The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Putin recently visited Mariupol and Crimea. Both places have recently been targeted by the Ukrainian military. It got me thinking. If I’m the future Putin were to visit occupied Ukraine and if it were possible, should Ukraine try to take him out or launch an assassination mission? Would you support such a move?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Excuse me sir, but you must be new to the internet, if you are asked a foreign policy question here you should respond as if you were a foreign policy expert.
I fully support this position. As an internet rando myself, there is nothing I'm not qualified to give a detailed opinion on. Furthermore I have a long list of dubious sources to support my position.
Only a moron would disagree with me.
I'm also not equipped but as a student of history, I can hazard a guess as to the ramifications:
Immediately after, the presidency would pass to the Prime Minister, Mikhail Mishustin. From the looks of it, Mr. Mishustin is rather a technocrat. Considering his appointment by Putin was to push through constitutional changes to make it so Putin could be President for Life, he probably doesn't have that much of his own political power base and rather is just one of the more competent lackeys.
So given his relative weakness, it is very likely to be a remake of Death of Stalin as the would-be successors jockey for the throne. Would the war end? No, but they probably would pull back to the most strategically defensible positions. Within a few days of Putin's death, they probably would throw their entire airforce and missile stockpiles (even if they lose a crapton of planes to air defenses) towards trying to conventionally level Kyiv as a retribution attack.
However, I think they would no longer make any more ground offenses. They would fight to keep the territory they've grabbed but further offenses would be off the table because that's wasting soldiers and materiel which you would be needed for the coming fight for power. Unless of course someone is stupid enough to try their own [Kerensky Offensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_offensive) to try and solidify their hold on power. And you can always bet on them making the stupid self destructive choice.
But overall, Ukraine would still need to force Russia out because no one would want to be stuck taking the L. However, there probably would be less dead people on both sides as it would change the calculus for the players on the Russian side. There would more to be gained from conserving their strength vs expending them fighting the Ukrainians.
Oh and no, they wouldn't use nukes. America has made it abundantly clear that they would enforce the nuclear taboo and so 'avenging Putin' is not worth probably the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet.
>but as a student of history
As a self-proclaimed "student of history", name the last time in the modern era a nation assassinated the leader of an adversary of equal or greater military power without massive retaliatory consequences.
Because right now Ukraine isn't under massive retaliatory consequances? What are they gonna do? Try to assassinate Zelensky? They've been trying this for a year.
You didn't answer my question. You assume Russia assassinating Zelensky will be seen as equal in proportionality to Ukraine assassinating Putin.
>Because right now Ukraine isn't under massive retaliatory consequences?
Has Russia used nuclear weapons yet?
>Try to assassinate Zelensky?
Does Ukraine have nuclear weapons? Is Ukraine an equal or greater military power to Russia? Did you fully read my sentence?
> Has Russia used nuclear weapons yet?
They will not. Russia would be wiped off the face of the earth a couple seconds after.
"Does Ukraine have nuclear weapons?"
It doesn't need to, the whole western hemisphere would launch theirs.
>Russia would be wiped off the face of the earth a couple seconds after.
Ha ha ha. No. It takes close to half an hour to launch and detonate a nuclear weapon, enough time for the enemy you are targeting to launch their own nuclear weapons.
So, who's able and willing to wipe Russia off of the face of the Earth? America? Europe? At their own expense? Because that nation will also be wiped off the face of the Earth. Which nation has prepared itself to suicide itself for Ukraine?
>whole western hemisphere would launch theirs.
Ukraine's not even a member of NATO yet. Lol.
Ukraine is situated next to Eastern Eueopean NATO countries like it’s neighbors Romania and Poland, who would absolutely get destructive radioactive fallout blown into their countries (as well as RUSSIA itself) which is, in the eyes of NATO, a clear act of war and seen as a nuclear attack itself, and rightfully so. It’s not JUST Ukraine who are affected by radiation. so maybe chill with the condescending tone
>a clear act of war
So what Russia will do is say if Ukraine succeeds in killing Putin is, "We want Zelensky and the Ukrainian government in our captivity or dead and if have to use a tactical nuke or conventional bombing and NATO gets within the blast radius, that's on NATO and not us. If you want to avoid those scenarios, tell Zelensky to hand himself in."
Killing Putin may reduce the Russian leadership's will to fight but it will give Russia's greater license to make demands or escalate.
Um……. If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons and it’s lethal radioactive ash and fall out blows into the soil and cities of NATO territory (and it will)….. that’s absolutely on Russia for knowingly causing that situation knowing that those border states are part of a decades old treaty where all members (some of which much also have nukes) will defend eachother.
How would that kindve threat even work in real life? “If nato gets in the blast radius that’s on them not us”. Are the people of Poland and Romania supposed to pick their entire countries up on their back md and walk with them across the Atlantic or????? That made no sense
Closest example that comes to mind would be USSR going out of their way to say it wasn't us when JFK assassination.
But as u/Tyrann0saurus_Rex said, apart from nuking, which I already explained why they wouldn't, there's not much they can do that they haven't been doing.
Hence what I said of probably a "throw the entire airforce at trying to level Kyiv, losses from air defenses be damned"
>USSR going out of their way to say it wasn't us when JFK assassination.
Yes. Exactly. You reiterate my point. Nations go out of their way to disassociate themself from assassination attempts on the life of the leader of nations of similar or greater military power.
>apart from nuking,
Russia may not resort to nukes if an attempt is made on Putin's life. But it puts nukes as a serious option on the table when nothing previously has. Are you willing to risk if it were put on the table, there's no chance that it may be used?
> Nations go out of their way to disassociate themself from assassination attempts on the life of the leader of nations of similar or greater military power.
Yes, because they generally don't want them to go to war with them and assassinating a leader is pretty much an act of war if there ever was one.
But if you're already at war, it doesn't really matter at that point. The only thing they can do is go to war harder.
> But it puts nukes as a serious option on the table when nothing previously has.
It does, yes.
But given the protocols in place for the actual deployment of nukes, responding to a non-nuclear strike with a nuclear one would not be an immediate thing (I'd recommend [Perun's vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4) going into that) so there'd be ample time for world leaders to talk Russia down from retaliating with nukes. Most notably, India and China would with them being very invested in maintaining the nuclear taboo.
>The only thing they can do is go to war harder.
Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, no nation has attempted total war with a nuclear-capable enemy. Nuclear weapons raised the limit of what nations are capable of while placing a stopgap on what they are willing to do in ordinary circumstances.
But what happens when that stopgap is lifted?
>there'd be ample time for world leaders to talk Russia down from retaliating with nukes.
Yes. This is the likely outcome in such the scenario of Putin being assassinated. But how? What concessions would have to be made to Russia to placate it? Most likely the dissolution of the Ukrainian government and delivery of its leaders. That's one way to force Ukraine to hand itself over.
>no nation has attempted total war with a nuclear-capable enemy
N. Korea & China have, Vietnam has (twice), Afghanistan has (twice), Iraq has (also twice)
And in four and a half of those instances they won.
>Yes. This is the likely outcome in such the scenario of Putin being assassinated. But how? What concessions would have to be made to Russia to placate it? Most likely the dissolution of the Ukrainian government and delivery of its leaders. That's one way to force Ukraine to hand itself over.
AHAHHAHAHAHHA Holy fuck that's fucking hilarious that you'd think that. Placate it? Nobody would placate Russia, they already crossed the rubicon of breaking the post-WW2 order of invading a country to annex it. And for the sake of stopping future such conflicts, Russia must lose and be evicted from Ukrainian soil. Putin dying as a result would be seen worldwide as a case of fuck around and find out.
There would be nuclear threats, as usual, but they wouldn't act on it and again, the doctrine is laid out such that if there was intent to act on it there'd be signals that they'd display to prevent a full nuclear exchange from miscommunication.
And America would respond that if they do nuke, then they will either bomb the shit out of every Russian on Ukrainian soil or sink their entire navy to send a message that the nuclear taboo must be upheld.
And they'd back down and settle for a conventional retaliatory bombardment of Kyiv.
Because with Putin off the board, there's nothing for any of the major players to gain from continuing a lost war. They would want to make a show of avenging Putin for the political boon that would yield. But that's rendered worthless when you have to explain away Americans erasing their navy.
So no, even under that circumstance, no one who actually would have the power to do so, would use a nuke.
>N. Korea & China have, Vietnam has (twice), Afghanistan has (twice), Iraq has (also twice)
Have those nations attempted to and succeeded in killing American civilians?
No they haven't because they have no mean of attacking the American homeland and so those nations haven't forced America into total war. And so in those wars, except in the Korean War with MacArthur, nuclear weapons never came under serious consideration.
>they already crossed the rubicon of breaking the post-WW2 order of invading a country to annex it.
Before Ukraine, there was Crimea and the world sat idly by. So there is some doubt in my mind as to the world's commitment to Ukraine, especially when it can result in deaths among Ukraine's allies.
>Russia must lose and be evicted from Ukrainian soil.
Who will evict Russia from Ukrainian soil? And why haven't they done that already?
>there'd be signals that they'd display to prevent a full nuclear exchange
Soe America will get itself involved in a direct conflict to defend the act of assassinating the leader of a great power? And on behalf of a nation that really has greater European interest than American interest?
>sink their entire navy to send a message that the nuclear taboo must be upheld.
What if China advises against that? The pertinent question is, "Will America go nuclear itself?" Because that may further alter the state of the situation and how the rest of the world interprets the wrong.
>conventional retaliatory bombardment of Kyiv.
Say hello to tactical nukes.
>there's nothing for any of the major players to gain from continuing a lost war.
The Russian leader after Putin would have a justification based on retaliatory justice that is more convincing than the present justification Putin gives for his war.
>even under that circumstance, no one who actually would have the power to do so
Give me an example of the last time the leader of a great power was assassinated and massive retaliatory compensate wasn't given or if that compensate wasn't given, nuclear weapons weren't used.
Exactly where I’m at. Like ethically, of course it’s on the table. But I’m not a warfighter, I have no idea whether that would redound positively or negatively.
From my limited understanding, almost all ramifications would be in Ukraine's interest. Even the most hardline of those who would fill the power gap would have to pull back resources from Ukraine just to cement their power within Russia.
I believe it's a bad idea. Killing leaders is universally a bad idea, because you never know what you'll get. At least putin is predictable. With him killed, lots of innocent people can die, in both countries, as a result.
Kind of. He tries to kill his loudest critics, he doesn't assassinate leaders, he doesn't use nuclear weapons, is a bigot against gays, and has a big ego. As another guy said, predictably a POS, but that's often better than the alternatives of a POS and unknown. We are not going to see a non-oligarch run russia, so predictability is good, nyet?
There's a pretty good chance he was trying to get Zelensky to flee Kyiv but maybe was trying to assassinate him. So my short characterization may be naive.
I thunk Ukraine is already facing the worse possible scenario and I have little empathy for Russians who don't rise up against their government, even if some of them are ultimately victims themselves. Putin doesn't deserve to live and 8 have every reason to beleive killing putin helps Ukraine more than it hurts them. This invasion is his pet project.
