Key Points and Summary – Western aspirations for regime change in Russia are a “dangerous delusion” that ignores the lessons of past interventions in Iraq and Libya.
-Such efforts are not only unrealistic, given Russia’s nationalist resilience, but also risk provoking greater instability and a more aggressive Kremlin.
-Instead of pursuing this flawed strategy, the West must adopt a pragmatic and robust deterrence model.
-This approach should combine credible military readiness, targeted economic sanctions, and persistent diplomatic engagement to effectively counter Russian aggression while acknowledging the reality of its political landscape.
Why ‘Regime Change’ in Russia Is a Dangerous Fantasy
This is the only sustainable path to managing the threat from Moscow.
In the intricate and often tumultuous landscape of international relations, the West finds itself at a critical juncture regarding its strategy toward Russia. The allure of regime change has long captivated Western leaders, promising a swift resolution to the myriad challenges posed by the Kremlin. However, the harsh reality is that such aspirations are not only unrealistic but also fraught with perilous consequences. As we navigate the geopolitical landscape in 2025, Western powers must adopt a realist deterrence strategy, abandoning the delusion of inducing regime change in Russia.
Historically, attempts at regime change have often led to unintended and deleterious consequences. The U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya serve as stark reminders of the chaos that can ensue when external powers attempt to reshape a nation’s political landscape. In Iraq, the removal of Saddam Hussein did not usher in a new era of democracy; instead, it plunged the country into sectarian violence and instability that persists to this day. Similarly, Libya, once a relatively stable state, descended into a failed state scenario following the ousting of Muammar Gaddafi. These examples underscore the inherent risks of regime change, particularly in nations with complex social and political fabrics.
The notion that the West can effectively engineer a change in the Russian regime is equally misguided. Russia’s political landscape is characterized by a strong sense of nationalism and a populace that, despite grievances, often rallies around its leadership in times of external threat. The Kremlin has adeptly framed its narrative, portraying the West as an existential adversary. This narrative not only consolidates domestic support for the regime but also complicates any external efforts aimed at fostering dissent or promoting alternative governance structures.
Moreover, the consequences of regime change efforts extend beyond the immediate chaos they create. They can lead to long-term strategic instability, emboldening adversaries and undermining the credibility of Western powers. The perception that the West seeks to impose its will on sovereign nations can foster resentment and resistance, driving countries like Russia to adopt more aggressive postures. This dynamic has been evident in the Kremlin’s response to Western interventions, which it interprets as direct threats to its sovereignty and security.
In light of these historical lessons, it is crucial for Western leaders to recalibrate their approach to Russia. The focus should shift from the unrealistic goal of regime change to a robust deterrence strategy that acknowledges the realities of the current geopolitical landscape. This strategy should be grounded in a clear understanding of Russia’s motivations and the broader implications of its actions.
Deterrence, in this context, involves a multifaceted approach that combines military readiness, economic sanctions, and diplomatic engagement. The West must demonstrate a credible commitment to defending its interests and allies while simultaneously seeking to engage with Russia on issues of mutual concern. This dual approach can help to stabilize the region and reduce the likelihood of miscalculations that could lead to conflict.
Military readiness is paramount in this deterrence strategy. The West must ensure that its forces are adequately positioned and prepared to respond to any aggressive actions by Russia. This includes bolstering NATO’s eastern front and enhancing the capabilities of member states in the region. A visible and credible military presence can serve as a powerful deterrent, signaling to Moscow that aggression will not be tolerated. The recent military exercises conducted by NATO in Eastern Europe exemplify this commitment to deterrence, showcasing the alliance’s resolve to protect its member states.
Economic sanctions also play a critical role in a realist deterrence strategy. Targeted sanctions can impose significant costs on the Russian economy, thereby limiting its ability to project power abroad. However, these sanctions must be carefully calibrated to avoid unintended consequences that could further entrench the regime. The goal should be to weaken the Kremlin’s capacity for aggression while minimizing the impact on the Russian populace, who often bear the brunt of such measures. Sanctions should be coupled with clear communication about their purpose: to deter aggressive actions rather than to punish the Russian people.
