject of death strikes at the core of a critical weakness in the autocratic regime he has built: when he is no longer in power, will his system collapse?

In the 25 years since his initial presidential election, Putin has reshaped the Russian political landscape to reflect his desires.

The ruling pro-Kremlin party, United Russia, currently holds 315 of the 450 Duma seats and commands the majority of regional positions. Human rights advocates argue that elections are not free or equitable, and the constitutional amendments he implemented in 2020 permit him to remain in office until 2036, at which point he will be 83.

These aspects lead many analysts to conclude that Putin would not voluntarily vacate his position. Rather, should he die or become incapacitated, a chain reaction of political events could unfold outside of his control.

Initially, the prime minister of Russia would assume the presidency. Consequently, Mikhail Mishustin, a 59-year-old former tax official who has been in the role since 2020, would temporarily lead the country.

Per the Constitution, the Federation Council must call for elections to appoint a new president within a 14-day timeframe.

Here lies the potential for confusion. To this point, analysts suggest that Putin has not designated a specific successor.

“If Vladimir Putin were to die unexpectedly or with just a week or two of illness, there will be immense pressure to maintain stability and prevent a Time of Troubles,” remarked Julian Waller, a George Washington University professor and Russia researcher at the think tank CNA.

“Nobody wants a return to the ’90s or another Russian Civil War,” he emphasized.

In such circumstances, numerous individuals could emerge as contenders for leadership. Experts contend that Mishustin’s ascension to presidency does not guarantee election success, and the election process could be manipulated to validate a chosen successor.

However, there’s a significant contradiction within Putin’s inner circle: many potential candidates are also quite old.

Individuals such as Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, former Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev, and Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin have all been mentioned by analysts as possible successors. The youngest among this group is 66.

“The transition should have happened some time ago,” Waller noted. “They neglected to do so, and now there’s been a rushed effort in the past couple of years—particularly since the onset of the war—to rejuvenate the Russian elite.”

Rather than from Putin’s immediate circle, Waller suggested that a successor might arise from a younger generation of officials appointed during the conflict in Ukraine.

Figures like Alexei Dyumin, the 53-year-old Secretary of the State Council and former bodyguard to Putin, or Dmitry Patrushev, the 47-year-old Deputy Prime Minister for Agriculture and son of the former Security Council Secretary, could likely sustain the regime Putin has established but would not carry the same burden of age.

Officials might also aim to install someone who is agreeable and adaptable to the wishes of the political elite.

“There’s a chance the person who takes over after Vladimir Putin won’t be the most powerful figure in the political sphere, at least in the short term,” Waller added.

There are few precedents in contemporary Russia for the kind of upheaval that a leadership transition could provoke.

The most recent significant crisis faced by the Russian government occurred in 2023, when Wagner mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin attempted a military uprising that brought his forces to the outskirts of Moscow.

The Russian authorities were somewhat caught off guard. Public communication during the uprising was sparse, and the government appeared uncertain about its course of action.

Putin’s death could elicit a similar reaction from both the authorities and the public, according to Margarita Zavadskaya, a Russian politics expert at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs.

“His sudden disappearance would be shocking, but it’s likely that the response would be more of a wait-and-see approach rather than immediate mobilization against or in support of new leadership or to commemorate [Putin],” she said.

In keeping with the tradition of Soviet leaders before him, Putin’s death might not be disclosed immediately, providing time to formulate a response, Zavadskaya speculated.

Factions outside the Kremlin and lower-tier elites are unlikely to play a significant role, she continued, and the perennially fractured military would require a strong incentive to support a challenger.

While democratic opposition groups might attempt to rally anti-Putin citizens, they have largely been exiled and rendered politically insignificant due to the Kremlin’s extensive suppression of civil liberties.

Ultimately, Zavadskaya remarked, the only certainty about a post-Putin Russia is that it “is unlikely to transition to a democratic regime.”

From his perspective, Putin seems content that the legacy he is establishing through his war in Ukraine and confrontation with the West will provide a form of immortality of its own.

During a press conference with Xi this month, Putin referenced the shared “heroic feat” of Russia and China in winning World War II and celebrated an emerging world order in which, as in the past, their nations are not indebted to the West.

He noted that relations between both countries “have reached the highest level in history,” emphasizing their self-sufficiency and independence from internal political factors or fleeting global agendas.