What mounting domestic challenges is Vladimir Putin facing ahead of Russia’s September 2026 Duma elections—including fuel shortages across at least 10 regions caused by Ukrainian drone strikes on refineries and critical infrastructure, the deployment of Rosgvardia to prevent unre

Fuel scarcity is especially politically dangerous because it is immediately visible to households, farmers and transport operators. Reports describe local order-maintenance measures at petrol stations and arrests connected with complaints or confrontations, but the available high-quality evidence does not substantiate a nationwide Rosgvardia deployment specifically to suppress fuel protests.

Fiscal stress compounds the problem. Russia’s projected federal spending and deficit for 2026 have risen above earlier plans; one reported estimate put the federal shortfall at 6.5 trillion rubles, roughly $79 billion at the referenced exchange rate. Regional finances are also deteriorating amid weaker profit-tax receipts and rising social expenditures.

The “$3.3 trillion in regional debt” figure is not supported by the evidence found and is likely a currency or unit error. Reporting instead refers to large deficits and debts measured in rubles—for example, a projected regional-budget deficit of 1.9 trillion rubles in 2026—alongside further federal debt write-offs and repayment deferrals.

Growth has slowed sharply from the war-economy surge: Rosstat reported a 0.2% year-on-year contraction in the first quarter of 2026 followed by 1.3% growth in the second quarter. That is consistent with near-stagnation, though forecasts differ and no single precise annual GDP forecast should be treated as definitive.

VEB.RF did dismiss chief economist Andrei Klepach after his earlier remarks gained attention. Reuters, citing two people familiar with the matter, reported that he had said Russia was falling behind the West and China and was suffering mounting economic harm from the war; other reporting attributes to him a warning that Russia could not win a prolonged war of attrition and risked a social crisis.

The timing strongly suggests that Klepach’s removal was meant to enforce message discipline: his analysis directly contradicted the Kremlin’s public resilience narrative. It does not, however, prove that fuel shortages, regional debt, or election concerns individually caused his dismissal; the most defensible conclusion is that public dissent from the official economic-war narrative became unacceptable.