In authoritarian systems like China's, naming a successor creates an immediate alternative power center, leading to tension. Not naming one, however, risks a chaotic power struggle later. Xi Jinping appears to be choosing the latter risk, consolidating power now at the expense of future stability, a classic 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario for autocratic rulers.

Liberal democracy is a relatively recent and fragile experiment. For most of human history, societies have been organized under autocratic rule like monarchies or warlords. The US founders studied the fall of Rome and Athens, aware of this fragility.

Targeting a regime's leader, assuming it will cause collapse, is a fallacy. Resilient, adaptive regimes often replace the fallen leader with a more aggressive individual who is incentivized to lash back simply to establish their own credibility and power.

The most potent threat to an authoritarian regime comes not from visible dissidents, who are often neutralized, but from patriotic loyalists within the system. These insiders believe the current leadership is corrupt and harming the country, making their patriotism a powerful tool that can be turned against the regime.

Contrary to their image of strength, authoritarian figures often rely on bluff and "anticipatory obedience." When confronted with direct, organized resistance, they frequently lack a follow-up plan and retreat, revealing their inherent fragility and dependence on their opposition's inaction.

Dictatorships appear strong because they control the state apparatus and outlaw opposition. However, this same structure makes them weak. Their fundamental illegitimacy means they haven't been truly tested and are plagued by internal paranoia and a lack of trust, creating significant vulnerabilities.

A dictator's attempts to consolidate power by purging potential rivals are counterproductive. This strategy creates a culture of fear where subordinates are too afraid to deliver bad news, isolating the leader from ground truth. This lack of accurate information increases the risk of catastrophic miscalculation and eventual downfall.

Authoritarian leaders deliberately foster competition and division among their security services. This prevents any single group from becoming powerful enough to stage a coup, but it also creates deep-seated animosities and disaffection that external actors can exploit to destabilize the regime.

Unlike the cautious, collegial Soviet Politburo—composed of men who survived Stalin by avoiding opinions—Putin governs alone as a risk-taker. This lack of institutional checks and balances makes his actions dangerously unpredictable. The stability of Russia itself is fragile and dependent on him, making him a fundamentally different and more acute threat than his Cold War predecessors.