Putin's rating is falling, but the picture is not all straightforward
Vladimir Putin has seen his approval ratings decline for a sixth consecutive week, according to figures from the state-run pollster VTsIOM. Political analysts, however, caution against reading too much into the figures.
Data published by VTsIOM show that public trust in Putin fell by 1,8 percentage points in the week of April 6–12 compared with the previous week, with 72 percent of respondents saying they trusted the Russian ruler. Since the downturn began in early March, overall trust has dropped by 5,3 percentage points.
Approval of the dictator’s performance also declined, falling by 1,1 percentage points over the same week to 66,7 percent. This indicator has been sliding since March 2–8 and has dropped by 6,6 percentage points in total. According to media reports, these are Putin’s lowest trust and approval ratings since the start of the war.
Political scientists attribute the decline to a gradual deterioration in the economic situation and growing frustration over internet restrictions. Notably, such discontent is now visible even among traditionally pro-government groups, who increasingly feel that Putin is not paying sufficient attention to domestic policy.
“Everyone knows that Putin does not use the internet,” says Mikhail Komin, a researcher at the Centre for European Policy. “Even his core electorate — older voters — have come to believe he was persuaded of the need to build a ‘sovereign internet’ and block all messaging services except MAX. He did not look into the issue and simply agreed.”
According to Komin, this dissatisfaction has been compounded by a series of emergencies in Russia’s regions — including the mass culling of livestock in the Novosibirsk region, officially attributed to outbreaks of pasteurellosis and rabies; an oil spill off the coast of Anapa; and flooding in Dagestan. He argues that these issues are being actively exploited by systemic opposition parties such as New People and the Communist Party ahead of parliamentary elections due in September.
At the same time, the publication of declining ratings may serve the interests of factions within the presidential administration opposed to tighter internet controls. Komin believes the Kremlin would have authorised the release of the data.
“We learned from reporting by The Bell that oversight of the internet and the development of the ‘Runet’ has been assigned to the FSB’s Second Department — people far removed from the subtleties of managing public opinion,” he says. “This may give the presidential administration an additional argument to present to Putin: that even VTsIOM’s figures are falling, the situation is worrying, and perhaps restrictions should at least be eased until after the elections.”
Another analyst, Ivan Preobrazhensky, takes a different view. He argues that the Kremlin is deliberately publicising the drop in ratings and misleading international media by presenting it as a cause for concern.
“The aim is to create the illusion that public opinion matters — to show that people are being heard,” he says. “The Kremlin will then stage a response, making some purely cosmetic concession on already adopted repressive measures, while continuing to push the entire country onto the MAX messaging platform, which, according to an investigation by Andrei Zakharov, is partly owned by Putin.”
Preobrazhensky also sees signs of orchestration in a widely discussed 18-minute video address to Putin by blogger Viktoria Bonya, who has 13 million followers on Instagram. In the video, she outlined problems in Russia’s regions, suggesting the Russian ruler might be unaware of them because those around him are afraid to deliver bad news. Internet restrictions featured prominently among the issues she raised. The video generated significant attention both within Russia and among the diaspora.
Even if Bonya’s initiative was initially spontaneous, Preobrazhensky believes it is unlikely to have been published without approval. He points to similar past cases, including initiatives linked to Ivan Okhlobystin, where figures were encouraged to voice controlled criticism.
“The process is well established,” he says. “Calls are made from the Kremlin asking what concerns people might want to raise, suggesting it is the right moment for the country’s top leadership to hear them.”
The choice of Bonya was also deliberate, he argues, reflecting her audience profile. “Those most affected by internet restrictions are small and medium-sized businesses — people running online courses and similar ventures. That is precisely her audience, and for many she is a kind of guru. They will hear her — and see the response carefully staged by the Kremlin.”
The video prompted a response from Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said that “extensive work is under way and a large number of people are involved; nothing is being ignored”. Bonya subsequently released a second video, thanking Putin through tears for hearing her appeal. She also asked not to be associated with the opposition.
