Vladimir Putin officially won 88 percent of the vote in Russia’s presidential elections on March 17, but his victory is both a symptom of weakness and a harbinger of defeat. Think of him as modern Russia's equivalent of the premodern Greek king Pyrrhus, who suffered unacceptably high casualties while almost toppling Rome in the third century BC. Like his ancient predecessor, Russia’s ruler has actually snatched defeat from the jaws of a seemingly resounding victory and will soon come to rue his decision to falsify the electoral results so immodestly.

Winning with a mere 70 percent would have done the trick, but Putin evidently decided that he needed the equivalent of an overwhelming mandate to continue ruling. Why go for broke and claim a win that is reminiscent of Soviet elections, where the sole candidate always won 99.99 percent? Strong, self-confident and genuinely beloved leaders don’t have to falsify so outrageously. They can just let the people show their love in a fair and free election. Weak, self-doubting, and genuinely unloved leaders, in contrast, need to feign popularity and legitimacy, because they know — and the people know — that they’d lose a free vote.

It’s therefore a mistake to conclude that Putin’s super-strong electoral showing enhances his power. That would be true if the vote were genuine. But since Putin and his minions fudged the numbers, it’s obvious that they did so to create the illusion of unadulterated mass........

© The Hill