Putin's return to Cold War politics will only reduce the chances of a healthy recovery and diversification away from dependence on oil. The innovative, well-educated people needed to create a vibrant economy typically don't want to live in a pariah state, where they can't speak freely or choose their leaders -- and where whatever they build can be stolen by corrupt officials. From 2011 through 2013, the first two years of Putin's latest presidency, annual emigration quintupled, and the number of active individual entrepreneursdeclined by about 13 percent.

Meanwhile, Putin is encouraging a dangerous strand of nationalism that he may not be able to control. Moscow's meddling in Ukraine has helped make heroes out of some very unsavory figures -- such as Igor Girkin (aka Igor Strelkov), a leader of the pro-Russian rebellion whofancies himself a fighter in a greater war against a morally corrupt West. Some extreme nationalists now view Girkin as a potential challenger to Putin.

The longer Russia's economic malaise lasts, the greater the chances that the opposition to Putin will turn into something more virulent. At that point, unless some faction of Russia's elite managed to remove Putin and hold free and fair elections, revolution would be the most likely route to regime change. The middle-class Muscovites who led the rebellion of 2011 and 2012 failed because too few of them were desperate enough to risk their lives. Next time around, the outcome could be different -- and much worse.

David Fuller's view

I hope this editorial by David Shipley is too pessimistic about Russian political succession.  Putin is dangerous enough, given his history, his actions over the last year, and Russia’s weaponry which he has increased. 

Meanwhile, where are the sensible, intelligent and visionary Russian patriots who could band together, seize control, tell the truth and hold democratic elections?

(See also: Should Putin fear the man who ‘pulled the trigger of war’ in Ukraine?, from Reuters.)