How Regimes Accelerate Their Own Collapse

Authoritarian Regimes Often Mistake Strength for Stability—Until It’s Too Late

When authoritarian regimes collapse, it often looks sudden—leaders flee, governments dissolve, and the state unravels in real-time. But collapse is rarely spontaneous. More often, it’s the result of a slow, self-inflicted erosion of power, set in motion when leaders overestimate their own support and push too far.

This was the case in Afghanistan in 2021, where the U.S.-backed government, built on external military support rather than genuine legitimacy, crumbled almost overnight. It was also the case in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, where a war meant to demonstrate strength instead exposed military and political weakness. And it was the case in South Korea’s 2024 martial law crisis, where a government that assumed it could impose military rule without consequence was swiftly removed from power.

Again and again, regimes that assume their grip on power is unshakable discover—too late—that their own overreach is what brings them down.

---

Overconfidence Leads to Overreach

Authoritarian regimes don’t collapse because of one bad decision. They collapse because of a pattern of miscalculations—each one widening the gap between the government and the people until the state is too hollow to stand.

In 2003, when the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Bush administration implemented a policy called de-Baathification, meant to rid the government of Saddam Hussein’s influence. In practice, it meant firing tens of thousands of government officials, military officers, and civil servants overnight. These weren’t just high-ranking regime loyalists; they were bureaucrats, engineers, and police officers—people who actually knew how to run the country. And what do you think happened to them? Did they go home and start second careers as bakers and mechanics? No. They had their entire livelihoods stripped away and nothing left to lose. Many of them became the backbone of the armed insurgency that would plague Iraq for the next decade. The U.S. government expected loyalty, but what it got was an enemy force that it had created with its own policies.

The same pattern played out in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, just with an even bigger miscalculation. The Kremlin thought Kyiv would fall in three days. They rolled into Ukraine with parade uniforms packed, fully expecting to celebrate a quick victory. Instead, they got a grinding war of attrition. Ukraine’s defenders used commercial drones modified for warfare to turn Russia’s overwhelming firepower against itself. They moved in small, decentralized defense units, making it nearly impossible for Russia to score the kind of decisive battlefield victory that Putin had assumed was inevitable. Now, two years later, Russia has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, depleted its weapon stockpiles, and made itself dependent on black-market parts and mercenary forces just to sustain the fight. What was supposed to be a show of dominance has instead exposed the deep fragility of the Russian state.

South Korea’s 2024 martial law crisis followed the same logic—except the collapse happened at hyperspeed. Facing mass protests over corruption, the government attempted to declare martial law and shut down dissent with military force. But unlike Iraq or Russia, where power struggles played out over months and years, South Korea’s crackdown failed in mere weeks. Instead of intimidating protesters into silence, the move triggered a nationwide general strike. Businesses shut down. Thousands took to the streets. The South Korean National Assembly quickly moved to impeach the president, removing him from power before martial law could even take full effect. A government that assumes it can impose order by force often learns—too late—that its people have other plans.

---

Technology Makes Control More Difficult

Not all resistance looks like street protests or armed insurgencies. Some of the most effective opposition happens quietly, in ways that authoritarian governments struggle to contain. During World War II, the OSS Simple Sabotage Field Manual outlined ways that civilians could disrupt enemy governments—not with bombs, but with small, deliberate inefficiencies. Workers were told to misfile documents, delay projects, introduce small errors that, over time, would make the entire system grind to a halt.

That same principle applied to Hong Kong’s 2014 protests, where a leaderless, encrypted messaging-driven movement made it nearly impossible for authorities to arrest key organizers. Every time police tried to crack down, new protest flash mobs would appear elsewhere. Digital resistance allowed the movement to stay ahead of law enforcement for months.

In South Korea’s 2024 crisis, protesters flooded government hotlines, overloaded digital reporting systems, and created so much bureaucratic noise that state enforcement became nearly impossible. The government couldn’t keep up with digital disruptions, and by the time authorities responded, resistance had already moved to a different platform or tactic. Once a government loses the ability to enforce its own rules, even in the most basic ways, its power begins to slip—sometimes faster than even the people resisting expect.

In Ukraine, technology has played an even bigger role in leveling the battlefield. The Ukrainian military, outmatched in sheer firepower, has used drones, mobile defense units, and rapid communication networks to outmaneuver and outpace Russia’s forces. A country that was supposed to fall in days has managed to hold out for years, largely because modern technology allows even a smaller force to fight effectively against a superpower. The tools of war are no longer just tanks and fighter jets—now, a drone that costs a few hundred dollars can take out a multi-million-dollar piece of Russian military equipment. And because of the internet, these tactics spread quickly. The Ukrainian resistance has become a proof of concept for modern warfare, where traditional military dominance can be eroded by a force that is smarter, more adaptable, and better connected.

---

Wars Accelerate Collapse

The regimes that are already fragile often turn to war as a way to strengthen their grip on power. But war, far from securing control, usually makes collapse inevitable. The Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan drained its resources, weakened its international standing, and contributed to the USSR’s fall. The U.S. war in Vietnam forced a humiliating withdrawal and reshaped American politics for decades.

Even so-called “victories” can be disastrous. Russia’s occupation of eastern Ukraine hasn’t strengthened Putin’s grip on power—it’s weakened his economy, destabilized his military, and created internal fractures within his own government. The U.S. spent 20 years propping up Afghanistan’s government, only for it to fall in a matter of days. The regimes that use war as a tool for control usually find that war ends up controlling them instead.

---

Regimes Collapse from Within as Much as from Without

Governments don’t just fall because of external pressure. They fall because of their own mistakes. They push too hard, alienating even those who once supported them. They purge too many people, creating enemies where there were none. They assume military force can solve political problems, only to find that wars are easier to start than to win. They mistake silence for support, failing to see that silence is often just the absence of a safe way to speak. And then one day, the silence shatters, and the regime collapses so fast that even its leaders are caught off guard.

Regimes that look stable on the surface often collapse the fastest. Russia hasn’t fallen, but it has been plunged into a financially ruinous war, losing soldiers and resources at an unsustainable rate. What was supposed to be a quick military victory has instead forced the country into a long, grinding conflict that is weakening its global influence and economic stability. Iraq was supposed to become a stable democracy, but de-Baathification fueled years of insurgency. South Korea’s government thought it could impose martial law, but within weeks, mass resistance forced it out.

The biggest mistake authoritarian leaders make is believing that because they hold power today, they will still have it tomorrow. In reality, the more force they use, the more resistance they create. And once resistance takes root, collapse always happens faster than they ever expected.