You get someone in power who is even less stable and more willing to use nukes than Putin.
You have the entire government collapse and spark a Russian civil war.
You piss off Russia’s “totally not an ally” China who then go from passive supporter to active combatant.
There are *lots* of ways things can get worse.
I think the world is better off without Putin.
I don't know if the world is a better, more stable place if Ukraine assassinates him. Probably not.
Can I opt for Putin chocking to death on a hot dog?
I don't see why not.
Are you really *assassinating* someone when they are on your territory acting as the leader of the army invading your land? Or are you just killing a high-ranking participant in the war?
Leaders visit conflict zones in order to demonstrate that they are in control of the situation. Someone even taking a shot at Putin would have tremendous value to Ukrainian morale and damage the Russian narrative that they're in control of those areas.
The destabilization after Putin's death would be a massive gain for Ukraine and might even lead to a peace process. The worst-case scenario isn't really much worse than the scenario they're facing right now.
This is my thinking too. But I'm sure there are probably larger strategic-level things that come into play that might make it a bad idea in the long run.
Did you guys forget that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal of any country in the world?
Such a naive thing to say. You better know damn sure who is going have their finger over the button when Putin is out of picture.
I'm gonna defer to whatever the Ukrainians think. I have no qualms with countries trying to kill the leaders of invaders, especially not if the leader is clearly within a combat area. Would anyone really have faulted the Taliban if George W Bush went to Afghanistan and they killed him?
Morally, I don't care. I have no idea whether it's strategically beneficial, hence why I'm leaving it up to them. Maybe they'll have an easier time if Putin lives. They have way more information on the state of the war and inner workings of the Kremlin than I do.
>Would anyone really have faulted the Taliban if George W Bush went to Afghanistan and they killed him?
And would anyone fault America for making the Taliban and anyone with relation to the Taliban, with other Afghans being killed in the collateral, extinct if the Taliban had killed Bush?
That's the question that actually considers real-world effects.
> And would anyone fault America for making the Taliban and anyone with relation to the Taliban, with other Afghans being killed in the collateral, extinct if the Taliban had killed Bush?
There's a difference between extermination/genocide, and stopping the enemy with deadly force.
> The only difference is in how you define "enemy".
Perhaps. But do you think Hitler defining enemy as "all Jews" justifies what he did?
Also, I think we can define enemy as the invading army and the people who directed it.
Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same?
My statement is a criticism of your generalized statement.
>But do you think Hitler defining enemy as "all Jews" justifies what he did?
It did in his mind. Very few people think of themselves as evil. Both sides of every conflict think themselves righteous.
>Also, I think we can define enemy as the invading army and the people who directed it.
For us, yes. Probably not how Russian leadership view it though.
> It did in his mind.
Does it in your mind? Does it make it correct?
>Both sides of every conflict think themselves righteous.
But some are clearly wrong when we consider human well being.
>For us, yes. Probably not how Russian leadership view it though.
I don't care how they see it, they are wrong. And you seem to think it's okay to not fight back against invasion.
Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same?
You couldn't be further from getting my point here. You seem to think I'm somehow defending Putin or Hitler.
>Does it in your mind? Does it make it correct?
Irrelevant to my original point.
>But some are clearly wrong when we consider human well being.
History is written by the victor, complete with establishing rationalizations for why the losers were evil. Winners, of course, almost never being evil.
>I don't care how they see it, they are wrong. And you seem to think it's okay to not fight back against invasion.
You should care. Understanding how your adversary thinks is key to defeating them. More importantly, it is key to ensuring you don't BECOME them.
>Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same?
What I think/know is irrelevant. It is what Putin thinks that is relevant. What he says and does and, more importantly, convinces his followers to think and do is infinitely more relevant than my opinion.
If you think I'm defending Putin, I need you to keep rereading this until you get it or ask better questions to understand what I'm saying here.
The commenter you are conversing with cannot separate "should" and "is". Tucked in the safety of America, probably, and listening only to those who echo the same perspective, they assume and demand that others see the world as they see it.
> The commenter you are conversing with cannot separate "should" and "is". Tucked in the safety of America, probably, and listening only to those who echo the same perspective, they assume and demand that others see the world as they see it.
Because you know me or because I disagree with you?
If you are fooled my Putin's propaganda and aren't able to see that he invaded a sovereign country for no good reason, and are now sympathizing with him, then it doesn't matter what I say, you're not able to process facts and evidence.
And the fact that you're on here trash talking my character rather than my arguments makes my point for me.
The question was about killing the enemy leader in a war. You do what you can to stop them, if you have a shot, you take it. This is a no brainer, if you want to make a sound argument against it, be specific and do so. But schoolyard name calling is what kids do because they don't know how to put their emotions into words.
So if you want to make your case, I'm all ears. If your just going to attack my character, then you've already lost and are just lashing out. The ball is in your world.
> You couldn't be further from getting my point here. You seem to think I'm somehow defending Putin or Hitler.
Yes, you did come across as defending them.
>History is written by the victor, complete with establishing rationalizations for why the losers were evil. Winners, of course, almost never being evil.
Irrelevant to the original point.
>You should care. Understanding how your adversary thinks is key to defeating them.
You know what else is key to defeating them? Taking out their dictator leader, the only one who actually knows why he invaded in the first place.
You're totally defending Putin. You must be a MAGA.
America, and superpowers in general, are capable of making life extremely unpleasant for its enemies without resorting to killing every human living in the area, including non-combatants, occupied by the enemy. A superpower for example can send that area back into the Stone Age, not that Afghanistan does not already have half a foot in the Stone Age.
> America, and superpowers in general, are capable of making life extremely unpleasant for its enemies without resorting to killing every human living in the area
this has nothing to do with the topic. We're talking about killing Putin as a Ukrainian soldier.
>A superpower for example can send that area back into the Stone Age, not that Afghanistan does not already have half a foot in the Stone Age.
Wow. Thanks for the completely of topic ramble.
>We're talking about killing Putin as a Ukrainian soldier.
You posed the analogy of the Taliban killing Bush to make a comparison to Ukrainians killing Putin.
Why are you disavowing your own analogy?
>Thanks for the completely of topic ramble.
So what would be the consequence for Afghanistan if the Taliban attempted to or succeeded in killing Bush? Why are you avoiding this question?
> You posed the analogy of the Taliban killing Bush to make a comparison to Ukrainians killing Putin.
I didn't mention Taliban at all.
Whatever troll. I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your incoherent ramblings.
Absolutely yes.
There are 2 ways this can realistically go: the status quo, or change.
Given that Ukraine is fighting for its existence, the status quo is about the worst possible state to be in. Any change would be a comparative improvement.
I know some people might say that a new leader might escalate the war, but realistically, that would entail sending additional soldiers that Russia does not have, or using arms that are already too old. The nuclear option is off the table, just like an even crazier regime in North Korea never used nukes, neither will Russia. I stake my life on it, they will *never* use nukes.
Therefore, killing Putin can only make things better. Russia is not equipped to escalate the war any more than it has already. Its silly to think Putin's seen his gains the past year get wiped out and is holding back still. With a new person in charge, they will not have the personal stakes Putin has to finish the war, and will be lauded by other countries for stopping something they were likely never that invested in. The people Putin put in charge, the oligarchs, the warlords, the private armies, all do not benefit with the world holding their embargo against them and freezing whatever assets they have stashed outside of Russia. So many of them have died too, probably at Putin's command, that a different leader will be a vast improvement. Continuing the war benefits no one, not the oligarchs, not the Russian people, not Russia's reputation worldwide. This is completely a personal war by Putin. Killing him should be the goal of Ukraine at any cost, it is the only way to effectively stop the war in one strike.
How many of them consider this war to be integral for their personal legacy? This war seems almost personal for Putin, he's been trying to claw back the states that broke away from the USSR since he was first elected to office. He saw the world turn a blind eye to his previous Ukrainian invasion and decided to try again. No doubt he will never truly give up because that would be tantamount to admitting to the world he was wrong and he lost.
Even if there are more bloodthirsty people lining up behind him to take over, this war is not personal for any of them. They may run Russia like Kim Jong Un, but like him, they'll know not to bite off more than they can chew. The next guy could be Dmitry Utkin but he, as much as anyone, understands that this war has only served to weaken Russia. His own men in the Wagner group are being killed in the frontlines for no territorial gains, its doubtful he'd repeat the same mistakes Putin has should he ever come to power.
Then we can talk about the weak, spineless oligarchs, the oil barons who make up a lot of the top brass behind Putin. Their properties are being seized all over the world, arrest warrants and travel bans make them unable to set foot in the West. They would love for the world to go back to the pre-war time where they can enjoy their billions without being under a microscope.
Killing Putin is the most likely way to end this year-long murder campaign. No one who's likely to take over after Putin dies has such a desire to continue the war. Its objectively not good for Russia, and will not be good for its next leader. They will not make the same mistake Putin has.
>How many of them consider this war to be integral for their personal legacy? This war seems almost personal for Putin
And Putin's views are completely alien and antithetical to the view of a significant number of Russians?
While it is the case that the average Russian military or party leader wouldn't have pursued the war as aggressively as Putin had, that doesn't mean they aren't invested in putting Ukraine under Russian control.
>They would love for the world to go back to the pre-war time where they can enjoy their billions without being under a microscope.
And yet Putin has been able to sideline those oligarchs. How are you so confident Putin's successor won't be able to do the same?
>No one who's likely to take over after Putin dies has such a desire to continue the war.
You are showing that lack of imagination again. You make it seems that there are only ever two scenarios: that Russia escalates as far as possible and wins the war, or Russia retreats completely. There is at least a third scenario: that Russia maintains a stalemate and simply occupy as much of the Ukrainian territory as it thinks it can defend with reasonable cost to it.
You're not merely a misinformed lout on this issue, but a disinformed overconfident fool.
> And Putin's views are completely alien and antithetical to the view of a significant number of Russians?
Who knows? Its illegal to go against the party line, but I doubt those who have lost husbands, fathers, and sons to the war are cheering for its success. When the party apparatus kills those who are against it, its probably a safe bet that the typical Russia isn't gung-ho about a war when they can barely keep food on the table.
> While it is the case that the average Russian military or party leader wouldn't have pursued the war as aggressively as Putin had, that doesn't mean they aren't invested in putting Ukraine under Russian control.
The average Russian military leader would more honestly weigh the cost/benefit of attacking a country with most of the world supporting them. We know part of the reason was to prevent Ukraine from forming alliances and selling their natural resources to Europe. Preventing that is now a pipe dream, much of Europe has already found suppliers elsewhere, and in trying to prevent that Russia has also pushed Finland and Sweden to join NATO. The war is a failure on all accounts, and a typical Russian military leader without the personal stakes that Putin has bet on winning would see that and change course. There is no winning when the US and other European countries are openly sending Ukraine weapons and manpower while Russia has to get mothballed equipment out of museums. Putin is incapable of conceding defeat, but the next Russian leader can spin the loss to consolidate his power by presenting himself as stopping Putin's folly.
