Hopes or on changes to a liberal democracy are fine, insistence really none of our business and dangerous — Benkei

Probably there would be some intermediate form of governments would last a few week each. As for the government to be sustainable, it needs an army ( which is being decimated in Ukraine right now ) and money, which also won't be there without foreign trade.

So trade partners would ask for liberal democracy and giving up nukes, to which sooner or later Russia would have to agree.

It is our business, as to prevent Russia from attacking other countries, and I don't see how it is more dangerous than allowing Putin's regime to stay in power.

So? why should I care about supporters of Putin's regime. Hopefully at least through suffering they might learn something.

We just want to prevent Putin's regime from invading neighbor countries, how does it make us monsters? :D

Sure it does, if you're a neocolonial idiot who has not paid attention to how every attempt as regime change by the West has led to tragedy and mass suffering. — Streetlight

I don't care if there happens a 'mass suffering' in Russia, as long as their nukes are removed.

Why? Swapping Putin with Khodorkovski or Navalniy and having him exchange nukes for food aid sounds like a good idea.

Half-dead murderous old men don't seem to really have an issue ruling anywhere one turns. — Streetlight

Time isn't on their side.

A precondition for resuming trade and dropping sanctions will be an end to hostilities not regime change. — Benkei

Most world leaders said they don't want the regime to resume those hostilities in a couple of years. Also I don't see how Putin's regime could survive after ending hostilities, i.e. giving Crimea back.

Does Putin look like a young energetic leader who has decades ahead? Or more like a very sick old man, who would be gone shortly in one way or the other?

Tell me another fairy tale. We will trade with autocratic regimes if this is economically expedient. — Benkei

If the west is sanctioning Putin's Russia already, why do you assume it would lift those sanctions if Putin is replaced by an equal nutjob from his immediate circle?

Also oil and gas hugely depends on the infrastructure, i.e. pipeline, trade routs, etc. that's is one of the reasons it took and still is taking Europe so long to stop using Putin's gas. But once new infrastructure is in place and the old one is decommissioned, there's pretty much no coming back.

I’d like to prevent WWIII. So to answer my own question: yes. — Xtrix

Have you looked at battlefield map lately? Ukrainians are kicking ass even before getting any lendlease weapons. So what WWIII are you talking about?

And yes, there is a flaw in your logic, because according to it the most crazy dictator can get his hands on a nuke and rule the world by threatening to blow it up.

You might want to listen to this speech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY&t=1435s

Anyways, it seems that the best solution would be demilitarization and denacification of Russian. So after Putin and his regime has gone, the west would agree to trade with Russia only after a liberal democracy in installed there.

So, perhaps we shouldn't be contributing to higher likelihoods of war to begin with and when there is war think about how to extricate ourselves from it — Benkei

So what do you mean, let Putin take over Ukraine? How's about the Baltic, Poland? All Europe?

Anyways, reading the news from the front line it seems that Ukraine is doing pretty good and will win anyway, only without American weapons it might take some month longer and cost a few thousand lives more.

When some people don't want to aid Ukraine, here's a picture that comes to mind.
Once again, if you don't want to send howitzers to Ukraine, chances are you will be sending troops to Poland.