The Illusory idea of shifting Russia’s alignment
The West still considers the collapse of Russia undesirable and too risky as a scenario. It has not abandoned the illusory idea of eventually pulling Moscow to its side or at least making it neutral in a highly probable global confrontation with China. This is evident from a series of direct and indirect signals displayed by Western political elites since the beginning of the full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine. However, such geopolitical calculations by the West are flawed, rooted in stereotypes and fears formed back in the 20th century. There is also an inertial thinking that hinders them from seeing the global picture from a different angle and exploring new possibilities where only dangers are perceived.
Western leaders have repeatedly expressed sentiments such as “Putin must not win in Ukraine,” but clear statements regarding the necessity of military defeat of Russia and decisive crushing of the aggressor are scarce. Apart from politicians from European countries that have experienced the consequences of Russian imperialism firsthand, Western political elites have a lukewarm attitude towards the idea of Russia’s disintegration. This biased approach is driven by two main motives — fear and hope.
Speaking in February 2023 in Warsaw, President of the United States, Joe Biden, stated that the West does not seek to destroy or take control of Russia. Just like at the end of the 20th century, the West fears the consequences of a possible collapse of Russia, particularly the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons. Additionally, there are illusory hopes that after the end of Putin’s rule, Russia could be attempted to be democratized and transformed into a more moderate player on the international stage. Another significant motive driving the United States and Europe is the need to preserve the integrity of Russia to counter China. These considerations undoubtedly influence the level of support for Ukraine in the war. A painful, swift, and decisive defeat of Russian troops on the battlefield could trigger uncontrolled processes within the Russian Federation, processes that are not overly desired in Washington and Brussels.
Learning from history: missed opportunities and consequences
In thinking along these lines, the West ignores its own disappointing historical experience. In the 20th century, the West twice failed to take advantage of the opportunity to destroy the empire centered in Moscow. And then it reaped the rewards of its indecision and wrong strategy. Russia’s current aggression against Ukraine is also a consequence of the wrong decisions made in the past.
The rise to power of the Bolsheviks in Russia as a result of the October Revolution in 1917 caught the leading Western countries by surprise. Occupied with the First World War, the political leaders of that time underestimated the Bolsheviks, hoping that Lenin’s government would not last long. However, they miscalculated. Within a year of the end of the First World War, the Bolsheviks managed to consolidate their position, controlling a significant part of the territory of the former Russian Empire, and planned to extend their influence to uncontrollable regions. In this situation, the countries of the Entente did not form a unified position regarding what to do with Russia. Instead of supporting the national aspirations of the peoples oppressed by Moscow, the Entente placed its bet on the White Guard movement, which advocated for a “united and indivisible Russia.” Winston Churchill, who was then serving as the Minister of War for Great Britain, advocated for the creation of a “sanitary border” with Bolshevik Russia. At the same time, some Western politicians believed that it was possible to engage in a dialogue with the “Reds” (referring to the Bolsheviks). No one was seriously interested in the disintegration of Russia. As a result, the Bolsheviks managed to revive the Russian Empire, but in the form of the USSR. This subsequently created numerous problems for the free world and became a prologue to the Second World War, which was blessed by Hitler and Stalin on August 23, 1939, with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. A significant part of the last century was spent in the confrontation with the Russian Communist Empire by Western countries — an empire that could have vanished in its early years if Western democracies had shown more persistence.
See also: 5 theses on international law: what Russia’s punishment could be and what it will definitely not be
When on the verge of the 1980s and 1990s, the USSR faced collapse and disintegration, leading Western politicians categorically did not support the secession of the national republics (with the exception of the Baltic countries) from the Soviet Union. The administration of US President George H.W. Bush was deeply concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons. They sincerely believed that dealing with one Russia was better than dealing with a number of new independent states. Additionally, in the West, there was a somehow misguided belief in the success of democratizing Russia, with the assumption that the era of global confrontation had come to an end. Only US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney believed that the United States should take advantage of the opportunities and actively support the disintegration of Russia. He didn’t believe in the triumph of democracy in the lands of Moscow and suspected that an authoritarian regime would reemerge in Russia after a certain period. And indeed, that’s what happened. However, in the early 1990s, Cheney’s ideas were not popular.
The democratization of Russia is an illusion that is almost impossible to achieve. Throughout Moscow’s existence, first as a principality and kingdom, and later as an empire, the period that can be loosely called “hybrid democracy” spans no more than 10 years. Even during Boris Yeltsin’s time, the Kremlin saw the West not as a partner and ally but as a strategic competitor and enemy. In a society like Russia’s, to nurture the seeds of democracy, it would require an extended period combined with external management. The denazification of Germany after 1945 was carried out under the conditions of its territory being occupied by the allied forces and took decades. To denazify and de-imperialize the mindset of Russians would require much more time, as Russia has lived with an authoritarian rule model throughout its history. However, none of the Western countries are eager to deploy troops on Russian territory and teach Russians democracy. The only option for democratizing Russia lies in its disintegration into a series of state entities. In such a scenario, some of the countries that arise from the former Russian Federation can gradually be integrated into the Western world and attempt to heal from the imperialist mentality. If Russia remains within its current borders, the rise of a new Putin, nurturing hopes of revenge, is only a matter of time.
Disintegration of Russia: a solution to counter Chinese influence
When some Western politicians say that the focus should be on the growing threat from China, they fail to acknowledge the danger posed by Russia. They nurture fantastical hopes that Moscow will act as a restraining factor for Beijing. However, the threat coming from China and Russia is identical to the West. At its core, it is a struggle of the world’s authoritarian dictatorships against the free world. Both Moscow and Beijing genuinely harbor animosity towards the West and seek to rewrite the rules of the international arena. They aim to replace international law with the law of the strong, adjust state borders and spheres of influence. Therefore, they are much more likely to unite their efforts in opposition to the global West than to fight each other. Even if Russia weakens further and becomes a vassal of a much stronger China, it would not hinder the formation of a Beijing-Moscow axis. They could draw in smaller players like Iran or North Korea into this alliance. If the Chinese dragon secures the support of Russia, which remains intact as an imperial entity within its current borders, its aggressive ambitions will be significantly reinforced. The West would then have to disperse its forces on two fronts, simultaneously restraining Moscow and Beijing.
A completely different situation may arise in the event of the disintegration of Russia into a series of state entities. Some of the states that emerge in the vast territories of the former Russian Federation may fall under the orbit of Chinese influence, but certainly not all of them. As for the rest of the new state formations, they may evolve in different directions. Some of them might become loyal to the West or embrace democratization. Other new republics could find themselves under the conditional influence of Turkey or other regional players. However, this is undoubtedly better than having a military-political alliance between China and Russia within its current borders.
The disintegration of Russia is the only real chance to detach this vast colonial empire from Chinese influence. It is an effective means to prevent close cooperation and alliance between two authoritarian regimes in their fight against the free world. Removing a state from the political map that is permeated with anti-Western mentality and ideas of revenge amply compensates the risks the West may face during the collapse of the Russian Federation. Afterwards, the Western world can concentrate its efforts on one front, restraining China’s global ambitions.
Originally posted by Petro Herasymenko on Zn.ua. Translated and edited by the UaPosition – Ukrainian news and analytics website
See also: The foundation is crumbling. Is Russia ready to remove Putin?