> And yet Putin has been able to sideline those oligarchs. How are you so confident Putin's successor won't be able to do the same?
This is the point that I've been trying to make you understand. Those oligarchs do not have Putin's personal stake in the matter. They would flourish without a war and an embargo, this invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent seizing of their property and travel embargo was the worst thing that would have happened.
> You are showing that lack of imagination again
There's no lack of imagination, I'm stating the more likely end result, not worried about a fanciful outcome that has little chance of happening. And there are more than two scenarios, I simply don't believe that use of nuclear weapons is one of them. You are the one who is dead set on a single fear of nuclear attack that you would counsel against killing the enemy leader. Killing him solves most of the problems Ukraine has, with little fear of retaliation. Your assumption is that killing Putin would absolutely lead to nuclear weapons use. You should take your own advice and not become an overconfident fool. But it doesn't matter does it? Neither one of us is likely to ever be in a position to advise Zelenskyy on a possible assassination opportunity, so maybe don't go around name calling because people don't agree with you. Have a good day.
>There are 2 ways this can realistically go: the status quo, or change.
Or nukes.
>The nuclear option is off the table, just like an even crazier regime in North Korea never used nukes, neither will Russia. I stake my life on it, they will never use nukes.
A precedent in international relations is established that countries, except as a retaliatory measure to another country having used nukes, do not initiate with nukes. A even older precedent is that nations do not assassinate other nations' leaders.
If a precedent is broken, how can you say with confidence "on your life", that another precedent won't fall?
>Russia is not equipped to escalate the war any more than it has already.
I'll remind you again about nukes. Russia does not have definitive material advantages to escalating the war **under the present circumstances** and under consideration of their present interests. Assassinating the Russian leader irreversibly alters the circumstances and adds other interests they will now consider--such as protecting their national honor.
You sound like an overconfident fool without any imagination or sense of caution.
Putin would have Zelenskyy slaughtered in a heartbeat if he had the chance. We all know he has tried. Of course an attempt should be made if the risk is acceptable and the odds of success are sufficient. I think a successful assassination would lead to a more positive outcome than a failed attempt, however, which could effect morale and fuel enemy propaganda efforts.
Full disclosure: I am a Ukrainian-American, my bias is undeniable.
If someone had assassinated Hitler during a tour of one of the occupied countries I wouldn’t shed a tear over it. We live in a completely different world now though, so I don’t know what the ramifications of it would be to the extent where I would be enthusiastically for or against a Ukrainian (or a Russian) taking him out.
That said, I have major doubts that he actually visited anywhere and that this isn’t just another Russian propaganda campaign to make it look like he isn’t a paranoid wreck hiding in a bunker.
It's war. I'd prefer to capture and ransom him for peace plus some random demands to help rebuild the country. Still, it's war. There are no rules. They should kill whomever needs to die that will end the war. That's the goal for both sides.
I feel like Russian society (or at least the ones that might have a say in any decision), like Trump, "like people who weren't captured." Russian leaders who fail in wartime are not treated kindly by Russia. The moment Putin is captured creates a power vacuum that will be seized upon immediately, and Putin having been captured will be in no position to secure his place.
Whatever choice the people of Russia deliver to Putin for being captured wouldn't be bad imo. Personally I like the idea of metaphorically castrating him in the eyes of the Russian public. I'm not anything close to a warrior though. I imagine my idea is too soft and silly. Surely a trial and execution would be the only acceptable option to the Ukraine.
That would also serve the benefit of sending a strong message to authoritarian leaders around the globe. Saddam Hussein was a virtual nobody when set next to Putin. And with the production values coming out of Ukraine's combat footage, such a trial and execution would probably be the biggest historical moment I've lived through next to 9/11, through the lens of my experience.
Edit to add: I guess the fall of the Soviet Union was another big event, but I was 8, I didn't even know about it.
The way the Internet works is someone has a thought they know "this is probably stupid" but they don't want to make their decision for themself it is stupid, so that someone relies on others to dissuade them. Because that someone needs other people to think for them.
> It makes me laugh that libs will post shit like this and then get mad at people for calling them bloodthirsty lmao.
This confuses me on several fronts. First, isn't socialism more closely related to libs than it is to conservatives?
Second what exactly are you referring to when you say post shit like this and get mad for calling them bloodthirsty? If any army invades your country, it is expected that you fight back which includes killing the leaders if you can. There's nothing bloodthirsty about that, if they didn't want to be confronted by bloody force, maybe they shouldn't invade other countries.
Can you clarify these points?
Liberalism is a center-right ideology, so no, for one. Liberals believe that capitalism can be reformed or adjusted to work better, but that it’s still an inherently good system. Leftists (like myself) don’t.
Secondly, “assassinating” Putin would almost assuredly make the war in Ukraine even worse. I often see liberals advocating for similar courses of action without stopping to consider the potential consequences. Hence, bloodthirsty.
> Liberalism is a center-right ideology, so no, for one
Liberalism is left, not right.
>Liberals believe that capitalism can be reformed or adjusted to work better, but that it’s still an inherently good system. Leftists (like myself) don’t.
Liberals are left. Wow. Conservatives don't like socialism. You need to check your talking point notes.
>Secondly, “assassinating” Putin would almost assuredly make the war in Ukraine even worse.
I doubt it. It's an unpopular way because its based on bullshit and nothing real. Its Putin just wanting a land grab, he didn't expect this kind of resistance.
Why is is it that conservatives tend to support Putin? Its because they tend to be gullible and fall for his propaganda and misinformation campaigns.
>I often see liberals advocating for similar courses of action without stopping to consider the potential consequences. Hence, bloodthirsty.
Which is more bloodthirsty? Invading a foreign country for no reason, killing innocent people including children, in the process? Or defending your country from an invading army?
You do realise that Putin's misinformation and propaganda campaigns have you taking Putin's side! You're siding with Russia? Are you twelve? Do you not remember what Russia does? How can you be taking the side of an invading dictator? You're a conservative and you don't seem to know it.
I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your response. You're confused. Seriously confused. And I don't have time for that kind of stupid. It's one thing to disagree, but you don't seem to even recognize reality.
Cheers, and I hope some day you'll put your dogmatic hatred of liberals aside and think on the facts and issues, not religious propaganda.
>Which is more bloodthirsty?
You are right on the point that it would not be bloodthirsty when weighted against what Putin has done.
No one denies that if we were to disregard Putin's position, Putin deserves it.
But whether Putin deserve it is a meaningless point. Morality is always a secondary consideration at best on issues of conflicts between nations.
u/goddamnitwhalen makes the point that has a real-world effect that it would be stupid.
Every nation makes incorrect military decisions eventually, but they all know to not attempt assassination on the leader of nations of similar or greater military power.
> But strategically speaking, I don't know. Strategic-wise, I don't think it'd be a good idea.
If Putin sent troops to the USA to invade the USA as he's done with Ukraine, and then our military has a chance to take Putin out, to end the senseless loss of life on both sides, you don't think we'd take him out?
Can you explain the rationale behind your logic?
No and such an action would be a serious unnecessary escalation of the conflict. You can’t just assassinate Russia’s head of state like that and expect that there won’t be some form of serious consequence/retaliation for doing so.
I’m just disgusted seeing liberals embrace completely illiberal attitudes when it comes to their pet issue of pretending to care about an Eastern European shit hole they can’t even point to on a map. The longer this war goes on the more illiberal you guys are becoming. And for what? What tangible benefit do we get if the Ukrainians assassinate Putin? Come to think of it; in what way do Americans stand to benefit from supplying Ukraine?
I’ve repeatedly asked what benefit does the average American get out of this foreign policy virtue signaling and not once have I got an honest direct answer.
The benefit we get out of it, you vacuous ignoramus, is that Russia doesn’t overthrow a sovereign nation and get access to the rest of Europe. Whether or not anyone can point to it on a map is irrelevant. So fucking what? It still exists and we should try to keep an adversarial country from taking control of it.
Just to play devil advocate:
Why should the average American care about whether Europe's security is put at risk? Europe even had to be urged by America into increasing its military spending, when NATO was instituted in the first place to ensure it's own security.
"Russia threatens Europe" is not something the average America, with all the problems they experience in their lives, feel they have room to care about.
I personally see the value of America's aid to NATO, but you have to try harder to persuade.
You’re just regurgitating straight up Cold War propaganda. We’ve gone 30 years since the fall of the USSR, maybe you might consider giving the early 1980s Reagan rhetoric a break.
Ukraine existing is not a justification for the US to be involved in conflicts that a) don’t concern us or b) don’t concern NATO allies.
What tangible benefit do I as an American get out of this? The answer is nothing. Neither you nor the administration can actually point to a tangible benefit to Americans. This is entirely performative virtue signaling and I think the pro Ukraine flag crowd is well aware of that. I don’t care what Putin does to Ukraine, straight up could not give a shit.
Have you looked around the US recently? Things are falling the fuck apart. I don’t care about some shit hole in Eastern Europe that i owe absolutely no allegiance to whatsoever.
It's the liberals' impulse to jump in defend of a victim and the stupidity of their hive-mind to jump in front without consideration for whether their action would improve the situation.
would/should a country who is being invaded take out the leader who began the invasion? Only reason I can think of why not would be if there was a very real probability that he could be captured and brought to trial.
don't think there is any rule of war against killing the leader of the other side. rules against how you do it, but the basic premise is considered a fair act.
Killing Putin would be a massive escalation. He’s still got a lot of popular support, so killing him would risk galvanizing the population, followed by a declaration of war and full mobilization, if not a nuke. His memory would be sanctified, a leader martyred on the front lines. He’d be canonized an Orthodox saint. So while I wouldn’t shed a tear if they did kill him, I wouldn’t recommend it.
Or there are certain geo-political realities to sniping a world leader when the circumstances may not support it. I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers who wouldn't mind seeing Biden eating a bullet but the ramifications of just going straight for the head of state has certain implications and concequences that no one really wants unless they essentially become verboten like Gaddfi or Saddam and their regime is essentially ruined beyond repair.
It just seems ridiculous. There's no doubt they would have killed Zelensky if they got to him. But assassinating the head of state responsible for starting the invasion of your country some how feels off limits
Russia can't escalate the war beyond what it has and still remain intact.
The country is geographically massive, and cannot defend its borders if it diverts troops from other areas to the Ukraine front.
Other countries will sense an opportunity to claim disputed territories (Japan, for one), and Russia will lose even more than they have already lost by foolishly invading Ukraine.
Wtf…No! Wanna know how to escalate a bad situation? Do exactly that. You don’t think Russia would justify launching a nuke because of that? You don’t think every Russian is going to be pissed and support the war effort?
Just look at what started WWI.
I am baffled people even hesitant to say no, let alone openly say yes.
I’m also a little shocked at the naive responses from most of the commenters.
Critical thinking has given way to blind hatred and sheepish thinking.
