Populism as a political concept is notoriously difficult to pin down, and is exceptionally prone to misuse. It describes neither policy nor ideology, but is rather best captured by the argument that populism above all constitutes a individualist “rhetorical style” and tends to weaken institutions and rule of law. Regardless, it has become a very rich area for comparative studies between Latin America and the former Soviet Union (see Alvaro Vargas Llosa), which is one reason why we always keep our eyes open for new perspectives on Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who although is quite different from Vladimir Putin in many respects, also shares a great number of qualities (oil, resource nationalism, and a cult of personality, to name a few). Oftentimes theories put forward about Chavez and Venezuela have interesting applicability to Putin and Russia. Reading this new piece about Venezuela by former Foreign Minister of Mexico and political scientist Jorge Castañeda in the New Republic, I was struck by how often I was able to substitute in “Putin” and “Russia.” Is it possible for Russia to separate the current administration’s policies from the individual, or are the two inextricably linked? The succession process we are witnessing right now in the Kremlin makes it a very intriguing question: can Russia have Putinism without Putin or Putin without Putinism?