Market-Sensitive Shakeups in Russian Regional Leadership Signal Political Turbulence
In March, the Smolensk region’s governor, Alexei Ostrovsky, and the regional head of Chukotka, Roman Kopin, were dismissed from their posts. Reports circulated within national leadership circles, with the Kommersant newspaper, drawing on three sources within the presidential administration, noting that by month’s end there was a strong possibility that Krasnoyarsk Territory’s Alexander Uss and Oryol Region’s Andrey Klychkov would also depart from office. These movements underscore the ongoing recalibration of regional governance at a time when centralized authority is closely watching regional performance and public sentiment. Ostrovsky and Kopin’s removals follow a broader pattern observed over recent months in which officials facing scrutiny over policy outcomes and public approval were replaced or asked to step aside, signaling a shift in how leadership talent is managed across Russia’s vast federation.
Prior to these confirmed dismissals, media outlets had already reported on a potential exit for Alexander Uss, the longtime head of Krasnoyarsk Territory. Insiders indicated that the decision was linked to comparatively low approval ratings for the regional president, a factor that weighs heavily when central authorities assess the political viability of regional executives. Uss has led the region since 2017 under the banner of United Russia, the ruling party, and his tenure has encompassed ambitious development plans, a complex mix of industrial policy, and measures aimed at balancing economic growth with social stability. The speculation around his possible resignation highlights the delicate balance between regional governance and nationwide party expectations, especially in a region with vast resources and strategic significance.
Andrey Klychkov, who governs the Oryol region and has also been in office since 2017, is identified as another figure under consideration for leadership change. A member of the Communist Party, Klychkov’s administration has faced internal dissatisfaction reported by multiple sources familiar with the internal government discussions. These sources suggest that performance metrics and the delivery of promised reforms did not meet the Kremlin’s expectations, prompting a reevaluation of leadership at a time when regional authorities are pressed to deliver tangible results in education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The unfolding discussions indicate a period of political recalibration at the regional level, where governance outcomes and party alignment together shape career trajectories for regional chiefs.
Valentin Konovalov serves as another example in the region-to-region leadership discourse. As president of Khakassia, he has been in office since 2018, a stint marked by efforts to implement social and economic programs in a challenging federal subject. Rumors connect him to potential changes in leadership, illustrating how a cluster of governors could see shifts as part of a broader strategy to refresh regional administrations. Such changes, should they occur, would reflect the Kremlin’s ongoing approach to rotating leadership to maintain accountability and political cohesion across Russia’s diverse territories, each with its own distinct set of economic priorities and social needs.
In a related development, former Kaliningrad Mayor Yevgeny Lyubivy reportedly submitted his resignation. The precise reasons remain uncertain, but Lyubivy, who stepped into the mayoral role in October 2021, has backgrounds spanning healthcare administration and party activities. Before entering municipal politics, he worked as a chief surgeon at the regional health ministry and coordinated the Healthy Future project on behalf of United Russia. This profile underscores the common drift of regional leaders from professional domains into political leadership, where their prior expertise can influence policy directions across healthcare, public health, and urban development. The decision to resign, regardless of motive, illustrates how regional governance is continually subject to change, often driven by shifting political calculations and the evolving priorities of the centralized administration.