Regime - a dirty, dangerous word

During today's Prime Minister's Questions David Cameron referred to the "Russian Regime", and immediately I thought this to be dangerous phrasing. Regime is the term used by the Press and Parliament when they speak of the "bad guy"; the Iraqi 'regime', the Libyan 'regime', the Syrian 'regime'. Indeed the phrase "Regime Change" has become so closely associated with war that Governments dare not use it.

The clear modern connotations for the word 'regime' are nearly all negative. In my mind I think of tyranny, oppression and dictatorship. Arguably, these words may be apt descriptions for Russian society but surely this is not what Cameron was meaning to infer. Even Russia's historical nemesis the United States would be more diplomatic with their wording when it is Russia to whom they refer.

Could it be that Cameron is itching for a fight with Russia? If this is the case, which I don't fully believe it is, I think it would be foolish. It is true that Russia has seen great decline in recent decades but they still command one of the World's largest military forces and Putin has his finger on the button for the second largest nuclear arsenal in existence.

I can see the case for disagreement with Russia over the ongoing events in Syria, indeed it was in this context that Cameron's comments were made, he claimed that it was naive to think that the "Russian Regime" had not been supplying Syria with weapons for many years, which in itself is a potentially incendiary remark,  but I do think it unwise to even suggestively offend the "Russian Regime".

Whether or not the connotations which I have drawn were intended, it was easy for me to draw them, and I have seen that others have drawn them too. I would suggest that it was not Cameron's intention to discredit the Russian Presidency and Government but if I were in his position I would certainly have been more careful with the words I chose as I would not wish to initiate in any conflict with Russia.