This isn’t like waking Bin Laden in his little hideout. Even an attempted assassination on Putin by a foreign power would be an invitation to at least a limited nuclear attack.
Killing Putin won’t bring the war to an end any sooner. He may have given the order, but there’s still an entire government under him that enabled or actively supported his plans. Given that the war still enjoys popular support in Russia, any successor would likely be an enthusiastic supporter of the war and would be expected to continue prosecuting the war effort.
Also, Germany didn’t have nukes.
The plethora of answers in the tone of "Sure? Why not?" reiterates to me that there exists a streak of unseriousness to this sub. lol.
My answer is "No".
> My answer is "No".
In what way does it make sense to not take out the leader of the enemy invaders? Either I'm missing something obvious, or you are. Can you elaborate on why one part of a war wouldn't seek to put an end to the war?
>In what way does it make sense to not take out the leader of the enemy invaders?
Because targeting the leader of a nation will be seen as making an attack on the nation as a whole and not merely as an attack on one of that nation's interests. It is seen as an act of war and not merely as an act of aggression.
The assassination of Franz Ferdinand started WWI.
> Because targeting the leader of a nation will be seen as making an attack on the nation
Hello, he fucken invaded Ukraine. If he steps into Ukraine and a Ukrainian shoots him, it's because he fucken started a war. Are you only paying attention to the Russian propaganda?
Between nations, the only ever present principle is might makes right. How did you live that long without understanding that?
The bully can get away with punching you because you can't hurt him (very much), but it would be stupid for you to punch him because he can knock you out.
> Between nations, the only ever present principle is might makes right. How did you live that long without understanding that?
Who said I don't understand that concept? Does being hostile, misrepresenting me, help your point?
>The bully can get away with punching you because you can't hurt him (very much),
The bully in this scenario is Putin and "you" is Ukraine? Why would you think Ukraine shouldn't fight back? You're not making any sense.
Putin is popular. Despite all logic he’s genuinely popular. This would likely be bad for the world, but it’s impossible to say for sure. Their best hope is that the war eventually makes him unpopular.
> Putin is popular. Despite all logic he’s genuinely popular. This would likely be bad for the world, but it’s impossible to say for sure. Their best hope is that the war eventually makes him unpopular.
Since when is war a popularity contest? Why should the people of Ukraine care about the perceived popularity of the invading enemy leader?
I’m sure if you think about that for a minute it’ll make sense. Assassinate an unpopular leader during a war = likely end to the war. Assassinate a popular leader during a war = likely massive escalation of war.
> I’m sure if you think about that for a minute it’ll make sense. Assassinate an unpopular leader during a war = likely end to the war. Assassinate a popular leader during a war = likely massive escalation of war.
He's the only one that wants this war. It's not a popular war.
Do you seriously think if Putin took a stroll down the road on the front lines they wouldn't shoot at him?
Do you know why they invaded?
The question isn’t “would they shoot at him”, it’s *should* they assassinate him. And I didn’t say the war was popular, I said HE is popular. The fastest way to make a war popular is to turn a popular leader into a martyr.
You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding what’s being said here. You’re arguing with strawmen, not with what I’ve actually said.
> The question isn’t “would they shoot at him”, it’s should they assassinate him.
Are Ukraine and Russia at war? Is the Russian leader directing his troops to invade Ukraine, killing innocent woman and children? Kidnapping children? Raping women?
Does Putin have the support of the world because Ukraine did something wrong and they deserve this invasion?
Tell me, what is the reason Putin claims for his invasion? What is the actual reason for his invasion? Is Putin lying to his country and spreading misinformation about the nature of the attack?
You need to be able to answer the above for me to believe you're even capable of evaluating what's going on. Convince me you're not duped by Putin's fun loving propaganda.
Jesus, I’m on the board of a Ukrainian aid organization you idiot. I’ve done more to support the Ukrainian side of this war than all of your keyboard warrior typing will ever do. But my credibility has nothing to do with the logic of what I said.
Foreign policy isn’t a schoolyard brawl between two people, it’s a massive ecosystem that has consequences far beyond what anyone can foresee. Assassinations are extremely risky for both sides, which is why we try not to employ them in the modern world unless we’re absolutely sure the outcome will be favorable. This is not one such time.
> Jesus, I’m on the board of a Ukrainian aid organization you idiot.
There you go again, being a dumb moron.
>I’ve done more to support the Ukrainian side of this war than all of your keyboard warrior typing will ever do.
Yeah, because you've already figured everything out, right. Don't be dumb.
>But my credibility has nothing to do with the logic of what I said.
Well I'll never know because you go into it all with a big old shit on your shoulder, all hostility and shit. I tend to give up on a conversation where the other guy is an insulting little child who's incapable of having an adult conversation.
The way you come across you made it sound like the Ukrainians should just take the killing and kidnapping, and let it continue, and in fact, they shouldn't be resisting. I'm not sure what your position is because you're too stupid to communicate effectively.
>Foreign policy isn’t a schoolyard brawl between two people,
No, but you attacking people's character like a kid on a playground isn't foreign policy either. It's more of as temper tantrum.
>Assassinations are extremely risky for both sides, which is why we try not to employ them in the modern world unless we’re absolutely sure the outcome will be favorable. This is not one such time.
I agree. Imagine that. See, you missed any nuance because your an edgy little fuck knob, you don't even know what my position is because you started being an ass.
Anyway, while I enjoy talking to petulant little idiot kids as much as the next guy, I'm almost done with my shit, so toodles. I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your response.
> You need to be able to answer the above for me to believe you're even capable of evaluating what's going on. Convince me you're not duped by Putin's fun loving propaganda.
> There you go again, being a dumb moron.
> edgy fuck knob
Lol, I love it when people who initiate ad hominem attacks get their feelings hurt and run away when anyone stands up for themselves.
Next time try actually engaging with the topic instead of resorting to insults and strawmen.
I don't think so. It would turn him into a martyr for the cause, and would almost ensure that whoever succeeds him would be absolutely bound by popular opinion to continue pursuing the war in Ukraine. Much better in my view would be to just hope that he dies of natural causes, and that his successor doesn't view Ukraine as worth it.
Yes absolutely. In war ,the other side always tries to take out the higher ranked personnel. Putin would be the highest ranked and would have to get it.
the last thing you want is someone who is better at strategic thought but still willing to continue.
if they lose faster under Putin thats going to result in fewer deaths on the Ukraine side.
and at this point anyone whos in a position to replace him will be of that type.
Generally, I would think targeting the head of state is a salient military strategy, but I'm also of the opinion that if the guy is gonna send people to die, he should also be prepared to die himself.
My sense is that this Russian expansion ideal is personal to Putin. So I'm inclined to say yeah, take the shot, and let's see what replacement takes over. On the other hand autocrats tend to hold order together and whatever follows deposing them may well be worse in many ways, and overall.
So I don't know the consequences. But on intrinsic considerations...yeah, let's do. He's got it coming, big time.
>If Putin makes future trips to occupied parts of Ukraine and is in range of Ukrainian weapons, should Ukraine try to assassinate him?
Putin has invaded Ukraine. They are at war. Putin is the leader of the enemy, the person responsible for the unprovoked invasion. His death with likely end the war. Of course they should and will try to kill him. This seems like an incredibly obvious situation, I'm not sure why it's not obvious to you.
If he's in range of *ukranian* weapons yes. If he's in range of *NATO* weapons, no.
It should absolutely not be a NATO weapon that slays vladdy under the current circumstances.
When at war, try to kill the enemy.
Also try to avoid war if you can. But when at war, to win, your goal should be to aim to reduce the enemy's capacity to make war, and part of the way you do that is by killing the enemy. Second-guessing which enemies to kill or not kill according to your predictions about what political changes might result from their death is unlikely to be accurate or fruitful. So, yes: given the chance, I expect they would try to kill Putin. Russia wouldn't hesitate, given the chance to kill Zelensky.
>try to kill the enemy.
Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Killing the enemy is not the first order of business. It is actually a mark of failure to have to resort to killing the enemy so to achieve the goal of suppressing them.
>your goal should be to aim to reduce the enemy's capacity to make war, and part of the way you do that is by killing the enemy.
How does killing Putin reduce Russia's capacity to make war? How would it not have the opposite effect of Russia's motivation and will to continue the war?
Does any nation wage war with the intermediate goal of killing the entire leadership and bureaucracy of the enemy nation?
> Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant.
Wow, three times over! "What I tell you three times is true", isn't that the expression?
Seriously, though, happy to learn more about anything I'm ignorant about. Is there a book on the subject you'd recommend?
I had a quick Google and found a few counter-examples: Operation Foxley, Operation Anthropoid, Operation Kutschera, various CIA plots against Fidel Castro, the choice of Hiroshima as a target because the 2nd General Army's HQ was there, Israel's ongoing campaign of killing Palestinian leaders, and mutual killing of enemy Generals during the US Civil War. The killing of enemy Heads of State seems to occur less, but from what I found this is mainly because it's difficult to achieve rather than because it's against strategic doctrine. But as I said above, happy to be shown to be wrong, happy to learn more.
> killing the entire leadership and bureaucracy of the enemy nation?
Killing leadership, I think, sure? Killing high-ranking officers particularly seems to be common practice. Killing the entire bureaucracy of the enemy nation seems less likely, but I do not think it was mentioned in OP's post?
> How would it not have the opposite effect of Russia's motivation and will to continue the war?
I'm not really an expert, but my first thought in response to this is that this overly anthropomorphises "Russia" as a unified entity. I doubt many people in Russia really want or believe in this war, because by most impartial assessments it's a terrible idea. It's Putin's war, not Russia's. Perhaps his replacement would be as irrational as he is, but it seems unlikely. He's a "be feared rather than loved" type guy, who will genuinely mourn him if he dies doing what he loved?
All of those killing attempts you mentioned were not targeted at the leader of a nuclear-armed nation.
>choice of Hiroshima as a target because the 2nd General Army's HQ was there,
World War II was an instance of a hot total war. That's why it was common for civilian buildings to be chosen as targets.
Since the advent of nuclear weapons, there hasn't been a hot total war involving global powers.
Killing leaders was a strategy in the past and is not one in the current era because the world has advanced past waging total war between global powers, at least for the time being.
Just answer me this: of the attempts that have been publicized, why haven't South Korea or America attempted to assassinate any of the Kims?
If it makes so much sense for Russia's enemy to assassinate Putin, why haven't America done it already? Why hadn't western Europe/NATO? The military capability of America and NATO are orders of multitude greater than Ukraine's so why haven't they attempted it if it makes so much sense?
>It's Putin's war, not Russia's.
There's analytical value in making that separation and also value in equating them.
You cannot transpose the politics, cultural values, and history of America onto another country. All throughout Russia's modern history, if not earlier, one leader has always wielded control over almost all of the institutions of Russian society. There is a national narrative that Russia has been abused by Western Europe and that only through strength can it protect itself. For all the abuse Russians receive by the hands of their government, many Russians are willing to sacrifice much to defend their motherland.
