Professor Kari Liuhto took part in the publication series of the National Defence University Fog of War III: Preparedness, Readiness, and Modern Warfare (Sodan usvaa III: Varautuminen, valmius ja nykyaikainen sodankäynti) with his article “Alternative Futures of Russia What Should Finland Prepare for and How?”
In his article, Liuhto examines possible development scenarios for Russia based on previous research on the subject. Liuhto outlined four alternative futures for Russia: (1) Continuation of Putinism; (2) Return of Stalinism; (3) Western-Oriented Coup; and (4) Era of Chaos.
In the scenario of the continuation of Putinism, societal authoritarianism increases. Power is centered around the president, security services, and the National Guard, which control society. Siloviki, individuals from Russia’s security, law enforcement, and defense organizations, form an elite class that controls strategic enterprises. Minority rights are suppressed under state guidance and state media. Propaganda and censorship flourish.
In this scenario, Russia’s economy heavily relies on the raw materials sector. Large investments in the military-industrial sector undermine civilian investments and innovations, leading to increasing technological backwardness. In foreign policy, Russia leans more towards China and portrays the West as an enemy. Great power ambitions and imperial nostalgia in the Kremlin intensify. Russia considers former Soviet republics as part of its sphere of influence and tries to affect them, for instance, through criminal organizations.
In the scenario of the return of Stalinism, Russian society transforms into a totalitarian state. The dictatorship is maintained by the president’s repressive apparatus, the army, and the church. Opposition is eradicated, and all forms of dissent are suppressed. A social credit system similar to China’s is established. Nationalism and xenophobia are systematically fueled by propaganda. The judiciary becomes politicized to serve the state’s agenda.
In this future, Russia’s economy is based on a command economy and state capitalism, preparing for a major war. Large companies are nationalized, and foreign trade becomes a state monopoly. These actions lead to the collapse of economic growth, living standards, and foreign trade. Russia isolates itself from the rest of the world and emphasizes confrontation, especially against the United States. Foreign policy is extremely aggressive, where nuclear threats become an instrument of power. The threat of a coup is ever-present.
A Western-oriented coup, according to Liuhto, is the least likely of these scenarios. In this case, Russia’s Western-oriented factions manage to seize and maintain power. Russian society begins to cautiously democratize, and parliamentarianism strengthens. Presidential centrality and nationalism persist, at least as a rhetorical baseline. Efforts are made to weaken the oligarchy and strengthen a middle-class societal structure. The economy starts to grow, and Western companies gradually return to Russia. Economic structures and foreign trade slowly diversify. Russia attempts to improve relations with the West, but war guilt slows the normalization of Western relations. Dependence on China is reduced. China tries to counter by supporting anti-Western forces.
The fourth alternative future is an era of chaos. In this scenario, Russia descends into chaos following the collapse of the power system. The resulting power vacuum leads to bloody power struggles. The economy plunges into chaos and hyperinflation, causing the ruble to lose its role as a medium of exchange. Total economic collapse looms. Disorder in production and transportation systems causes food shortages. Societal confusion results in protests, riots, and rampant violence. Russia is under the threat of collapsing. Foreign policy becomes reactive. A major concern is the risk of Russia’s weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands.
What do these alternative futures mean from Finland’s perspective? Liuhto ponders that the continuation of Putinism would pose significant challenges and economic costs to Finland. More serious, however, would be Russia descending into chaos, which would present considerable risks and problems for Finland. The return of Stalinism would be more predictable than Putinism, but there is a risk of major war under Stalinism. Liuhto argues that each alternative future requires different preparedness measures. He believes it is crucial for Finland to consider how to prepare for various futures. He suggests evaluating which existing functions need to be strengthened, reduced, or terminated, and what new functions need to be created for each scenario.
Liuhto emphasizes that one must prepare for the worst, and in this, a militarily strong and politically united West plays a crucial role. He paraphrases Paasikivi: “The beginning of all wisdom is recognizing the future. Opposing the future is a futile effort and cannot lead to a successful outcome.”
Read the whole article here.