Do pro-regime educational interventions backfire? On the one hand, researchers of propaganda and indoctrination found that modern authoritarian regimes have shifted from imposing fear on their citizens to more subtle tactics of control by manipulating information in media and schools. On the other hand, research on enforced politicisation and co-optation of the public sector overwhelmingly supports the idea that such interventions only accumulate resentment among employees and worsen their work attitudes. This gap in the literature may lead to possible theoretical and methodological biases when analysing authoritarian regimes. Namely, by focusing solely on indoctrination potential, i.e., official legislation regarding public education, researchers may overlook educators’ resilience against the government’s attempts to indoctrinate and co-opt the education sector. My research will analyse what drives education sector employees’ attitudes towards indoctrination and how the magnitude of government-led interventions affects their regime support. Russia presents a unique case for analysing this question since the invasion of Ukraine has triggered a great number of educational reforms targeted to secure loyalty from educators and their students. However, the aggressive implementation of pro-regime interventions and external values may lead to a paradoxical decrease in regime support among educators despite the previously observed popularity of Putin in this group. I will draw on the Self-Determination Theory to tackle this puzzle. As for methodology, my research will employ a mixed-method design, including automated content analysis of legislation and education curricula, conjoint survey experiments, and semi-structured interviews. Ultimately, my research has the unique potential to assess how political interventions affect regime support in the Russian public sector due to its experimental design. It also provides broad significance for research on authoritarian states transitioning to totalitarianism.