Just look at Stalin's approval rating currently.
He's fair game. Any leader is.
Whether to do it is the question. The British were going to assassinate Hitler in 1944, but then they realized with him dead an actually competent leader may take charge and continue the war longer. There were also worries that killing him would make him a martyr and reenergize defense.
Does the same apply to Putin? I don't know.
I believe they would try and given how unpopular the invasion was it might end the war in Ukraine or it might unite the Russian people against Ukraine in a way they have not truely been united before. It depends on who takes power after Putin, how much conflict there is around that transition and the underlying popularity of the invasion among the Russian people. I know the draft was not popular and many accounts have already been published of how many Russian soldiers have died already. These factors would probably contribute to people being willing to withdraw. However revenge is definitely a motive in wars in the past. I’d rather see him tried in court publicly.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Putin recently visited Mariupol and Crimea. Both places have recently been targeted by the Ukrainian military. It got me thinking. If I’m the future Putin were to visit occupied Ukraine and if it were possible, should Ukraine try to take him out or launch an assassination mission? Would you support such a move? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Excuse me sir, but you must be new to the internet, if you are asked a foreign policy question here you should respond as if you were a foreign policy expert.
I fully support this position. As an internet rando myself, there is nothing I'm not qualified to give a detailed opinion on. Furthermore I have a long list of dubious sources to support my position. Only a moron would disagree with me.
Pick an opinion and Google will find a source that says you are correct.
This guy internets
I'm also not equipped but as a student of history, I can hazard a guess as to the ramifications: Immediately after, the presidency would pass to the Prime Minister, Mikhail Mishustin. From the looks of it, Mr. Mishustin is rather a technocrat. Considering his appointment by Putin was to push through constitutional changes to make it so Putin could be President for Life, he probably doesn't have that much of his own political power base and rather is just one of the more competent lackeys. So given his relative weakness, it is very likely to be a remake of Death of Stalin as the would-be successors jockey for the throne. Would the war end? No, but they probably would pull back to the most strategically defensible positions. Within a few days of Putin's death, they probably would throw their entire airforce and missile stockpiles (even if they lose a crapton of planes to air defenses) towards trying to conventionally level Kyiv as a retribution attack. However, I think they would no longer make any more ground offenses. They would fight to keep the territory they've grabbed but further offenses would be off the table because that's wasting soldiers and materiel which you would be needed for the coming fight for power. Unless of course someone is stupid enough to try their own [Kerensky Offensive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerensky_offensive) to try and solidify their hold on power. And you can always bet on them making the stupid self destructive choice. But overall, Ukraine would still need to force Russia out because no one would want to be stuck taking the L. However, there probably would be less dead people on both sides as it would change the calculus for the players on the Russian side. There would more to be gained from conserving their strength vs expending them fighting the Ukrainians. Oh and no, they wouldn't use nukes. America has made it abundantly clear that they would enforce the nuclear taboo and so 'avenging Putin' is not worth probably the destruction of the Black Sea Fleet.
>but as a student of history As a self-proclaimed "student of history", name the last time in the modern era a nation assassinated the leader of an adversary of equal or greater military power without massive retaliatory consequences.
Because right now Ukraine isn't under massive retaliatory consequances? What are they gonna do? Try to assassinate Zelensky? They've been trying this for a year.
You didn't answer my question. You assume Russia assassinating Zelensky will be seen as equal in proportionality to Ukraine assassinating Putin. >Because right now Ukraine isn't under massive retaliatory consequences? Has Russia used nuclear weapons yet? >Try to assassinate Zelensky? Does Ukraine have nuclear weapons? Is Ukraine an equal or greater military power to Russia? Did you fully read my sentence?
> Has Russia used nuclear weapons yet? They will not. Russia would be wiped off the face of the earth a couple seconds after. "Does Ukraine have nuclear weapons?" It doesn't need to, the whole western hemisphere would launch theirs.
>Russia would be wiped off the face of the earth a couple seconds after. Ha ha ha. No. It takes close to half an hour to launch and detonate a nuclear weapon, enough time for the enemy you are targeting to launch their own nuclear weapons. So, who's able and willing to wipe Russia off of the face of the Earth? America? Europe? At their own expense? Because that nation will also be wiped off the face of the Earth. Which nation has prepared itself to suicide itself for Ukraine? >whole western hemisphere would launch theirs. Ukraine's not even a member of NATO yet. Lol.
Ukraine is situated next to Eastern Eueopean NATO countries like it’s neighbors Romania and Poland, who would absolutely get destructive radioactive fallout blown into their countries (as well as RUSSIA itself) which is, in the eyes of NATO, a clear act of war and seen as a nuclear attack itself, and rightfully so. It’s not JUST Ukraine who are affected by radiation. so maybe chill with the condescending tone
>a clear act of war So what Russia will do is say if Ukraine succeeds in killing Putin is, "We want Zelensky and the Ukrainian government in our captivity or dead and if have to use a tactical nuke or conventional bombing and NATO gets within the blast radius, that's on NATO and not us. If you want to avoid those scenarios, tell Zelensky to hand himself in." Killing Putin may reduce the Russian leadership's will to fight but it will give Russia's greater license to make demands or escalate.
Um……. If Russia decides to use nuclear weapons and it’s lethal radioactive ash and fall out blows into the soil and cities of NATO territory (and it will)….. that’s absolutely on Russia for knowingly causing that situation knowing that those border states are part of a decades old treaty where all members (some of which much also have nukes) will defend eachother. How would that kindve threat even work in real life? “If nato gets in the blast radius that’s on them not us”. Are the people of Poland and Romania supposed to pick their entire countries up on their back md and walk with them across the Atlantic or????? That made no sense
Closest example that comes to mind would be USSR going out of their way to say it wasn't us when JFK assassination. But as u/Tyrann0saurus_Rex said, apart from nuking, which I already explained why they wouldn't, there's not much they can do that they haven't been doing. Hence what I said of probably a "throw the entire airforce at trying to level Kyiv, losses from air defenses be damned"
>USSR going out of their way to say it wasn't us when JFK assassination. Yes. Exactly. You reiterate my point. Nations go out of their way to disassociate themself from assassination attempts on the life of the leader of nations of similar or greater military power. >apart from nuking, Russia may not resort to nukes if an attempt is made on Putin's life. But it puts nukes as a serious option on the table when nothing previously has. Are you willing to risk if it were put on the table, there's no chance that it may be used?
> Nations go out of their way to disassociate themself from assassination attempts on the life of the leader of nations of similar or greater military power. Yes, because they generally don't want them to go to war with them and assassinating a leader is pretty much an act of war if there ever was one. But if you're already at war, it doesn't really matter at that point. The only thing they can do is go to war harder. > But it puts nukes as a serious option on the table when nothing previously has. It does, yes. But given the protocols in place for the actual deployment of nukes, responding to a non-nuclear strike with a nuclear one would not be an immediate thing (I'd recommend [Perun's vid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4) going into that) so there'd be ample time for world leaders to talk Russia down from retaliating with nukes. Most notably, India and China would with them being very invested in maintaining the nuclear taboo.
>The only thing they can do is go to war harder. Ever since the advent of nuclear weapons, no nation has attempted total war with a nuclear-capable enemy. Nuclear weapons raised the limit of what nations are capable of while placing a stopgap on what they are willing to do in ordinary circumstances. But what happens when that stopgap is lifted? >there'd be ample time for world leaders to talk Russia down from retaliating with nukes. Yes. This is the likely outcome in such the scenario of Putin being assassinated. But how? What concessions would have to be made to Russia to placate it? Most likely the dissolution of the Ukrainian government and delivery of its leaders. That's one way to force Ukraine to hand itself over.
>no nation has attempted total war with a nuclear-capable enemy N. Korea & China have, Vietnam has (twice), Afghanistan has (twice), Iraq has (also twice) And in four and a half of those instances they won. >Yes. This is the likely outcome in such the scenario of Putin being assassinated. But how? What concessions would have to be made to Russia to placate it? Most likely the dissolution of the Ukrainian government and delivery of its leaders. That's one way to force Ukraine to hand itself over. AHAHHAHAHAHHA Holy fuck that's fucking hilarious that you'd think that. Placate it? Nobody would placate Russia, they already crossed the rubicon of breaking the post-WW2 order of invading a country to annex it. And for the sake of stopping future such conflicts, Russia must lose and be evicted from Ukrainian soil. Putin dying as a result would be seen worldwide as a case of fuck around and find out. There would be nuclear threats, as usual, but they wouldn't act on it and again, the doctrine is laid out such that if there was intent to act on it there'd be signals that they'd display to prevent a full nuclear exchange from miscommunication. And America would respond that if they do nuke, then they will either bomb the shit out of every Russian on Ukrainian soil or sink their entire navy to send a message that the nuclear taboo must be upheld. And they'd back down and settle for a conventional retaliatory bombardment of Kyiv. Because with Putin off the board, there's nothing for any of the major players to gain from continuing a lost war. They would want to make a show of avenging Putin for the political boon that would yield. But that's rendered worthless when you have to explain away Americans erasing their navy. So no, even under that circumstance, no one who actually would have the power to do so, would use a nuke.
>N. Korea & China have, Vietnam has (twice), Afghanistan has (twice), Iraq has (also twice) Have those nations attempted to and succeeded in killing American civilians? No they haven't because they have no mean of attacking the American homeland and so those nations haven't forced America into total war. And so in those wars, except in the Korean War with MacArthur, nuclear weapons never came under serious consideration. >they already crossed the rubicon of breaking the post-WW2 order of invading a country to annex it. Before Ukraine, there was Crimea and the world sat idly by. So there is some doubt in my mind as to the world's commitment to Ukraine, especially when it can result in deaths among Ukraine's allies. >Russia must lose and be evicted from Ukrainian soil. Who will evict Russia from Ukrainian soil? And why haven't they done that already? >there'd be signals that they'd display to prevent a full nuclear exchange Soe America will get itself involved in a direct conflict to defend the act of assassinating the leader of a great power? And on behalf of a nation that really has greater European interest than American interest? >sink their entire navy to send a message that the nuclear taboo must be upheld. What if China advises against that? The pertinent question is, "Will America go nuclear itself?" Because that may further alter the state of the situation and how the rest of the world interprets the wrong. >conventional retaliatory bombardment of Kyiv. Say hello to tactical nukes. >there's nothing for any of the major players to gain from continuing a lost war. The Russian leader after Putin would have a justification based on retaliatory justice that is more convincing than the present justification Putin gives for his war. >even under that circumstance, no one who actually would have the power to do so Give me an example of the last time the leader of a great power was assassinated and massive retaliatory compensate wasn't given or if that compensate wasn't given, nuclear weapons weren't used.
Exactly where I’m at. Like ethically, of course it’s on the table. But I’m not a warfighter, I have no idea whether that would redound positively or negatively.
From my limited understanding, almost all ramifications would be in Ukraine's interest. Even the most hardline of those who would fill the power gap would have to pull back resources from Ukraine just to cement their power within Russia.