Diplomatic engagement should not be overlooked in this strategy. While the West must remain firm in its stance against Russian aggression, there are opportunities for dialogue on issues such as arms control, cybersecurity, and regional stability. Engaging with Russia on these fronts can build a framework for coexistence, reducing the risk of escalation and fostering a more stable international environment. The recent discussions surrounding arms control treaties, for instance, highlight the potential for cooperation even amidst tensions.
It is also essential to recognize that the pursuit of regime change can distract from the more pressing challenges posed by Russia’s actions on the global stage. The Kremlin’s interference in democratic processes, its military interventions, and its aggressive posture toward neighboring countries are issues that demand immediate attention. By focusing on deterrence, the West can more effectively address these challenges without becoming mired in the quagmire of regime change.
In this context, it is worth noting that some Western leaders continue to advocate for regime change in Russia, believing it to be a viable solution to the current crisis. Figures like British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have occasionally hinted at the need for a change in the Kremlin, reflecting a sentiment that can be both appealing and dangerous. However, such views are increasingly out of step with the realities of international relations. The lessons of the past should serve as a cautionary tale, reminding us that the path to stability lies not in the overthrow of regimes but in establishing a framework for deterrence and engagement.
As we move forward, Western powers need to embrace a realist perspective that prioritizes stability and security over the unattainable goal of regime change. This approach not only acknowledges the complexities of the Russian political landscape but also recognizes the broader implications of our actions on the global stage. By adopting a deterrence strategy, the West can effectively counter Russian aggression while fostering an environment conducive to dialogue and cooperation.
In conclusion, the time has come for Western powers to abandon the delusion of regime change in Russia and embrace a pragmatic approach grounded in realism. The historical consequences of past interventions serve as a stark reminder of the risks involved in attempting to reshape foreign regimes. By focusing on deterrence, the West can safeguard its interests, promote stability, and navigate the challenges posed by Russia in a manner that is both effective and sustainable. The path forward lies not in the pursuit of unattainable ideals but in the recognition of the complex realities that define our world.
Ultimately, the West must recognize that a strategy of deterrence is not merely a defensive posture; it is a proactive approach that seeks to shape the environment in which we operate. By demonstrating resolve and a willingness to engage, the West can create a framework that discourages aggression while opening avenues for cooperation. In doing so, we can foster a more stable and secure international order —one that acknowledges the realities of power dynamics while striving for peaceful coexistence.
The stakes are high, and the choices we make today will resonate for generations to come.
About the Author: Dr. Andrew Latham
Andrew Latham is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and a professor of international relations and political theory at Macalester College in Saint Paul, MN. You can follow him on X: @aakatham.
Russia’s Bomber Forces
Tu-22M3: The Bomber Ukraine Hit With Drones
Yeah
July 10, 2025 at 5:31 pm
The deep state, specifically the CIA, has been for a long time always wanted to kaput russia, or the original USSR.
During jimmy carter’s reign, zbigniew brzezinski, a very deeply buried or entrenched part of the existing deep state apparatus, was highly instrumental with his big al-qaeda hugely genius project.
But the highest peak was in the 1990s, when russia, just newly emerging from the soviet ashes, struggled severely with islamist awakenings directly fueled by CIA and its turk cronies.
There was also then the same kind of awakenings in the balkans, where the US under Clinton started bombing the serbs.
Then along came hussein obama followed by joe biden and now donald trump. Each of them planning to do a number on russia. Can’t ever escape deep state unfluence.
Putin after becoming president realized What was going on, and on march 1 2018, he warned the west while unveiling his six new novel weapons.
But that never stopped the US. Donald trump sent heavy military weapons to ukraine during the following year of 2019. On the advice of his handlers who were all in the big deep pocket of deep state.
