Vladimir Putin’s Russia has two fatal flaws: Its leader is increasingly illegitimate and its borders are artificial.

Legitimacy matters because it endows rulers with the right to exercise authority, as the German sociologist Max Weber wrote. Rulers may, of course, exercise authority by killing or coercing their subjects, but it is much more effective (and cheaper) when people willingly do what a legitimate authority wants them to do.

Artificiality matters because, although all states and nations are human constructs and not naturally or divinely preordained, some states are more artificial — or less “natural” — than others, and thus more prone to the instability that artificiality fosters. Empires, which are ragtag agglomerations of territories and peoples, are one example of exceptionally artificial political systems.

Weber identified three pillars of legitimacy: tradition, rules and procedures, and charisma. Where does Putin stand with respect to them? He used to have all three.

Russians have traditionally accepted autocratic rule. That was as true in the period from 1998 to 1999 when Putin came to power, as it was in 1917 to 1918 when another Vladimir, Lenin, seized what was left of the imperial state.

As to the other two sources of legitimacy, at least initially, Putin was elected in more or less fair and free elections. And for several years, he exuded a........

© The Hill