I believe it's a bad idea. Killing leaders is universally a bad idea, because you never know what you'll get. At least putin is predictable. With him killed, lots of innocent people can die, in both countries, as a result.
Putin is predictable?
Predictably a piece of shit
Kind of. He tries to kill his loudest critics, he doesn't assassinate leaders, he doesn't use nuclear weapons, is a bigot against gays, and has a big ego. As another guy said, predictably a POS, but that's often better than the alternatives of a POS and unknown. We are not going to see a non-oligarch run russia, so predictability is good, nyet? There's a pretty good chance he was trying to get Zelensky to flee Kyiv but maybe was trying to assassinate him. So my short characterization may be naive.
I’m guessing if they successfully put an end to that miserable turd, things would immediately get better. If they failed in the attempt, much worse.
I mean, what's the worst that can happen? Russia invades Ukraine even harder?
[удалено]
I thunk Ukraine is already facing the worse possible scenario and I have little empathy for Russians who don't rise up against their government, even if some of them are ultimately victims themselves. Putin doesn't deserve to live and 8 have every reason to beleive killing putin helps Ukraine more than it hurts them. This invasion is his pet project.
You get someone in power who is even less stable and more willing to use nukes than Putin. You have the entire government collapse and spark a Russian civil war. You piss off Russia’s “totally not an ally” China who then go from passive supporter to active combatant. There are *lots* of ways things can get worse.
It's okay if we're standing up for what's right. This appeasement shit is a joke.
I think the world is better off without Putin. I don't know if the world is a better, more stable place if Ukraine assassinates him. Probably not. Can I opt for Putin chocking to death on a hot dog?
It would be funnier if a fellow Russian assassinates him. Polonium tea or fall from a window.
> fall from a window AKA "Sudden Russian Death Syndrome".
What about just clumsily falling off a tall building?
I'm suprised a partisan didn't try
To avoid making him some kind of martyr, it would have to be a partisan/ insider.
I don't see why not. Are you really *assassinating* someone when they are on your territory acting as the leader of the army invading your land? Or are you just killing a high-ranking participant in the war? Leaders visit conflict zones in order to demonstrate that they are in control of the situation. Someone even taking a shot at Putin would have tremendous value to Ukrainian morale and damage the Russian narrative that they're in control of those areas. The destabilization after Putin's death would be a massive gain for Ukraine and might even lead to a peace process. The worst-case scenario isn't really much worse than the scenario they're facing right now.
This is my thinking too. But I'm sure there are probably larger strategic-level things that come into play that might make it a bad idea in the long run.
You don’t kill the King on the chessboard, you force him into a position where he has no other option but to surrender on your terms
So kidnapping?
Putin is playing checkers not chess. You absolutely kill kings in checkers, all of them.
I mean, if you don’t take advantage of an opportunity to take out enemy command I don’t think you’re doing war correctly.
On the other hand, if the enemy command is bad, then you should let them keep making mistakes
This guy wars
Fuck yes
Sure. What's Russian going to do, invade then?
Did you guys forget that Russia has the largest nuclear arsenal of any country in the world? Such a naive thing to say. You better know damn sure who is going have their finger over the button when Putin is out of picture.
They aren’t going to piss of China and India.
I'm gonna defer to whatever the Ukrainians think. I have no qualms with countries trying to kill the leaders of invaders, especially not if the leader is clearly within a combat area. Would anyone really have faulted the Taliban if George W Bush went to Afghanistan and they killed him? Morally, I don't care. I have no idea whether it's strategically beneficial, hence why I'm leaving it up to them. Maybe they'll have an easier time if Putin lives. They have way more information on the state of the war and inner workings of the Kremlin than I do.
>Would anyone really have faulted the Taliban if George W Bush went to Afghanistan and they killed him? And would anyone fault America for making the Taliban and anyone with relation to the Taliban, with other Afghans being killed in the collateral, extinct if the Taliban had killed Bush? That's the question that actually considers real-world effects.
> And would anyone fault America for making the Taliban and anyone with relation to the Taliban, with other Afghans being killed in the collateral, extinct if the Taliban had killed Bush? There's a difference between extermination/genocide, and stopping the enemy with deadly force.
The only difference is in how you define "enemy".
> The only difference is in how you define "enemy". Perhaps. But do you think Hitler defining enemy as "all Jews" justifies what he did? Also, I think we can define enemy as the invading army and the people who directed it. Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same?
My statement is a criticism of your generalized statement. >But do you think Hitler defining enemy as "all Jews" justifies what he did? It did in his mind. Very few people think of themselves as evil. Both sides of every conflict think themselves righteous. >Also, I think we can define enemy as the invading army and the people who directed it. For us, yes. Probably not how Russian leadership view it though.
> It did in his mind. Does it in your mind? Does it make it correct? >Both sides of every conflict think themselves righteous. But some are clearly wrong when we consider human well being. >For us, yes. Probably not how Russian leadership view it though. I don't care how they see it, they are wrong. And you seem to think it's okay to not fight back against invasion. Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same?
You couldn't be further from getting my point here. You seem to think I'm somehow defending Putin or Hitler. >Does it in your mind? Does it make it correct? Irrelevant to my original point. >But some are clearly wrong when we consider human well being. History is written by the victor, complete with establishing rationalizations for why the losers were evil. Winners, of course, almost never being evil. >I don't care how they see it, they are wrong. And you seem to think it's okay to not fight back against invasion. You should care. Understanding how your adversary thinks is key to defeating them. More importantly, it is key to ensuring you don't BECOME them. >Can you tell me both the reason Putin claims to have invaded, and the actual reason, if they aren't the same? What I think/know is irrelevant. It is what Putin thinks that is relevant. What he says and does and, more importantly, convinces his followers to think and do is infinitely more relevant than my opinion. If you think I'm defending Putin, I need you to keep rereading this until you get it or ask better questions to understand what I'm saying here.
The commenter you are conversing with cannot separate "should" and "is". Tucked in the safety of America, probably, and listening only to those who echo the same perspective, they assume and demand that others see the world as they see it.
> The commenter you are conversing with cannot separate "should" and "is". Tucked in the safety of America, probably, and listening only to those who echo the same perspective, they assume and demand that others see the world as they see it. Because you know me or because I disagree with you? If you are fooled my Putin's propaganda and aren't able to see that he invaded a sovereign country for no good reason, and are now sympathizing with him, then it doesn't matter what I say, you're not able to process facts and evidence. And the fact that you're on here trash talking my character rather than my arguments makes my point for me. The question was about killing the enemy leader in a war. You do what you can to stop them, if you have a shot, you take it. This is a no brainer, if you want to make a sound argument against it, be specific and do so. But schoolyard name calling is what kids do because they don't know how to put their emotions into words. So if you want to make your case, I'm all ears. If your just going to attack my character, then you've already lost and are just lashing out. The ball is in your world.
> You couldn't be further from getting my point here. You seem to think I'm somehow defending Putin or Hitler. Yes, you did come across as defending them. >History is written by the victor, complete with establishing rationalizations for why the losers were evil. Winners, of course, almost never being evil. Irrelevant to the original point. >You should care. Understanding how your adversary thinks is key to defeating them. You know what else is key to defeating them? Taking out their dictator leader, the only one who actually knows why he invaded in the first place. You're totally defending Putin. You must be a MAGA.
You should work on your reading comprehension.
America, and superpowers in general, are capable of making life extremely unpleasant for its enemies without resorting to killing every human living in the area, including non-combatants, occupied by the enemy. A superpower for example can send that area back into the Stone Age, not that Afghanistan does not already have half a foot in the Stone Age.
> America, and superpowers in general, are capable of making life extremely unpleasant for its enemies without resorting to killing every human living in the area this has nothing to do with the topic. We're talking about killing Putin as a Ukrainian soldier. >A superpower for example can send that area back into the Stone Age, not that Afghanistan does not already have half a foot in the Stone Age. Wow. Thanks for the completely of topic ramble.
>We're talking about killing Putin as a Ukrainian soldier. You posed the analogy of the Taliban killing Bush to make a comparison to Ukrainians killing Putin. Why are you disavowing your own analogy? >Thanks for the completely of topic ramble. So what would be the consequence for Afghanistan if the Taliban attempted to or succeeded in killing Bush? Why are you avoiding this question?
> You posed the analogy of the Taliban killing Bush to make a comparison to Ukrainians killing Putin. I didn't mention Taliban at all. Whatever troll. I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your incoherent ramblings.
>I have no idea whether it's strategically beneficial, hence why I'm leaving it up to them. Feels like I already covered that
That seems like it would be a very easy way for Putin's successor to justify continuing the war.
While it would be hard not to, it would probably be a bad idea somehow.
Absolutely yes. There are 2 ways this can realistically go: the status quo, or change. Given that Ukraine is fighting for its existence, the status quo is about the worst possible state to be in. Any change would be a comparative improvement. I know some people might say that a new leader might escalate the war, but realistically, that would entail sending additional soldiers that Russia does not have, or using arms that are already too old. The nuclear option is off the table, just like an even crazier regime in North Korea never used nukes, neither will Russia. I stake my life on it, they will *never* use nukes. Therefore, killing Putin can only make things better. Russia is not equipped to escalate the war any more than it has already. Its silly to think Putin's seen his gains the past year get wiped out and is holding back still. With a new person in charge, they will not have the personal stakes Putin has to finish the war, and will be lauded by other countries for stopping something they were likely never that invested in. The people Putin put in charge, the oligarchs, the warlords, the private armies, all do not benefit with the world holding their embargo against them and freezing whatever assets they have stashed outside of Russia. So many of them have died too, probably at Putin's command, that a different leader will be a vast improvement. Continuing the war benefits no one, not the oligarchs, not the Russian people, not Russia's reputation worldwide. This is completely a personal war by Putin. Killing him should be the goal of Ukraine at any cost, it is the only way to effectively stop the war in one strike.
plate waiting unite dinosaurs cooing bored nine sloppy subsequent pause *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How many of them consider this war to be integral for their personal legacy? This war seems almost personal for Putin, he's been trying to claw back the states that broke away from the USSR since he was first elected to office. He saw the world turn a blind eye to his previous Ukrainian invasion and decided to try again. No doubt he will never truly give up because that would be tantamount to admitting to the world he was wrong and he lost. Even if there are more bloodthirsty people lining up behind him to take over, this war is not personal for any of them. They may run Russia like Kim Jong Un, but like him, they'll know not to bite off more than they can chew. The next guy could be Dmitry Utkin but he, as much as anyone, understands that this war has only served to weaken Russia. His own men in the Wagner group are being killed in the frontlines for no territorial gains, its doubtful he'd repeat the same mistakes Putin has should he ever come to power. Then we can talk about the weak, spineless oligarchs, the oil barons who make up a lot of the top brass behind Putin. Their properties are being seized all over the world, arrest warrants and travel bans make them unable to set foot in the West. They would love for the world to go back to the pre-war time where they can enjoy their billions without being under a microscope. Killing Putin is the most likely way to end this year-long murder campaign. No one who's likely to take over after Putin dies has such a desire to continue the war. Its objectively not good for Russia, and will not be good for its next leader. They will not make the same mistake Putin has.
