Russian Billionaire Described A Scenario For Russia's Collapse
- 9.07.2026, 18:10
Russia could be drawn into a struggle among various forces over resources.
Billionaire Andrei Melnichenko, who ranks eighth among Russia’s wealthiest individuals on the Forbes list with a fortune of $20 billion, believes that the standoff between Russia and the West cannot continue indefinitely, and has outlined five scenarios for Russia’s future: the collapse of the state, the country’s transformation into a besieged fortress, a return to the periphery of the Western system, dependence on China, and the creation of a sovereign Russia. He wrote about this in a column for The Economist.
Melnichenko considers one of the most dangerous scenarios to be internal conflict and the collapse of the country. In his view, Russia could plunge into a struggle among various forces over resources, influence, and control over the territories of a nuclear power. “A broken Russia may be an appealing image in political speeches, but from a risk management perspective, it is far less appealing,” the billionaire writes.
Another dire scenario is Russia’s transformation into a besieged state—a closed, militarized country modeled after North Korea. According to him, in this scenario, the country would be marked by isolation, repression, limited opportunities for development, and constant mobilization. “Russia, stuck in the mindset of an eternal fortress, will turn external confrontation into a permanent tool of domestic policy,” the entrepreneur writes. Melnichenko also believes that the likelihood of the war in Ukraine spreading to other countries is growing. In his column, he also warns of the risks of further escalation of the conflict, including the use of nuclear weapons.
He considers Russia’s return to the Western world a possibility. If this scenario unfolds, the country will emerge from isolation and reintegrate into the Western economic system, but will remain on the periphery. In this case, Russia may find itself under the influence of external power centers and face a sense of loss of autonomy, which could give rise to a new wave of revanchism in the future.
The fourth scenario involves Russia moving into China’s sphere of influence. In this scenario, Moscow would become a supplier of natural resources, a market for Chinese goods, and a strategic buffer between China and the West. Melnichenko believes that such a model is not in the interests of either Russia or China. Russia would lose its independence, while Beijing would face additional costs due to the problems of a dependent partner and growing discontent among Russians. According to the entrepreneur, there would be little difference between Russia’s integration into the periphery of the West and its dependence on China. In both cases, Russia risks retaining a sense of dependence, which could fuel aggressive nationalism.
The final scenario—the creation of a sovereign Russia—echoes Vladimir Putin’s arguments about the need for the country’s independent development and a rejection of external influence. But Melnichenko emphasizes greater predictability. “This Russia should not be convenient for the West or China,” Melnichenko believes. “It may be a difficult partner for the West, but it is not a ‘black hole.’ It may be less accommodating toward China than a satellite state, but it is safer than a large and unstable vassal.”
The entrepreneur writes that many representatives of Russian business, science, and culture—who helped build the country after the collapse of the USSR—considered themselves part of the global community; however, sanctions have forced Russia to rethink its dependence on external ties. According to Melnichenko, the restrictions have served as an incentive to strengthen domestic production, as well as technological and economic sovereignty. He believes that how Russia will exercise its sovereignty can only be decided within the country itself, without regard to external preferences. He says that attempts to control this process from the outside are doomed to failure and counterproductive, as they undermine sovereignty—and without it, lasting peace is impossible. “We need to accept this—not out of sympathy for Russia, but out of an understanding that there is no alternative,” the billionaire concludes.