Key Points and Summary – A new op-ed in The Hill is urging President Trump to adopt a radical new strategy to end the war in Ukraine: threaten Vladimir Putin with regime change.
-The author, Joseph Bosco, argues that Trump’s current ultimatums are not enough and that he should declare the U.S. will do everything necessary to ensure Putin’s overthrow if the war continues.
-While the idea is provocative, this analysis concludes it is highly unlikely to be adopted.
-The proposal runs counter to Trump’s established foreign policy doctrine, which avoids open-ended commitments to regime change.
Trump Could Threaten Putin With the Unthinkable
If Donald Trump has a foreign policy doctrine across his two terms, it’s that he’s perfectly willing to conduct surgical strikes, assassinate enemy personnel, and provide military support for allies.
On top of skepticism about international alliances, he’s much less willing, however, to get involved in open-ended wars or make massive pushes for regime change.
The Bush-Cheney approach to foreign policy, in other words, is very far from how Trump views the world.
This is sometimes misinterpreted as “dovishness,” which isn’t quite the case.
Trump has shown ever-changing positions on the Russia-Ukraine war, in which it appears his ultimate goal is to get the two sides to agree to stop the fighting.
This has led the president to become openly frustrated, at different times, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
One thing that hasn’t been part of the discussion, since Trump’s return to office, is that Trump should threaten Putin’s ability to continue to rule Russia.
One new op-ed, however, suggests he should do just that.
End the War, or End Your Rule
Writing in The Hill this week, Joseph Bosco lays it out: “Trump must tell Putin: End the war in Ukraine or I will end your rule.”
Pointing out that Trump went from dressing down Zelenskyy in the Oval Office to making threats to his longtime ally, Putin, Bosco suggests going even further.
“Trump’s 50-day extension for Russian compliance — shortened on Monday to just 10 to 12 days — and his promise to impose punishing sanctions on Russia and its allies is the latest stall that serves Russia’s interests. It allows the continuing destruction of Ukraine’s cities and the wanton killing of Ukrainian men, women and children,” he writes.
“Trump can declare that the U.S. and its allies will cooperate to provide Ukraine with all the weapons, intelligence and other support it needs, not only to resist Russia’s continuing invasion of its country, but to eject it from the parts of Ukraine it already illegally occupies,” he writes, paying for it by utilizing funds seized from Russia.
Also, Bosco argues that the U.S. should “ensure the Russian people know the truth about what is happening in Ukraine,” and hope that this knowledge will mean “Putin will have on his hands the most serious challenge to his rule of his entire career.”
“Relatively peaceful regime change in Russia will set the stage for similar governance transformations in Iran, North Korea and, most critically for world peace, the People’s Republic of China. Trump is the only world leader today who can make this happen. It would certainly be worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize Trump is openly seeking,” he writes.
Reality Check on Putin and Ukraine
That series of events would appear unlikely to happen.
Mostly because the majority of them are things that the U.S. and its Western allies have already been doing, or attempting to do, since the war started.
They are supplying Ukraine with weapons, trying to help Ukraine reclaim lost territory, and likely making some attempt to win the hearts and minds of the Russian people.
None of those things has provided any indication that they are moving towards the overthrow of Putin’s regime, much less a similar series of pro-Western revolutions in North Korea or China.
There was some speculation that the attacks on Iran’s nuclear program would bring about the end of the Islamic Republic, but nothing like that has happened, either.
The idea of such things happening is, once again, much more in line with the Bush Doctrine’s view of the world than with the politics and worldview of the Trump era.
The Trump Administration has a lot of options in terms of what to do about Russia and Ukraine. Still, it does not appear that seeking a direct overthrow of the current Russian government, in a nuclear-armed country, is one of those options.
About the Author: Stephen Silver
Stephen Silver is an award-winning journalist, essayist, and film critic, and contributor to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Broad Street Review, and Splice Today. The co-founder of the Philadelphia Film Critics Circle, Stephen lives in suburban Philadelphia with his wife and two sons. For over a decade, Stephen has authored thousands of articles that focus on politics, national security, technology, and the economy. Follow him on X (formerly Twitter) at @StephenSilver, and subscribe to his Substack newsletter.
More Military
We Almost Touched the F-117 Stealth Fighter
Jim
July 29, 2025 at 8:32 pm
The Hill op-ed is an attempt to reinvigorate war supporters because the war isn’t going well.
Probably, it’s also recognition the sanctions strategy isn’t working and something beyond sanctions needs to be done to salvage the policy.
Also, there is a timing factor, the piece includes discussion of moving up the sanctions deadline to 10 or 12 days, so the author may think now is the time to push for a more aggressive policy because Trump maybe receptive to such ideas.
Trump wants the cease fire, Korean-style armistice, because it retains 80% of Ukraine and the prospect exists to bring the 80% into a de facto NATO status.
(Trump could call this a win since he didn’t start the war and ultimately 80% of Ukraine being a de facto NATO state achieves a good portion of the original objectives.)
But the Russians know all this so the war will go on, no cease fire.