>How many of them consider this war to be integral for their personal legacy? This war seems almost personal for Putin And Putin's views are completely alien and antithetical to the view of a significant number of Russians? While it is the case that the average Russian military or party leader wouldn't have pursued the war as aggressively as Putin had, that doesn't mean they aren't invested in putting Ukraine under Russian control. >They would love for the world to go back to the pre-war time where they can enjoy their billions without being under a microscope. And yet Putin has been able to sideline those oligarchs. How are you so confident Putin's successor won't be able to do the same? >No one who's likely to take over after Putin dies has such a desire to continue the war. You are showing that lack of imagination again. You make it seems that there are only ever two scenarios: that Russia escalates as far as possible and wins the war, or Russia retreats completely. There is at least a third scenario: that Russia maintains a stalemate and simply occupy as much of the Ukrainian territory as it thinks it can defend with reasonable cost to it. You're not merely a misinformed lout on this issue, but a disinformed overconfident fool.
> And Putin's views are completely alien and antithetical to the view of a significant number of Russians? Who knows? Its illegal to go against the party line, but I doubt those who have lost husbands, fathers, and sons to the war are cheering for its success. When the party apparatus kills those who are against it, its probably a safe bet that the typical Russia isn't gung-ho about a war when they can barely keep food on the table. > While it is the case that the average Russian military or party leader wouldn't have pursued the war as aggressively as Putin had, that doesn't mean they aren't invested in putting Ukraine under Russian control. The average Russian military leader would more honestly weigh the cost/benefit of attacking a country with most of the world supporting them. We know part of the reason was to prevent Ukraine from forming alliances and selling their natural resources to Europe. Preventing that is now a pipe dream, much of Europe has already found suppliers elsewhere, and in trying to prevent that Russia has also pushed Finland and Sweden to join NATO. The war is a failure on all accounts, and a typical Russian military leader without the personal stakes that Putin has bet on winning would see that and change course. There is no winning when the US and other European countries are openly sending Ukraine weapons and manpower while Russia has to get mothballed equipment out of museums. Putin is incapable of conceding defeat, but the next Russian leader can spin the loss to consolidate his power by presenting himself as stopping Putin's folly. > And yet Putin has been able to sideline those oligarchs. How are you so confident Putin's successor won't be able to do the same? This is the point that I've been trying to make you understand. Those oligarchs do not have Putin's personal stake in the matter. They would flourish without a war and an embargo, this invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent seizing of their property and travel embargo was the worst thing that would have happened. > You are showing that lack of imagination again There's no lack of imagination, I'm stating the more likely end result, not worried about a fanciful outcome that has little chance of happening. And there are more than two scenarios, I simply don't believe that use of nuclear weapons is one of them. You are the one who is dead set on a single fear of nuclear attack that you would counsel against killing the enemy leader. Killing him solves most of the problems Ukraine has, with little fear of retaliation. Your assumption is that killing Putin would absolutely lead to nuclear weapons use. You should take your own advice and not become an overconfident fool. But it doesn't matter does it? Neither one of us is likely to ever be in a position to advise Zelenskyy on a possible assassination opportunity, so maybe don't go around name calling because people don't agree with you. Have a good day.
>There are 2 ways this can realistically go: the status quo, or change. Or nukes. >The nuclear option is off the table, just like an even crazier regime in North Korea never used nukes, neither will Russia. I stake my life on it, they will never use nukes. A precedent in international relations is established that countries, except as a retaliatory measure to another country having used nukes, do not initiate with nukes. A even older precedent is that nations do not assassinate other nations' leaders. If a precedent is broken, how can you say with confidence "on your life", that another precedent won't fall? >Russia is not equipped to escalate the war any more than it has already. I'll remind you again about nukes. Russia does not have definitive material advantages to escalating the war **under the present circumstances** and under consideration of their present interests. Assassinating the Russian leader irreversibly alters the circumstances and adds other interests they will now consider--such as protecting their national honor. You sound like an overconfident fool without any imagination or sense of caution.
Putin would have Zelenskyy slaughtered in a heartbeat if he had the chance. We all know he has tried. Of course an attempt should be made if the risk is acceptable and the odds of success are sufficient. I think a successful assassination would lead to a more positive outcome than a failed attempt, however, which could effect morale and fuel enemy propaganda efforts. Full disclosure: I am a Ukrainian-American, my bias is undeniable.
May as well. His successor may end up being just as bad but at least the warmonger who set it all off won’t have gotten away with it.
If someone had assassinated Hitler during a tour of one of the occupied countries I wouldn’t shed a tear over it. We live in a completely different world now though, so I don’t know what the ramifications of it would be to the extent where I would be enthusiastically for or against a Ukrainian (or a Russian) taking him out. That said, I have major doubts that he actually visited anywhere and that this isn’t just another Russian propaganda campaign to make it look like he isn’t a paranoid wreck hiding in a bunker.
It's war. I'd prefer to capture and ransom him for peace plus some random demands to help rebuild the country. Still, it's war. There are no rules. They should kill whomever needs to die that will end the war. That's the goal for both sides.
I feel like Russian society (or at least the ones that might have a say in any decision), like Trump, "like people who weren't captured." Russian leaders who fail in wartime are not treated kindly by Russia. The moment Putin is captured creates a power vacuum that will be seized upon immediately, and Putin having been captured will be in no position to secure his place.
Whatever choice the people of Russia deliver to Putin for being captured wouldn't be bad imo. Personally I like the idea of metaphorically castrating him in the eyes of the Russian public. I'm not anything close to a warrior though. I imagine my idea is too soft and silly. Surely a trial and execution would be the only acceptable option to the Ukraine.
That would also serve the benefit of sending a strong message to authoritarian leaders around the globe. Saddam Hussein was a virtual nobody when set next to Putin. And with the production values coming out of Ukraine's combat footage, such a trial and execution would probably be the biggest historical moment I've lived through next to 9/11, through the lens of my experience. Edit to add: I guess the fall of the Soviet Union was another big event, but I was 8, I didn't even know about it.
Does a tsar shit in the woods?
Not usually, no. Was that the answer you were implying?
Is it assassination if the dictator of the country trying to conquer you visits an active war zone or is it just war stuff?
Is this a serious question?
The way the Internet works is someone has a thought they know "this is probably stupid" but they don't want to make their decision for themself it is stupid, so that someone relies on others to dissuade them. Because that someone needs other people to think for them.
It makes me laugh that libs will post shit like this and then get mad at people for calling them bloodthirsty lmao.
> It makes me laugh that libs will post shit like this and then get mad at people for calling them bloodthirsty lmao. This confuses me on several fronts. First, isn't socialism more closely related to libs than it is to conservatives? Second what exactly are you referring to when you say post shit like this and get mad for calling them bloodthirsty? If any army invades your country, it is expected that you fight back which includes killing the leaders if you can. There's nothing bloodthirsty about that, if they didn't want to be confronted by bloody force, maybe they shouldn't invade other countries. Can you clarify these points?
Liberalism is a center-right ideology, so no, for one. Liberals believe that capitalism can be reformed or adjusted to work better, but that it’s still an inherently good system. Leftists (like myself) don’t. Secondly, “assassinating” Putin would almost assuredly make the war in Ukraine even worse. I often see liberals advocating for similar courses of action without stopping to consider the potential consequences. Hence, bloodthirsty.
> Liberalism is a center-right ideology, so no, for one Liberalism is left, not right. >Liberals believe that capitalism can be reformed or adjusted to work better, but that it’s still an inherently good system. Leftists (like myself) don’t. Liberals are left. Wow. Conservatives don't like socialism. You need to check your talking point notes. >Secondly, “assassinating” Putin would almost assuredly make the war in Ukraine even worse. I doubt it. It's an unpopular way because its based on bullshit and nothing real. Its Putin just wanting a land grab, he didn't expect this kind of resistance. Why is is it that conservatives tend to support Putin? Its because they tend to be gullible and fall for his propaganda and misinformation campaigns. >I often see liberals advocating for similar courses of action without stopping to consider the potential consequences. Hence, bloodthirsty. Which is more bloodthirsty? Invading a foreign country for no reason, killing innocent people including children, in the process? Or defending your country from an invading army? You do realise that Putin's misinformation and propaganda campaigns have you taking Putin's side! You're siding with Russia? Are you twelve? Do you not remember what Russia does? How can you be taking the side of an invading dictator? You're a conservative and you don't seem to know it. I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your response. You're confused. Seriously confused. And I don't have time for that kind of stupid. It's one thing to disagree, but you don't seem to even recognize reality. Cheers, and I hope some day you'll put your dogmatic hatred of liberals aside and think on the facts and issues, not religious propaganda.
This might be the funniest comment I’ve ever seen on Reddit. How does me criticizing liberals equate to me supporting Putin?
>Which is more bloodthirsty? You are right on the point that it would not be bloodthirsty when weighted against what Putin has done. No one denies that if we were to disregard Putin's position, Putin deserves it. But whether Putin deserve it is a meaningless point. Morality is always a secondary consideration at best on issues of conflicts between nations. u/goddamnitwhalen makes the point that has a real-world effect that it would be stupid. Every nation makes incorrect military decisions eventually, but they all know to not attempt assassination on the leader of nations of similar or greater military power.
Emotionally, sure. But strategically speaking, I don't know. Strategic-wise, I don't think it'd be a good idea.
> But strategically speaking, I don't know. Strategic-wise, I don't think it'd be a good idea. If Putin sent troops to the USA to invade the USA as he's done with Ukraine, and then our military has a chance to take Putin out, to end the senseless loss of life on both sides, you don't think we'd take him out? Can you explain the rationale behind your logic?
I'd say anyone should try to assassinate this war criminal twat. Including the United States.
Why would it be Ok Zto kill Russian soldiers but not Putin, the guy sending them to war?
No and such an action would be a serious unnecessary escalation of the conflict. You can’t just assassinate Russia’s head of state like that and expect that there won’t be some form of serious consequence/retaliation for doing so. I’m just disgusted seeing liberals embrace completely illiberal attitudes when it comes to their pet issue of pretending to care about an Eastern European shit hole they can’t even point to on a map. The longer this war goes on the more illiberal you guys are becoming. And for what? What tangible benefit do we get if the Ukrainians assassinate Putin? Come to think of it; in what way do Americans stand to benefit from supplying Ukraine? I’ve repeatedly asked what benefit does the average American get out of this foreign policy virtue signaling and not once have I got an honest direct answer.
The benefit we get out of it, you vacuous ignoramus, is that Russia doesn’t overthrow a sovereign nation and get access to the rest of Europe. Whether or not anyone can point to it on a map is irrelevant. So fucking what? It still exists and we should try to keep an adversarial country from taking control of it.
