The Question of Russian Leadership and the Ukraine Conflict

The question of whether Russia would have attacked Ukraine if Putin were gone is complex and multifaceted. To understand this, we need to explore the broader context of Russian foreign policy, the role of key figures, and the ongoing tensions with NATO and the Ukrainian government.

Continuity of Russian Stance

First, it is important to recognize that the tensions between Russia and Ukraine are not solely attributed to Putin. The Russian leadership has a longstanding position that countries like Ukraine and Georgia must not join NATO. This is a stance that predates Putin and would likely persist with any other leader. Just as President Kennedy and any American president would not allow Soviet missiles in Cuba during the Cold War, Russian leaders would not permit strategic vulnerabilities near their borders.

Historical Continuity vs. Vladimir Putin

A common mistake is to view events through a lens that focuses on one individual, labeling him as a lone wolf or villain. However, Russia is not a monolithic entity, nor is its fate tied to the survival of any single leader. If Putin were to suddenly die or be poisoned, Russia would likely quickly replace him with someone else. The transition period is often short and leadership continuity is generally maintained.

Ukraine's Aspirations and NATO Anxiety

Ukraine's desire to join NATO is a significant factor. Ukraine has expressed a strong aspiration to join NATO, with NATO expansion being a major point of contention. The idea of NATO bases close to Russian borders is deeply worrying to the Kremlin. For many in Russia, the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is tantamount to an existential threat, and any leader who views NATO and US as untrustworthy would likely see this as grounds for conflict.

The Impact of Putin's Policies

Despite this, it is almost certainly not the case that the conflict would not have occurred if Putin were not in power. Putin's war on Ukraine is often portrayed as Russia's war, but in reality, it is Putin's war. Many Russian people are unaware of the full scale of the conflict and the loss of life on both sides. The media has been heavily censored under Putin's rule, preventing a clear understanding of the situation from reaching the general population.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that the war is not a reflection of the will of the Russian people, but rather a consequence of Putin's actions. The replacement of Putin might lead to a pause in the conflict but not its resolution. The vital interests of the Russian nation are intertwined with Ukraine, whether the leader is Putin or another figure.

The Legacy of the Soviet Union and Oligarchic Power

The legacy of the Soviet Union continues to influence Russian foreign policy. The Soviet nostalgia and the desire for a Union of the states persist among many in Russia. The Donbass region has experienced a series of separatist actions, fueled by a strong pro-Russian sentiment among the locals. The Ukrainian government's response to the separatist movement has not been professional; instead, it has exacerbated tensions and led to the formation of armed militias.

The oligarchic power in Russia is another critical factor. Putin has managed to strike a balance between the oligarchy and himself, but this balance is fragile. If Putin fails to satisfy the oligarchy, a new leader might emerge who is willing to push further into Europe, a move that could be catastrophic. The fear of a repeat of the Afghan War, where Russian intervention hollowed out the Soviet economy, remains a significant concern for Putin.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while it is possible that the conflict with Ukraine could be halted if Putin were removed, it is not a certainty. The dynamics of Russian foreign policy, the strategic interests of the Russian nation, and the lingering effects of the Soviet past all point to a continued conflict, regardless of the leader. The removal of Putin would likely only create a temporary pause in the war, with the ultimate goal of peace and stability elusive without addressing the deeper geopolitical and historical issues at hand.