Can The US Really Pull Off Regime Change In Russia?
Publicly calling for regime change against President Putin is nothing more than the most dramatic and arguably desperate attempt yet by the US-led West to give the Western masses false hope of an impending ‘victory’ in the New Cold War so that they don’t think about turning against their elite for the impending economic crisis that they’re responsible for creating.
US President Joe Biden’s very unambiguous demand for regime change against Russian President Vladimir Putin at the end of the former’s Warsaw speech on Saturday has since been walked back by American officials and even Biden himself, but it still prompted the question of whether the US really wants regime change in Russia or not. The Kremlin has suspected that the White House had such intentions for decades already and historical precedent speaks to the fact that the US has indeed played a role in the removal of dozens of heads of state since the end of World War II. Be that as it is, one must wonder whether that’s their intent with modern-day Russia, and if so, whether they can really pull it off.
No sincere observer doubts that President Putin stands in the way of America’s dominance over Russia. He’s proudly resisted his geopolitical rival’s attempts to transform his sovereign Eurasian Great Power into yet another vassal state of the declining unipolar hegemon. This is indisputably the case when considering the reasons why he said that he authorized Russia’s ongoing special military operation in Ukraine, which included preemptively thwarting the US’ plans to launch a surprise NATO attack against his country from that former Soviet Republic. President Putin strongly implied that this would have happened after the US first neutralized Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities.
That objective was being advanced through the continued regional deployment of “anti-missile systems” and strike weapons near Russia’s borders that was occurring in parallel with US support for Ukraine’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs that this fascist-hijacked state could have employed to perpetually blackmail his country under threat of the warned-about surprise NATO attack from its territory. Other examples of President Putin standing in the way of the US’ attempts to reassert its declining unipolar hegemony across the world include his decision to commence a game-changing anti-terrorist intervention in Syria that in turn geopolitically revolutionized West Asian affairs.
His Eurasian Great Power also serves as an example of an alternative socio-political development path and even its own “Great Reset”/”Fourth Industrial Revolution” (GR/4IR) model. Instead of liberal-globalism, conservative-nationalism would be the way forward, which has inspired many dissidents within the US’ EU vassals in recent years. While it’s true that the Chinese models have a much greater chance of shaping the ongoing global systemic transition than Russia’s do, the latter’s happen to appeal more to the West due to Russia’s historical civilizational ties with that bloc. This in and of itself makes Russia seem “more threatening” to the US than China when it comes to their competition over the EU.
Nevertheless, the US successfully reasserted its declining unipolar hegemony over that bloc as a result of its preplanned response to Russia’s special operation in Ukraine so the so-called “threat” has since been “managed”. Even so, President Putin’s continued role as the Russian leader is thought to make America’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) very uncomfortable due to the influence that he has simply by existing and holding firm in the face of the US-led West’s unprecedented pressure upon his Great Power. It therefore follows that they’d naturally prefer for him to be removed from office, though it’s practically impossible for them to achieve this.
Not only is the Russian leader properly protected by his security services from whatever speculative assassination attempts his opponents might be plotting, but he’s also wildly popular at home. Color Revolution scenarios aren’t realistic due to the country’s effective “Democratic Security” (counter-Hybrid War tactics and strategies) policies. Furthermore, there’s no chance whatsoever of a so-called “deep state” coup being carried out by members of his security services in collaboration with traitorous oligarchs and their Western patrons. It thus remains nothing more than a political fantasy to imagine President Putin being removed from power.
This understanding leads to confusion about why Biden would end his Warsaw speech by calling for President Putin’s removal if it’s practically impossible to ever pull off. Observers should understand this emotional appeal as being part of the US-led West’s interconnected sequence of perception management operations over the past week whereby two German states equated the Russian “Z” with the Nazi swastika, Poland de facto declared Hybrid War on Russia, and the Japanese Prime Minister exploited Hiroshima and Nagasaki to fearmonger about Russian nukes. The end effect is that the targeted Western audience’s perceptions about Russia and its leader have been grossly manipulated.
In this particular context, they’re supposed to rally behind the declining unipolar hegemon on a so-called “democratic” basis by believing in the seeming “inevitability” of supposedly “autocratic” Russia’s loss in the New Cold War exactly as its Old Cold War-era Soviet predecessor also lost its own global struggle against the West over a generation ago. This false expectation is the result of artificially manufacturing a weaponized information warfare narrative for convincing the US-led West’s people to sacrifice indefinitely in pursuit of this “noble” goal while the reality is that their elite are simply using President Putin as a scapegoat to distract the masses from the economic crisis that they themselves created.
Nonetheless, being misled into believing that their “sacrifices are worth it” so long as “Putin is removed from power” like they’re being brainwashed to expect is “inevitable” can serve the purpose of pacifying the increasingly restless masses as their economies plunge even deeper into crisis as a result of the Russian leader’s geo-economic judo move of demanding that they pay for its energy with rubles. Put another way, publicly calling for regime change against President Putin is nothing more than the most dramatic and arguably desperate attempt yet by the US-led West to give the Western masses false hope of an impending “victory” in the New Cold War so that they don’t think about turning against their elite.