Chapter 2 explores how idealized visions of leadership undermine statehood. Snyder discusses the notion, prominent in Russian political thought influenced by Ivan Ilyin, that a leader can transform a nation through mystical intervention, sidestepping the need for robust political institutions and processes like democratic succession. This fantasy overlooks the principles of succession and institutional continuity, which ensure that a state can progress beyond the life of any single leader.

Snyder uses the historical example of the Soviet Union, founded in 1922 following the Russian Revolution of 1917, to demonstrate that states maintained by the charisma or vision of an individual rather than democratic mechanisms do not last. He criticizes the Soviet Union for lacking a succession principle, which contributed to its instability and eventual collapse. The Soviet Union was headed by the communist party, which, in turn, had one leader. The leaders of the communist party were in power until death or until another figure took over the position by defeating his predecessor. According to Snyder, power in the USSR was maintained through constant acts of violence, some of them on a large scale, such as mass killings, starvation, and deportations. By contrasting these historical failures with the democratic model, Snyder illustrates that enduring states are those that foster a collective belief in the future through institutional renewal.