Why do foreign-imposed regime changes like these go so disastrously wrong? Assuming Putin could overthrow the elected government in Kyiv and successfully install a puppet regime, would he also succeed in creating a stable client state? As I outline in my new book, the answer is probably no, for two reasons.
'We are exhausted': Ukrainians flee the fighting any way they can
First, military invasions to effect regime change often bring about the collapse and disintegration of the target state’s military. Given the mismatch between the Russian and Ukrainian armies, it is likely those on the Ukrainian side who can escape will try to do so, as happened in Iraq in 2003, Afghanistan in 2001, and Cambodia in 1979.
These armed remnants provide deposed leaders or their subordinates with the manpower to launch an insurgency against the puppet regime and its foreign backers. As the United States has learned to its chagrin in Afghanistan and Iraq,100,000 troops are not enough to control even much smaller countries than Ukraine. The likely availability of cross-border safe havens, funding, and weapons for Ukrainian insurgents would only make the problem more difficult, as we saw in Afghanistan in ’79 and ’01.
Second, foreign-imposed regime changes are plagued by a mismatch of interests between the intervener and the population of the target nation. The imposer wants its protégé to loyally promote its interests, and hence installs a leader it believes will follow its directions.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member