But today, putin has outlived his time, and he needs to go.
He has now become inept and useless due to the inevitable ravages of increasing age.
Once putin’s gone, russia will rise to its feet, slap the dust off its backside and do a number on the west. So, in the very end, it’s the west that’s likely to get kaput.
Kaput to helllll.
Jimmy
July 11, 2025 at 1:56 am
Putin is never wrong – remember that. In Russia, everyone (95%) supports him. 🙂
Jim
July 11, 2025 at 10:36 am
President Trump has a problem. As long as he’s constrained by the Washington Narrative on the Ukraine War he will be trapped into a Biden 2.0 policy.
Perhaps, Trump’s greatest strength has been “Breaking the Narrative” with his Tweets (at the time) which blew up the “narrative,” the framework, even the terms of debate.
Trump’s opponents hated this with a passion because if you argue & debate within the terms of debate set by the framework… you are playing by the “house rules” and you will lose, just like at the casino — those rules determine the house wins… in advance.
Trump’s supporters loved him for this because many knew the game was rigged and the terms of debate were bunk.
… and designed to insure arguing within those terms was a loser.
And, often, after Trump blew up the narrative with a pungent Tweet which “big footed” the narrative’s terms of debate, Trump’s opponents gave up because Trump’s terms of debate and framework dictated his side of the argument would win.
Trump doesn’t seem willing to or simply hasn’t challenged the Washington narrative on Ukraine. And as a result he is failing to uphold his promise to end the war.
If Trump takes on the “narrative” he can win and the American People will support him which would carry his Ukraine policy over the wall of political resistance to ending the war.
So far he hasn’t and if he doesn’t he will end up losing and so will the American People.
Swamplaw Yankee
July 12, 2025 at 2:29 am
Jimmy is succinct: perhaps correct.
In rump ethnic russia, Putin is loved by the population. Putin brought back free unlimited supply of Ukrainian children to the average russian deviant. The average russian deviant in 2014 no longer had to join a sex trade caravan that bi-annually “harvested” in Ukraine’s hinterlands little Ukrainian children from their butchered parents.
What could very needy russian language teaching pedophiles want more from a leader?
The “rub”. Most of that geographical land is not populated by peasant russians. Captive ethnic groups, nations, were subjugated by muscovite directed troops and remain captive in 2025. That the WEST allowed the Commie russians to retain control of these captive ethnics in the fall of the Communist empire, seems to be a concept undeveloped.
The peasant russian has no “god given” right to these conquered people/nations.
The American people, the WEST, lost much when their POTUS did zip at that time of Communist disintegration.
The peer review: The above op-ed seems delusional. The reference to the WEST acting in union in relation to the rump russians is so delusional. There is no monolith WEST. The rump russia can hardly survive as a rump let alone as the old “imperial empire”.
The use of glib phrases if so moronic, near offensive.
The refusal of the author to deal with the re-conquest war of the orc muscovite elite seems the most lethal. Like what is the situation: MCI? Long Wuhan?
The inducing of regime change inside the old empire is self-initiated. The stale advice to the WEST is dangerously rife with fungal spores.
ALERT: The WEST must be alert to the probability of Regime change. The delusional advice to ignore reality seems enough to stop this op-ed career. Or, can op-ed just try next time, again, to hit as if purchasing a lottery ticket.
MAGA POTUS Trump must self-realize the reality of imminent regime change in this unstable imperial empire. The POTUS should share his general ideas about the morphology that the USA envisions for the successor regime or states.
In any event, the Yankee inner state should also share their more nebulous speculations about a successor regime or states to the Captive nation empire.
An excellent cognitive element would have been a dose of reality. What will a huge increase in US arms/missiles to Ukraine do? Can it happen on Monday? If the MAGA POTUS Trump awakens out of his self denial, he could implement much needed changes with a full + flowing supply of missiles to Zelensky and the Ukrainian fathers fighting/dying for the WEST.
