By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski believes that a new Cold War-style arms race could lead to the collapse of Vladimir Putin’s regime. Sikorski drew parallels between Putin and Leonid Brezhnev, noting that Russia is repeating the USSR’s mistake of excessive military spending. The Polish diplomat highlighted that Putin’s costly war in Ukraine has prompted the West to increase defense spending, which, combined with Russia’s financial strain, could lead to the same fate as the Soviet Union. This comes as European military spending has significantly increased, driving global growth in military expenditure.
Read the original article here
Polish foreign minister’s recent remarks about an arms race potentially dismantling Putin’s regime, mirroring the Soviet Union’s fate, spark a lot of thoughts, and it’s hard not to delve into it. The suggestion is that by escalating the arms race, much like the Cold War era, we can put enough economic pressure on Russia to destabilize Putin’s grip on power. This approach, which essentially aims to exhaust Russia financially, is a concept that resonates with historical precedent and present-day realities.
The analogy to the collapse of the USSR is particularly compelling. The Soviet Union, driven by its ambition to match the United States in military might, stretched its economy to its breaking point. The Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars,” pushed the Soviets to invest heavily in a technology they couldn’t realistically afford, contributing significantly to their economic downfall. The Polish foreign minister’s point suggests that a similar dynamic could play out today, forcing Russia to divert resources into military spending at the expense of its citizens and the economy, ultimately undermining Putin’s power base.
The core of the problem, as many see it, is Putin himself. Regardless of how one views the situation, it’s pretty clear that Putin’s primary concerns may not align with the long-term well-being of Russia or its people. Some believe his focus is on personal wealth, power, and historical legacy, all of which might make him resistant to changes that compromise his authority, even if it could damage the country. Some might argue that any actions taken that weaken his ability to wage war and cause harm are good for the world, regardless of how it happens.
The response here focuses on the economic vulnerabilities of Russia and the possible negative consequences of military spending. The idea is to place a huge strain on the budget. The assumption, if this idea were to succeed, is that Russia would face challenges that would be beyond their capacity. It would involve increasing taxes and confiscations that would hit ordinary citizens. This could, at least in theory, lead to social unrest and a challenge to Putin’s regime.
The potential for this strategy is that Putin, like leaders before him, might prioritize military spending and his personal interests over the well-being of the Russian people. It’s a bit of a gamble, because it’s not a perfect plan. However, it’s one with some historical weight, because it played out before with some success.
Then comes the tricky part: what happens after Putin? Many argue that the unknown is the most daunting aspect of the situation. The fear is that a replacement could be worse, perpetuating the cycle of aggression or instability. This fear is often seen as a reason to be cautious in our approach to Russia. However, a counter-argument is that any successor, inheriting a weakened and economically strained Russia, would be forced to make compromises and possibly seek a more cooperative stance with the rest of the world. They may have no choice, and that could bring a more lasting peace.
Some think the focus should be on supporting Ukraine and using sanctions and economic pressure to push Russia to the point of collapse. The concept of weakening Russia, by any means, is a central point, because it is feared that Russia is a continuing danger to its neighbors and the world at large. Whether through military setbacks in Ukraine or through the crippling effects of an arms race, the goal is to diminish Russia’s capacity to act aggressively.
The idea that a global focus on an arms race might be a solution isn’t without its downsides. There are concerns about escalation, the potential for miscalculation, and the risk of a new Cold War. Moreover, Russia still possesses a significant nuclear arsenal, which makes any confrontation fraught with danger. But some might argue that these risks are outweighed by the need to prevent further aggression and to secure a more stable world order.
There’s also the idea of offering economic aid to a post-Putin Russia, in the style of the Marshall Plan, to help it rebuild and integrate into the global community. This long-term approach, aimed at promoting economic stability and democratic values, would be designed to prevent a resurgence of authoritarianism and to provide a more hopeful future for the Russian people.
Essentially, the discussion comes down to the core issues and the best way to respond to them. The arms race is a viable option. It might be costly, but some think it is a necessary cost to contain Russia and to push it into a weakened state. It’s a complex situation with no easy answers, and it requires navigating a number of risks to achieve the desired outcome.