That the U.S./NATO Want Regime Change in Russia Is Not Exactly a Secret

A major fuss is being made over President Biden’s comment in Warsaw on March 26, where he said of Russian President Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” White House aides immediately tried walking it back, and Biden himself said the next day that he was not calling for regime change in Russia. Some commentators paired it with his remark two days earlier that the U.S. would respond “in kind” if Russia used chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, stating the obvious, that it is problematic if not downright dangerous for the President to be making such statements.

Secretary of State Blinken responded to Biden’s comment on the ouster of Putin by staing that “we do not have a strategy of regime change in Russia or anywhere else.” Given the recent plethora of U.S. sponsored regime change coups in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and the attempt to do so in Syria and Belarus, Blinken’s denial carries no weight, and only exposes him as a liar in most of the world living outside the trans-Atlantic media bubble.

A more blunt proposal was offered by Wall Street Journal editorial board member James Freeman, who wrote on March 25 that Biden “should try to say as little as possible in public during an international crisis,” though he did acknowledge that putting a muzzle on a president is not a very good idea. A more pertinent point was made by Richard Haass, president of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, who said that trying to “walk back” the blatant call for regime change “is unlikely to wash. Putin will see it as a confirmation of what he’s believed all along”. It also creates risks, in his view, that Putin will “reject compromise, escalate or both”.

But Haass, despite being more of a “realist” in his spin, is also missing the point. Biden’s comment, whether pre-scripted or spontaneous, accurately describes U.S./NATO policy toward Russia, and is part of the “information war” launched by the West. Such statements have little or no effect on the Russian leadership, which knows that regime change has been the west’s policy for at least 15 years. The refusal to seriously negotiate the Kremlin’s demand for security guarantees, the pouring of arms into Ukraine, the economic warfare of the sanctions policy, and the rejection of any attempt to de-escalate, have made it evident to the Russian leadership that their government is the target of the trans-Atlantic warhawks. As for the Russian public, the most likely effect will be to increase support for Putin, who is seen as defending the nation from those who are intent on crushing and humiliating it.

The actual target of this information warfare is the population of the west, to prepare them for the war economy which is hitting them. Inflation, scarcity of energy and food, and general austerity are conveniently blamed on Putin, while huge budget outlays for waging a proxy war against Russia are hypocritically presented as a “necessary sacrifice” to defeat heinous autocrats and war criminals.