What if the WEST took action on the 11 year sex trade/human trafficking business that Putin’s “little green groomer” military is running. What would wake up the WEST to the peasant russian moral turpitude?
The WEST should demand that the Putin fascists immediately pre-pay $10,000,000 in US gold bullion to each and every Ukrainian victim as compensation and reparation for kidnapping and/or torture of up to 11 years. Just this one strict demand for gold compensation made world-wide would stop the re-conquest dementia of Putin’s personality.
Once Putin paid gold bullion for the first 10,000 Ukrainian victims, his demand that the muscovite elite find the gold bullion for the next 20,000 Ukrainian victims would stop the re-conquest ethnic need that lies inside the genetic of the russian peasant.
That this would also stop his 11 year supply of free, no-cost, filtered, redocumented Ukrainian child sex slaves to his deviant russian admirers, means the ruskie admirers must re-evaluate their own inner assumptions.
The WEST must vocalize and debate the much needed regime change in the old czarist imperial empire. What ever costume the peasant russian dons, czarist, Bolshevik or Putinist, the costume must not be the reason the WEST allows the orc muscovite to mass butcher Ukrainians physically and using cultural genocide. -30-
David Caiin
July 12, 2025 at 12:31 pm
So, Prof. Latham, where is this Russian aggression of which you speak? In the aftermath of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin all extended the hand of friendship to the US. It was a geopolitical gift horse looking us in the face. We, however, basically thumbed our nose at them and have, as you know, extended NATO eastward as the membership grew from 16 to 32 nations. Think of Ukraine being to Russia what Canada is to the US. Imagine during the Cold War that the KGB had ousted the government in Ottawa, put a puppet regime in place with the plan of installing nuclear missiles in the St. Lawrence river valley. I leave the American reaction to your imagination.
In 1969 I was a student of international affairs in Washington, DC. We went to the Soviet embassy for a talk with a Russian official. We asked why in the previous summer the Warsaw Pact had invaded Prague. The Russian diplomat said: “We have been invaded twice in this century from the west. Millions of our people were killed and we fought a bloodiest war in history to push them back. We created a buffer zone not to attack Europe but to keep them from our throats. And we intend to keep it.”
Now with the proxy war raging in Ukraine, western war lobbies are up to their old trick
of portraying Russia as a demon lusting for the conquest of Europe. Sadly, we have learned nothing. I lived in Germany throughout the seventies and eighties and understand that the West will always be at Russia’s throat. The victim is blamed for the crime.
David Cain
July 12, 2025 at 12:37 pm
So, Prof. Latham, where is this Russian aggression of which you speak? In the aftermath of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin all extended the hand of friendship to the US. It was a geopolitical gift horse looking us in the face. We, however, basically thumbed our nose at them and have, as you know, extended NATO eastward as the membership grew from 16 to 32 nations. Think of Ukraine being to Russia what Canada is to the US. Imagine during the Cold War that the KGB had ousted the government in Ottawa, put a puppet regime in place with the plan of installing nuclear missiles in the St. Lawrence river valley. I leave the American reaction to your imagination.
In 1969 I was a student of international affairs in Washington, DC. We went to the Soviet embassy for a talk with a Russian official. We asked why in the previous summer the Warsaw Pact had invaded Prague. The Russian diplomat said: “We have been invaded twice in this century from the west. Millions of our people were killed and we fought a bloodiest war in history to push them back. We created a buffer zone not to attack Europe but to keep them from our throats. And we intend to keep it.”
Now with the proxy war raging in Ukraine, western war lobbies are up to their old trick
of portraying Russia as a demon lusting for the conquest of Europe. Sadly, we have learned nothing. I lived in Germany throughout the seventies and eighties and understand that the West will always be at Russia’s throat. The victim is blamed for the crime.
Pingback: Pursuing Regime Change in China and Russia Is Delusional