NATO’s Ukraine Endgame Should Be Russian Regime Change

According to this article it’s the safest option. Kind of strikes me as odd? Why couldn’t nukes be deployed to prevent a regime change? Or in anticipation of regime change? I don’t know?

LiveMint

Archive.ph

Just some excerpts

Ukraine’s failure to secure an invitation to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) during the alliance’s annual summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, has disappointed many, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But although the summit’s concluding statement did not offer a definitive timetable for Ukrainian accession, it did demonstrate a degree of unity and strategic foresight that would have been impossible had Donald Trump still been president of the US.

Unfortunately, the debate about the Ukraine war often fails to capture the conflict’s strategic complexities. While the Ukrainians might win a conventional war, as some Western commentators have predicted, the risk that Russian President Vladimir Putin would put his massive nuclear arsenal to use is often downplayed.

Of course, launching a nuclear strike would provoke a war with Nato. But if Putin feels cornered, he might decide that it is preferable to the disastrous personal consequences that would likely follow a military defeat in Ukraine. To the extent that defeat poses an existential threat to Putin, it becomes evident that Ukraine’s victory in a conventional war may not be a feasible endgame. Before that were to happen, Putin would exercise the one option that he has—the nuclear one. Therefore, the key to defeating Putin lies not on the battlefield, but in empowering Russians to overthrow him. But to do that, media outlets in democratic countries must first distinguish between the Russian populace and the Kremlin.

According to a recent report by the UK’s Royal United Services Institute, the disastrous invasion of Ukraine was the brainchild of prominent members of Putin’s inner circle, including defence minister Sergei Shoigu and Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff. As Amy Knight notes, citing an independent poll by the Russian news site Meduza, ( Meduza? Russian news site? I don’t think so!) most Russians want the war to end. Western diplomats should emphasize that the Russian public is not to blame for the war, and media outlets should consider ways to help Russians understand that Putin’s downfall does not necessarily spell their own.

Wow. What do you think about the emphasizing the Russian public is not to blame? Of course, they aren’t. Undoubtedly they blame- The US. NATO. Ukraine. Europe.

Similarly, the Russian people could rise up against the small group of elites who have oppressed them, dragged them into an unwanted war, and destroyed their economy. A political movement of this sort would undoubtedly require strategic planning, but only Putin’s downfall can liberate Ukraine and Russia from the shackles of authoritarianism without risking a nuclear war.

To be sure, Putin’s rule appears relatively stable, given that even Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s rebellion—the biggest challenge to his regime thus far—allegedly did not seek to oust him.

Read the rest at the link- I find the article to be contradictory. Out of touch with reality. Somewhat bizarre. But maybe that’s just me.