John J. Mearsheimer writes:
For sure, states need laws and norms to help them interact efficiently with one another, and there is no question that the great powers mainly write the rules—for their own benefit. But powerful states will ignore those rules if they think that following them is at odds with their vital interests, which means such rules are not a meaningful check on war.44 Of course, when states go down this road, they will be quick to deny that they are violating international law, even when it is obvious that they are.
Consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was in large part a preventive war, which is impermissible according to both just war theory and international law.45 Putin, however, made the case that invading Ukraine was in accordance with international rules three days before doing so. He said on February 21, 2022:
Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.
Grok says:
Joe Biden: As former U.S. President, Biden made remarks in March 2022 that were widely interpreted as a call for regime change. During a speech, he stated, “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the White House later clarified that this was not an official policy stance, the comment sparked significant debate and was cited as evidence of regime change rhetoric.
John Bolton: The former National Security Advisor under President Trump explicitly called for regime change in Russia in October 2022. In a CBS News interview, Bolton stated that “Putin has left us no real alternative” and that “Putin must go,” advocating for a change in Russia’s leadership due to its actions in Ukraine.
Michael McFaul
McFaul, a former ambassador and Obama administration official, has been vocal about U.S.-Russia relations. While he hasn’t explicitly called for regime change in the same direct manner as others, his criticisms of Vladimir Putin’s government have been interpreted by some as aligning with regime change sentiments. For instance:
During his tenure, McFaul was critical of Putin’s policies, blaming him for derailing the U.S.-Russia “reset” policy.
In a 2014 CNN interview, he expressed deep criticism of the Putin administration, which some Russian officials viewed as meddling in their domestic affairs.
His book, From Cold War to Hot Peace, details his belief that Putin’s authoritarianism stifled Russia’s democratic potential, which critics of McFaul argue implicitly supports a change in leadership.
However, McFaul’s public statements focus more on containing Russia’s actions (e.g., in Ukraine) than explicitly advocating for Putin’s removal. His role as a scholar and commentator makes his stance less overt than policymakers like Bolton, but his critiques contribute to the broader narrative some associate with regime change advocacy.
Victoria Nuland
Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2021–2024), is frequently linked to regime change rhetoric, particularly due to her role in U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Her actions and statements have drawn significant attention:
In February 2024, Nuland stated, “This is not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted. We wanted [to see] a partner that would be oriented towards the West,” which some interpreted as a desire for fundamental change in Russia’s government.
A 2013 leaked conversation between Nuland and then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt revealed her discussing the shaping of Ukraine’s post-Maidan government, which critics, including Russian officials, cite as evidence of her orchestrating regime change in Ukraine—a precedent they fear for Russia.
Sources like the Hoover Institution note that regime change in Russia has been “on the agenda” of some Biden administration officials, including Nuland, for years, particularly since her tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2013–2017).
Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska claimed in 2018 that Nuland was part of a U.S. effort signaling regime change in Russia, though this lacks direct corroboration from Nuland herself.
Nuland’s critics, especially on platforms like X, label her a “regime change operator,” pointing to her involvement in Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising and her hawkish stance on Russia. While she hasn’t explicitly said “Putin must go,” her actions and rhetoric about transforming Russia’s alignment suggest a preference for systemic change, which many equate to regime change.
Lindsey Graham: The U.S. Senator from South Carolina has been one of the most explicit. In March 2022, Graham tweeted, “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy [Putin] out,” directly calling for Putin’s removal. He doubled down in subsequent interviews, suggesting Russians should “step up” to end Putin’s rule. These statements were widely covered and criticized by Russian officials as incitement.
Hillary Clinton: As former Secretary of State, Clinton has been linked to regime change advocacy through her broader foreign policy stance. In 2011, her support for Libya’s regime change set a precedent that some analysts, including those on X, argue she applied to Russia. In 2022, she commented on Ukraine’s resistance as a model for “inspiring” Russians to challenge Putin, which was interpreted by some as a veiled call for internal upheaval.
Antony Blinken: As Secretary of State under Biden, Blinken has not directly called for regime change but has supported policies aimed at weakening Putin’s grip, such as sanctions and aid to Ukraine. Some sources, like the Ron Paul Institute, claim Blinken’s State Department, influenced by figures like Nuland, pursues regime change indirectly through economic and diplomatic pressure.
Jake Sullivan: The National Security Advisor has been associated with hardline policies against Russia. While Sullivan avoids explicit regime change language, his 2022 statements about ensuring Russia’s “strategic failure” in Ukraine have been interpreted by critics as aiming to destabilize Putin’s regime indirectly.
