The Long Game: Russian Regime Change

Introduction

In 1990, after the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. stood victorious—Russia weakened, and NATO triumphant. There were promises made, most notably to Mikhail Gorbachev, that NATO would not expand eastward. Fast forward to today, and we find ourselves at a precipice. The question arises: Has the U.S., through decades of calculated moves, intentionally pushed Russia to the brink, perhaps with the goal of toppling its government? And if so, who benefits from this increasingly dangerous game?

Broken Promises and NATO Expansion

The end of the Cold War brought hope for lasting peace between the West and the East, but the reality unfolded differently. NATO’s eastward expansion not only defied assurances made to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev but also planted the seeds of distrust that continue to shape geopolitics today.

• A Hopeful Start: Gorbachev was reportedly promised that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe, let alone consider countries like Ukraine for membership.

• NATO’s Expansion: Despite these assurances, NATO incorporated former Warsaw Pact nations, including Poland, Hungary, and the Baltic states, steadily moving closer to Russia’s borders.

• Ukraine in Focus: Discussions about Ukraine’s potential NATO membership heightened Russia’s sense of being surrounded and threatened by Western powers.

• Perceived Betrayal: For Russia, these moves weren’t just strategic—they were a betrayal of post-Cold War agreements and an existential threat to its sphere of influence.

These developments fueled Russia’s narrative of Western encroachment, deepening the mistrust and tension that continue to define East-West relations.

Ukraine, the Battleground

Then came 2014, and the revolution in Ukraine. A pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown, largely with Western support, and a new government aligned with the U.S. was put in place. To many in Washington, it was a victory for democracy, but to Moscow, it was a direct attack on its sphere of influence—a move that left Russia feeling like its very existence was under siege.

The U.S.’s involvement in Ukraine is seen by Russia not as a quest for freedom, but as a deliberate strategy to weaken and destabilize the Russian government. From the Russian perspective, it’s not just a local conflict; it’s the U.S. meddling in its backyard, undermining its power, and challenging its sovereignty.

Economic and Ideological Warfare

The strategy wasn’t just about military encirclement. Economic sanctions were ramped up, dissidents were supported, and Russia’s global isolation was actively encouraged. Sound familiar? This is a playbook the U.S. has used in other regime-change efforts—think of Iran in 1953 or Chile in 1973. Sanctions, economic warfare, and the cultivation of internal dissent aren’t just about punishing governments; they’re about destabilizing them from within.

These tactics are designed to weaken the resolve of the Russian people and leadership, pushing the country closer to the brink. But at what cost? Are we prepared to deal with the long-term consequences of playing this game?

Western Resistance

Enter Vladimir Putin, whose leadership is defined by his defiance of Western influence. From the annexation of Crimea in 2014 to pushing back against NATO’s steady expansion, his actions are framed as necessary measures to protect Russia’s sovereignty. Each step taken by the U.S. and its allies reinforces his narrative: that Russia is under constant threat from an aggressive West. This message has bolstered his power, strengthened his grip on the Russian population, and legitimized his rhetoric of defending Russia against Western encroachment.

But is Russia’s reaction unjustified? While Putin’s actions are often condemned, they stem from a familiar playbook—one that echoes the West’s own responses when faced with perceived threats. If NATO were expanding toward U.S. borders, would Washington not react in similar ways? While Putin’s choices may seem extreme, they reflect a sense of insecurity and a desire to counterbalance Western power. This raises a difficult question: Is Russia truly wrong for reacting as it does, or are these actions an inevitable response to the geopolitical pressures it faces?

The Long Game

Pushing Russia too far isn’t just a matter of political strategy—it’s a gamble with global stability. Every step taken toward isolating Russia and undermining its government risks escalating tensions, not just with Russia, but with other global players like China. The potential for conflict, both direct and indirect, looms large, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

What’s the endgame here? Is this strategy truly about defending democracy, or is it about pursuing dominance at any cost, even if it means risking global conflict?

Conclusion:

The U.S. has played the role of the world’s policeman for decades, but at what cost? With every move against Russia, with every promise broken and every new sanction imposed, the credibility of U.S. foreign policy is called into question. We need to take a hard look at whether this Cold War mentality is worth the risk to global peace—or if it’s simply a reflection of a deeper, more dangerous agenda driven by bureaucrats and power brokers who see conflict as a tool, not a tragedy.

Question for You:

Is this strategy a necessary defense of democracy, or has it become an endless pursuit of dominance at any cost?

And who, really, is pulling the strings behind the scenes?