Three scenarios that should not be ignored about a possible future without Putin

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine to overthrow the government in Kyiv on the absurd motive of being run by the “neo-Nazis” is provoking the worst war Europe has seen in a last generation and inflicting terrible damage on civilians. The Russian armed forces have charged hospitals, residential buildings, a shopping mall and a theater that served as shelters. Enormous suffering exacerbated by the siege of cities such as Mariupol, which was largely reduced to rubble.

The war also forced millions of people to flee their homes. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 3.8 million Ukrainians have fled their country and another 6.7 million have been forced to flee their homes, although they are still in the country. Among them they make up 20% of the population of Ukraine and children make up almost half of this total.

The shock and outrage over these and other dire consequences of Putin’s invasion are understandable and even necessary. The hostility towards Putin in the West and his desire to pay a very high price for it is so deep that some believe that in order to end the war, the Russian leader must leave power.

In the United States, some foreign policy experts hailed the prospect of regime change in Russia, while others went so far as to say that it should be the goal of U.S. policy before stepping back as soon as criticism of that position emerged. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is not known for her sophistication, said the war in Ukraine would not end until someone in Russia decided to “pull this guy out.” The only solution, he added, was the Russian “resurrection” and the creation of a “Russian Spring,” pointing to the 2011 uprisings in the Arab world. Carl Bildt, who was Sweden’s prime minister and foreign minister, said peace in Europe would require regime change in Russia.

The Biden administration has rejected the idea of ​​regime change, but its direct appeal to the Russian people is an obvious attempt to counter them with their government. When President Biden refused to take the stage during a visit to Poland at the NATO summit on March 24, saying that Putin “could not stay in power,” there was much speculation about his policies toward Russia. His team then had to explain that Putin’s overthrow was not among the goals.

Protests in Russia against Putin’s war, criticism of prominent magnates and other celebrities in the country, and growing evidence that Western economic sanctions are complicating daily life by raising prices and shortages of basic necessities may strengthen the belief that now is the time to oust Putin and possibly The authoritarian political system must also end.

What would happen if Putin fell?

Suppose for a moment that Putin falls, what happens next?

One possibility: Putin has been replaced by a new authoritarian leader who is pulling back on the Ukraine war to save Russia’s economy from disaster and, ultimately, to rebuild relations with the West.

But presumably in Russia’s current political system, all of Putin’s potential successors share his general animosity toward NATO and the West, as well as treating Ukraine as if it were his property. Fearing that the defeat would threaten his positions before he could consolidate it, it is possible that the successor (no doubt he would have been a man) continued the war with different tactics.

The second result is that the Russians, tired of the war and angry at the economic damage created by Western sanctions, will stand up and overthrow their government, eventually paving the way for democracy. But the uprising could fail, and those who trust this result should ask themselves whether it is responsible to encourage a major uprising when they fail to protect protesters from Putin’s enormous repressive techniques.

There is a third plausible scenario: unrest in Russia and protracted chaos that could even end in civil war between those interested in maintaining the current political order and those who oppose it and want to dump it in a landfill. Historically, this has meant political unrest, bloodshed, and unrest in the world’s only nuclear superpower, which is almost twice the size of the United States, which shares a land border with 14 other countries, and whose territory stretches from Europe to the Pacific.

Theories of nuclear stability have always suggested that countries that hold each other up remain stable. We do not have a conceptual framework to understand, let alone experience, what life would be like in a nuclear-armed country where anarchy reigns.

Can supporters of regime change be confident that the outcome in Russia will be what they hope for? The United States and its allies have deplorable experience in predicting the consequences of their regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. There is a more compelling reason for caution, especially since the consequences of error can be devastating.

Rajan Mennon is director of the Defense Priorities Grand Strategy Program, a researcher at Columbia University’s Sulzman Institute for War and Peace Studies, and Honorary Professor to Anna and Bernard Speakers at Colin Powell School in New York City. .

Translated by Francisco de Zarate