The Biden administration has taken many steps that arguably are weakening Vladimir Putin in the wake of his war on Ukraine. | Pool photo by Dmitry Yermolenko
The recent attempted mutiny in Russia proved that no matter how much many world leaders hate Vladimir Putin, they don’t want the Russian president suddenly ousted.
The instability that could follow isn’t worth the risk.
The possibility of post-Putin chaos in Russia is one key factor many countries — from adversaries such as the United States to Russia partners such as China — considered as they calibrated their reactions to mercenary leader Yevgeny Prigozhin’s armed rebellion against Moscow.
It’s a tricky calculation, especially for the United States.
The Biden administration has taken many steps, including imposing economic sanctions, that arguably are weakening Putin in the wake of his war on Ukraine. But Washington has repeatedly insisted it does not back regime change in Russia, a fellow nuclear power.
At the moment, the lack of a clear successor, or the possibility of a violent warlord such as Prigozhin taking charge, leaves too many uncomfortable variables to openly root for a Putin overthrow, according to two current U.S. officials, two foreign officials and one former U.S. official.
“The United States has no interest in instability inside Russia that has the potential to spill over into Europe,” said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a former U.S. intelligence official who specializes in Russia and autocracies. “Regime change that occurs through a chaotic and violent process is also the most likely to produce another authoritarian leader, which could possibly be worse than Putin.”
Two U.S. officials who deal with Russia policy said the Biden administration considered questions about the stability of the Russian state as it crafted its response to last weekend’s brief mutiny.
While it’s rare for the United States to call for regime change in another country, the Biden administration also wants to be extra careful not to feed Putin’s long-standing narrative that America is behind efforts to oust him or, for that matter, spur a disorderly downfall.
As the rebellion unfolded, President Joe Biden and his aides kept their public comments limited and low-key. They referred to the crisis as an “internal matter” for Russia. European countries and other allies against Russia took similar cautious approaches.
“Instability anywhere has costs — costs to the citizens of that country, to the region. In a place like Russia, it could have global implications,” said one of the U.S. officials, who, like others, was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic decisions. “Would Russian institutions be resilient if Putin were to be gone from the picture? Maybe. Probably. But it’s not a sure thing.”
China — which has pledged a “no-limits” partnership with Putin’s regime — stayed silent as the crisis played out. Afterward, Beijing issued a statement that spoke in part to its own concerns about avoiding chaos in a neighboring country.
“China supports Russia in safeguarding national stability and delivering development and prosperity,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.
The safety of Russia’s massive nuclear arsenal in the event of a Kremlin power struggle is the top concern of the international community. But so is the potential rekindling of frozen conflicts in places like Moldova and Georgia. There also are worries that a collapse of Putin’s government could energize separatist movements inside Russia.
“Everything will be affected, from global supplies of oil, gas, enriched uranium … agriculture, food security,” said a Central Asian diplomat. Russian stability is of crucial importance to Central Asian states, the diplomat said, because “at the end of the day, we will still be living next door to Russia.”
The current U.S. preference to avoid outright demands for regime change comes after past American efforts to cheer on or militarily assist overthrows resulted in violence and long-term failure — Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan are examples.
There’s a belief that obvious U.S. support for an overthrow would undermine the credibility of grassroots efforts to topple a dictator. Plus, U.S. or Western ability to foretell or even guide such events is far more limited than many people may believe.
In Putin’s case, an open American call for his ouster might lead him to venture deeper into Ukraine and increase oppression at home — although no matter what the U.S. says, the strongman has long believed Washington is trying to push him out.
In an off-script moment in March 2022, Biden said of Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” The White House then had to spend days insisting Biden wasn’t really calling for regime change.
In the wake of the aborted mutiny, White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby has said the United States believes “it’s up to the Russian people to determine who their leadership is.”
Still, some European and U.S. officials have stressed the gravity of the challenge facing Putin. Britain’s defense ministry said the rebellion “represents the most significant challenge to the Russian state in recent times.” U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said “cracks” were emerging in Putin’s power.
On Wednesday, Biden was asked if Putin was weaker now. His response: “absolutely.”
Governments that have taken a neutral position in the Russia-West standoff over Ukraine — such as India, Brazil and South Africa — have largely avoided direct comment on the rebellion.
Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who himself put down a coup attempt and has tried to stay cordial with Putin, spoke to the Russian leader during the recent crisis. “It was stressed that no one should take advantage of what transpired in Russia,” according to a Turkish readout.
Prigozhin has insisted that Putin wasn’t the target of his mutiny. Rather, he wanted to depose the leadership of the Russian defense ministry, with whom he’d been feuding. But Putin came out against Prigozhin’s armed march. And after a daylong revolt, Prigozhin backed down and agreed to go into exile in Belarus to avoid treason charges against him and his Wagner Group mercenary forces.
Russia, in theory, has rules of succession should Putin, say, die naturally while in office. Still, given how much Putin’s rule has warped the Russian constitutional system, it’s possible the people vying to succeed him would ignore such rules.
“There are a thousand people in Russian politics who think they can be president, and the opportunity to become president happens once in a lifetime,” said Will Pomeranz, a Russia specialist with the Wilson Center. “Any sort of instability at the top would at least lead to some people thinking this is their opportunity.”
That said, Pomeranz noted that, aside from exiled or jailed opposition leaders, there are no serious figures openly styling themselves as alternatives to Putin in Russia right now.
A Western official argued that Russian institutions, such as the FSB security agency, have enough lingering strength to prevent the type of collapse and warfare that happened in a place like Libya after the fall of dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Gaddafi had eviscerated his country’s institutions.
But there’s still the danger of turmoil in Russia, the official said, as well as the possibility of “a real opening for a serious military hardliner who is less averse than Putin when it comes to using nuclear weapons.”
On Tuesday, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte pushed back against Putin’s assertions that the West wants chaos in Russia. “On the contrary, instability in Russia creates instability in Europe. So we are concerned,” he said.
Putin is now expected to consolidate his power even further, if only to prove he’s firmly in charge. Some analysts argue that he could ultimately emerge stronger. Others say the mercenaries’ revolt is the beginning of the end for Putin.
Either way, some foreign affairs practitioners, including former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, are urging the world to better prepare for a possible imploding Russian state.
Worst-case scenarios often do not come to pass — the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, for instance, could have been far more violent. To this day, there is a debate over whether the United States was too cautious in how it dealt with the Kremlin in the final days of that empire.
For now, Putin is “the devil we know,” said a former White House official who dealt with Russia policy. “But he’s really devilish.”
