Putin will fight as long as necessary. Why does the West need regime change in Russia?

It seems to me that what needs to be conveyed to the Western elites is…

Their desire to take fewer risks and change less is quite understandable. And in general, it would be better to rewind – once there was such a button on tape recorders – and return to 23.02.2022. Well, or for Ukraine to win somehow, but without changing the regime in the Russian Federation – so that Putler, although weakened, remains in power. However, all of this is a utopia resulting from a misunderstanding of the essence of the Putler regime.

1. Putler will not end the war without victory. At the same time, many in the West say: “Well, with his propaganda he will be able to sell everything to his people for the sake of victory.” Firstly, it is nothing: the loss of Crimea, for example, will not be sold. And Ukraine’s entry into NATO. But the main thing is that the opinion of the population interests him in the thirtieth place: the main thing is to remain “invincible” in the eyes of the elite. But they are smarter, they remember more and see farther. Therefore, he must either humiliate the West, destroy Ukraine, or fight for it as long as necessary. Them. Under his rule there will be no peace acceptable to Ukraine and the West. These are incompatible things.

2. Time is not on our side. Voters in the anti-Putler coalition countries are tired of the war and support is waning. Ukraine’s forces are exhausted. There are also weapons stocks, but the production of new ones cannot keep up. Seriously and for a long time ramping up the West’s military industry is an expensive undertaking, and if all goes well, these capabilities will become redundant. Voters are also not keen on unnecessary military expenditures. At the same time, this process is much easier for the enemy – Russia has historically had a mobilization economy. The people got used to it, those who were especially violent are gone, the rest are ready to endure hardships in the name of greatness. If it continues like this, the Russian Federation will become the second Iran and China’s loyal ally. If something goes wrong, the further you go, the worse the explosion, the deeper the decay, and the greater the risks.

3. It’s time for the West to realize that this shit is happening and the minced meat will not go back into the meat grinder. There is no good and risk-free scenario in front of you, judging from the word “in general”, and you should not entertain yourself with illusions – this is wishful thinking (I think Western people should accept such arguments, they have a “cult of maturity” and sobriety). There are really three scenarios:

a) Surrender to the mercy of the winner: betray Ukraine, let Putler “save face” (he will not accept any compromise, it is not in his interest. For Russian culture, compromise is a sign of weakness). Price: purely economic – +4% of GDP for military spending, at least -3% of GDP from the collapse of world trade into two blocks (IMF estimate – does not take into account the slowdown in growth rates). The political cost is the loss of the West’s leading role, the collapse of the rules-based world order and numerous local wars. Capture of Taiwan. And there is not even the slightest chance of making Putler an ally against China (another misconception).

b) Maintain the status quo as much as possible. This is similar to World War 1 (defensive technologies are more powerful than offensive technologies as then). The loser is the one with a less stable political system. In World War I, democracies ultimately won, but all authoritarian empires lost, regardless of whose side they were on. But how did you lose? With civil wars, complete collapse of everything, and then the establishment of extremely aggressive totalitarian regimes. And this is natural.

Also look at the processes taking place in the Russian Federation. Industry is being militarized. The security forces are getting stronger (it seems there is nowhere else to go – but still… The security guards’ clan is especially getting stronger). The remnants of freedom are being destroyed. Hedonistic elites are being replaced by ideological elites. The rhetoric of support for Hamas and rapprochement with Iran and North Korea is becoming increasingly obvious. So, while trying to tighten the screws, everything is heading towards either Iranization or the “big bang”.

Plus, in this case the situation is different because the focus is on Ukraine, which is the weak link in the chain of democracies, since democracy is patronal, i.e. unbalanced. And the domestic political situation is very difficult, Poroshenko’s sect alone is worth it… At the same time, democracies in allied countries have been seriously eroded by leftists and right-wing extremists. Postmodernity has done its dirty work. So option (a) is not completely ruled out, but only after the huge expenditures for the war.

c) Breaking the negative trend: Strengthening support and sanctions for Ukraine in order to create conditions for complete victory. In order not to anger the geese, you do not need to call it “regime change”, say: “We are creating all the conditions for the Russian Federation to return to the legal sphere and be punished for violating the international order. in the form of unprovoked aggression. At the same time, we do not interfere in internal affairs”. This, just as the Yushchenko government tightened budget restrictions as a result of the 1998 crisis, did not officially set the task of sweeping the “red directors” with a dirty broom; it simply created the conditions in which these parasites could live. The blood of the economy is no longer sucked. And, as a rule, the entrepreneur or at least because they could not change their modus operandi enough to become market managers, they were replaced by managers appointed either by independent entrepreneurs or oligarchs.

In fact, the system of conditions thus created is supposed to push Russia towards liberalization (John Herbst rightly noted that after the wars lost so far, Russia generally experiences a period of liberalization). But even if it isn’t, the faster the power transition occurs, the less likely it is to end in disaster. There is even a chance of a positive scenario where the world will emerge from this mess better than it was on 23.02.2022 – but only in this option.

The author expresses his personal opinion, which may not coincide with the position of the editors. The author is responsible for the data published in the “Opinions” section.

Source