Has US Record Of Engineering Regime Changes Abroad Hit The Great Wall Of Russia? | Biden Vs Putin

3 Comments / 3 Comments

1. The US (warmongers) always fails in “nation building” but always succeeds in “nation destruction”! At the expense of the US taxpayer.

2. @Adam
   I believe that Russia has every right for concern of their govt being potentially targeted for regime change, given the US power structure has now made clear statements to support this objective, with repeated statements to this effect from the highest offices in the US, and from key members of both parties, including the current occupant of the White House, and a key member of the Senate. The point that makes these remarks even more relevant is the fact that the US/NATO has routinely demonstrated a great competence for destabilizing completely stable regimes with increasing success using their tools of social media manipulation and financing locally interested parties who perform, in part or whole, what needs to be achieved on the ground. They have armed Al Queda and Isis towards such objectives, even while the US was still at war with each of these terrorist groups. They additionally empowered Nazis towards this end, despite the obvious potential blow-back that this might have if the Nazi’s were only cooperative towards their own ends, which they were. There are, in fact, no enemies or villains deemed repulsive enough to not be employed in these schemes.

   I believe it would be a great mistake should Putin not perceive these openly stated threats as real, and I do not believe this is a mistake he is likely to make. This was the mistake of Milosovic, Gadhafi, and others. It is true that these govts were not the world power that Russia is, but they were completely stable regimes and the first step taken towards their displacement was a clear statement of the objective of removing them from power. Even should such an attempt at regime change fail to be successful, the efforts will still damage the targeted regime, and any military response taken against domestic actors or towards the actual sponsors of the regime change, would simply be seen as an over-reaction.

   Recall the op perpetrated against Ukraine was succeeded with only one hundred victims and the financing of only several thousand “protesters” to remain present at the Maidan for only 100 days. It was seamlessly successful, and no one would have believe the US had been involved had the leaked conversations demonstrating the involvement of key US diplomats not been released weeks before the coup took place, and then additional leaks released exposing US allies discussing more details weeks later. Despite the exposure of these facts, the great success of the Maidan coup was a statement of the sophisticated nature of the psyop tools employed towards regime change that have been developed over the many recent regime change ops. The success of the Ukraine op failed in part to create the desired resolution to their regime change due to the Nazi’s not accepting the US designed resolution, which is why everything went sideways with the Nazi’s gaining so much power. Nonetheless, the US succeeded in their regime change but had to deal with the disproportional empowerment of Nazis within the state, particularly within the State Security Service which came to be an embarrassing complication that they simply ignored – which first resulted in the Odessa Massacre and later caused the civil war to erupt.

3. I agree with this author that the U.S. does not have the power to remove Putin from office. The U.S. has from time to time overthrown the governments of militarily weak “banana republics” and its own puppet regimes, most notably Ngo Dinh Diem in Vietnam. But it cannot overthrow the government of another great power.

   Under certain circumstances, perhaps, his fellow leaders could replace Putin, although it would be extremely difficult even for them.

   This could happen if Putin’s military adventure in Ukraine, or some future attempt at conquering another country, were to meet with total defeat and catastrophe. But thus is very unlikely. Russia has a sufficiently large and well equipped army to win in Ukraine. But the losses Russia has sustained in the war, and the damage to Russia’s foreign relations and economy as a result of the invasion, will probably persuade him not to invade any more countries.

   Russia’s economic problems, both those resulting from the sanctions and those that are the result of long-standing structural problems in the Russian economy, are a more likely cause of Putin eventually falling from power. If the Russian people suffer prolonged economic hardships over the next few years, many disaffected people might take to the streets to demonstrate or even riot against the government. This has already happened from time to time on a small scale during both the Yeltsin and the Putin administrations. But if there were massive demonstrations, Putin’s colleagues migh politely but firmly demand his resignation. Since the death of Stalin, three former leaders of Russia have been forced out by their colleagues–Khruschev, then Gorbachev, and then Yeltsin. These leadership changes all resulted from Russia’s internal politics, not from coups engineered by the United States or NATO.

   However, the most likely possibility is that Putin will remain in charge until he is either physically or mentally unable to perform the duties of the presidency. That is probably is many years in the future. So the Western powers will have to find some way of containing Russia, as they did during Cold War I.