Why do some opposition movements succeed in deposing authoritarian leaders in the former Soviet Republics, while some others fail? How do regime opponents challenge authoritarian discourses and practices? How do authoritarian regime institutions and their narratives galvanize popular support to retain power? Although post-Soviet scholarship has to date offered a variety of explanations for diverse regime trajectories, little work has simultaneously examined how autocrats and opposition forces build popular support in their efforts to maintain power or resist it, respectively. My work sought to remedy this gap by exploring competing political forces’ engagement in the symbolic politics of national identity and their access to economic resources in Russia and Ukraine. I find that that opposition forces’ effective appeal to a competing vision of national identity and autocrats’ limited control over wealth provides a sufficient explanation for the collapse of authoritarianism. Yet incumbent leaders’ preeminence over the symbolic struggle of national identity and broad control of economic resources enable authoritarian regimes to mobilize support both from masses and the political and economic elite, while depriving potential opposition forces of meaningful sources of popular support. Overall, this study seeks to shed light on how ideational and material resources available to both incumbent leaders and opposition movements are important in shaping authoritarian outcomes.