Don't Link Sanctions Relief to Regime Change in Russia

West’s argument is a good example of how the memory of WWII has warped a lot of the foreign policy thinking in our country.

Bing West shows us that mission creep applies to economic warfare, too:

If Russian troops withdraw from Ukraine but Mr. Putin is still in charge in Moscow, it will be a severe defeat for America. In his meeting with all 30 NATO nations, Mr. Biden must cross his Rubicon. He must declare that the sanctions crippling Russia will remain in full force, with no exit ramps, as long as Mr. Putin remains in power. America’s objective isn’t a return to the status quo ante; it requires removing Mr. Putin in order to reinforce, or perhaps restore, America’s role as the defender of liberty.

Insisting on regime change as a condition for sanctions relief is exactly the wrong thing to do. The more far-reaching and ambitious the goal that the U.S. sets for its economic war, the more likely it is that the economic war will cause great harm without achieving anything. Linking sanctions relief to Putin’s hold on power is the best way to ensure that the sanctions fail to end the Russian attack while further entrenching Putin in his position. If the U.S. and its allies convinced Putin that he was in a fight for his very survival, both political and personal, that could lead to further escalation. Putin was reportedly morbidly fascinated with and alarmed by the demise of Gaddafi at the end of the Libyan war, and openly talking about removing him from power could cause him to lash out in exceptionally dangerous ways. I assume Biden is not so stupid as to back Putin into a corner like this, but this idea that sanctions must stay in place as long as Putin is in power keeps cropping up and needs to be rejected.