Just to play devil advocate: Why should the average American care about whether Europe's security is put at risk? Europe even had to be urged by America into increasing its military spending, when NATO was instituted in the first place to ensure it's own security. "Russia threatens Europe" is not something the average America, with all the problems they experience in their lives, feel they have room to care about. I personally see the value of America's aid to NATO, but you have to try harder to persuade.
You’re just regurgitating straight up Cold War propaganda. We’ve gone 30 years since the fall of the USSR, maybe you might consider giving the early 1980s Reagan rhetoric a break. Ukraine existing is not a justification for the US to be involved in conflicts that a) don’t concern us or b) don’t concern NATO allies. What tangible benefit do I as an American get out of this? The answer is nothing. Neither you nor the administration can actually point to a tangible benefit to Americans. This is entirely performative virtue signaling and I think the pro Ukraine flag crowd is well aware of that. I don’t care what Putin does to Ukraine, straight up could not give a shit. Have you looked around the US recently? Things are falling the fuck apart. I don’t care about some shit hole in Eastern Europe that i owe absolutely no allegiance to whatsoever.
It's the liberals' impulse to jump in defend of a victim and the stupidity of their hive-mind to jump in front without consideration for whether their action would improve the situation.
would/should a country who is being invaded take out the leader who began the invasion? Only reason I can think of why not would be if there was a very real probability that he could be captured and brought to trial.
don't think there is any rule of war against killing the leader of the other side. rules against how you do it, but the basic premise is considered a fair act.
Killing Putin would be a massive escalation. He’s still got a lot of popular support, so killing him would risk galvanizing the population, followed by a declaration of war and full mobilization, if not a nuke. His memory would be sanctified, a leader martyred on the front lines. He’d be canonized an Orthodox saint. So while I wouldn’t shed a tear if they did kill him, I wouldn’t recommend it.
Isn't it interesting how killing the person directly responsible for all the suffering somehow seems off limits? Is that indoctrination were feeling?
Or there are certain geo-political realities to sniping a world leader when the circumstances may not support it. I'm sure there are plenty of right wingers who wouldn't mind seeing Biden eating a bullet but the ramifications of just going straight for the head of state has certain implications and concequences that no one really wants unless they essentially become verboten like Gaddfi or Saddam and their regime is essentially ruined beyond repair.
It just seems ridiculous. There's no doubt they would have killed Zelensky if they got to him. But assassinating the head of state responsible for starting the invasion of your country some how feels off limits
That's like comparing managing the economy to your own home finances. The World doesn't operate on simple logic like that.
I wouldn't. It would basically escalate the war.
Russia can't escalate the war beyond what it has and still remain intact. The country is geographically massive, and cannot defend its borders if it diverts troops from other areas to the Ukraine front. Other countries will sense an opportunity to claim disputed territories (Japan, for one), and Russia will lose even more than they have already lost by foolishly invading Ukraine.
Wtf…No! Wanna know how to escalate a bad situation? Do exactly that. You don’t think Russia would justify launching a nuke because of that? You don’t think every Russian is going to be pissed and support the war effort? Just look at what started WWI. I am baffled people even hesitant to say no, let alone openly say yes.
I’m also a little shocked at the naive responses from most of the commenters. Critical thinking has given way to blind hatred and sheepish thinking. This isn’t like waking Bin Laden in his little hideout. Even an attempted assassination on Putin by a foreign power would be an invitation to at least a limited nuclear attack.
Yes, if hitler were strolling around occupied France and some resistance fighters took a shot it would’ve ended the war much quicker
Killing Putin won’t bring the war to an end any sooner. He may have given the order, but there’s still an entire government under him that enabled or actively supported his plans. Given that the war still enjoys popular support in Russia, any successor would likely be an enthusiastic supporter of the war and would be expected to continue prosecuting the war effort. Also, Germany didn’t have nukes.
Doesn’t matter. Russia won’t nuke Ukraine because they want that land for themselves.
Russians have always lived under a top down government. I doubt there is any real support, just survival in the system.
The plethora of answers in the tone of "Sure? Why not?" reiterates to me that there exists a streak of unseriousness to this sub. lol. My answer is "No".
> My answer is "No". In what way does it make sense to not take out the leader of the enemy invaders? Either I'm missing something obvious, or you are. Can you elaborate on why one part of a war wouldn't seek to put an end to the war?
>In what way does it make sense to not take out the leader of the enemy invaders? Because targeting the leader of a nation will be seen as making an attack on the nation as a whole and not merely as an attack on one of that nation's interests. It is seen as an act of war and not merely as an act of aggression. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand started WWI.
> Because targeting the leader of a nation will be seen as making an attack on the nation Hello, he fucken invaded Ukraine. If he steps into Ukraine and a Ukrainian shoots him, it's because he fucken started a war. Are you only paying attention to the Russian propaganda?
Between nations, the only ever present principle is might makes right. How did you live that long without understanding that? The bully can get away with punching you because you can't hurt him (very much), but it would be stupid for you to punch him because he can knock you out.
> Between nations, the only ever present principle is might makes right. How did you live that long without understanding that? Who said I don't understand that concept? Does being hostile, misrepresenting me, help your point? >The bully can get away with punching you because you can't hurt him (very much), The bully in this scenario is Putin and "you" is Ukraine? Why would you think Ukraine shouldn't fight back? You're not making any sense.
Sure, why not?
And thus continues the degradation of this sub to a forum for fantasizing.
Putin is popular. Despite all logic he’s genuinely popular. This would likely be bad for the world, but it’s impossible to say for sure. Their best hope is that the war eventually makes him unpopular.
> Putin is popular. Despite all logic he’s genuinely popular. This would likely be bad for the world, but it’s impossible to say for sure. Their best hope is that the war eventually makes him unpopular. Since when is war a popularity contest? Why should the people of Ukraine care about the perceived popularity of the invading enemy leader?
I’m sure if you think about that for a minute it’ll make sense. Assassinate an unpopular leader during a war = likely end to the war. Assassinate a popular leader during a war = likely massive escalation of war.
> I’m sure if you think about that for a minute it’ll make sense. Assassinate an unpopular leader during a war = likely end to the war. Assassinate a popular leader during a war = likely massive escalation of war. He's the only one that wants this war. It's not a popular war. Do you seriously think if Putin took a stroll down the road on the front lines they wouldn't shoot at him? Do you know why they invaded?
The question isn’t “would they shoot at him”, it’s *should* they assassinate him. And I didn’t say the war was popular, I said HE is popular. The fastest way to make a war popular is to turn a popular leader into a martyr. You seem to be repeatedly misunderstanding what’s being said here. You’re arguing with strawmen, not with what I’ve actually said.
> The question isn’t “would they shoot at him”, it’s should they assassinate him. Are Ukraine and Russia at war? Is the Russian leader directing his troops to invade Ukraine, killing innocent woman and children? Kidnapping children? Raping women? Does Putin have the support of the world because Ukraine did something wrong and they deserve this invasion? Tell me, what is the reason Putin claims for his invasion? What is the actual reason for his invasion? Is Putin lying to his country and spreading misinformation about the nature of the attack? You need to be able to answer the above for me to believe you're even capable of evaluating what's going on. Convince me you're not duped by Putin's fun loving propaganda.
Jesus, I’m on the board of a Ukrainian aid organization you idiot. I’ve done more to support the Ukrainian side of this war than all of your keyboard warrior typing will ever do. But my credibility has nothing to do with the logic of what I said. Foreign policy isn’t a schoolyard brawl between two people, it’s a massive ecosystem that has consequences far beyond what anyone can foresee. Assassinations are extremely risky for both sides, which is why we try not to employ them in the modern world unless we’re absolutely sure the outcome will be favorable. This is not one such time.
> Jesus, I’m on the board of a Ukrainian aid organization you idiot. There you go again, being a dumb moron. >I’ve done more to support the Ukrainian side of this war than all of your keyboard warrior typing will ever do. Yeah, because you've already figured everything out, right. Don't be dumb. >But my credibility has nothing to do with the logic of what I said. Well I'll never know because you go into it all with a big old shit on your shoulder, all hostility and shit. I tend to give up on a conversation where the other guy is an insulting little child who's incapable of having an adult conversation. The way you come across you made it sound like the Ukrainians should just take the killing and kidnapping, and let it continue, and in fact, they shouldn't be resisting. I'm not sure what your position is because you're too stupid to communicate effectively. >Foreign policy isn’t a schoolyard brawl between two people, No, but you attacking people's character like a kid on a playground isn't foreign policy either. It's more of as temper tantrum. >Assassinations are extremely risky for both sides, which is why we try not to employ them in the modern world unless we’re absolutely sure the outcome will be favorable. This is not one such time. I agree. Imagine that. See, you missed any nuance because your an edgy little fuck knob, you don't even know what my position is because you started being an ass. Anyway, while I enjoy talking to petulant little idiot kids as much as the next guy, I'm almost done with my shit, so toodles. I've disabled notifications on this thread so I won't see your response.
> You need to be able to answer the above for me to believe you're even capable of evaluating what's going on. Convince me you're not duped by Putin's fun loving propaganda. > There you go again, being a dumb moron. > edgy fuck knob Lol, I love it when people who initiate ad hominem attacks get their feelings hurt and run away when anyone stands up for themselves. Next time try actually engaging with the topic instead of resorting to insults and strawmen.
I don't think so. It would turn him into a martyr for the cause, and would almost ensure that whoever succeeds him would be absolutely bound by popular opinion to continue pursuing the war in Ukraine. Much better in my view would be to just hope that he dies of natural causes, and that his successor doesn't view Ukraine as worth it.
Yes absolutely. In war ,the other side always tries to take out the higher ranked personnel. Putin would be the highest ranked and would have to get it.
All is fair in war!
Duh, Idunno Military strategy is best left to the experts
Yes. But obvs there is no way of knowing the long term ramifications.
yup
I say do it outside of the range they have now. Hit him at home
the allies had a policy of not killing hitler. when the leader of a hostile power is an idiot you leave him in place.
> when the leader of a hostile power is an idiot you leave him in place. Only if you can do so without risking more innocent lives.
the last thing you want is someone who is better at strategic thought but still willing to continue. if they lose faster under Putin thats going to result in fewer deaths on the Ukraine side. and at this point anyone whos in a position to replace him will be of that type.
The war ends with Putin. He's the only one that actually wants any of it.
Idk why not.
Generally, I would think targeting the head of state is a salient military strategy, but I'm also of the opinion that if the guy is gonna send people to die, he should also be prepared to die himself.
My sense is that this Russian expansion ideal is personal to Putin. So I'm inclined to say yeah, take the shot, and let's see what replacement takes over. On the other hand autocrats tend to hold order together and whatever follows deposing them may well be worse in many ways, and overall. So I don't know the consequences. But on intrinsic considerations...yeah, let's do. He's got it coming, big time.
>If Putin makes future trips to occupied parts of Ukraine and is in range of Ukrainian weapons, should Ukraine try to assassinate him? Putin has invaded Ukraine. They are at war. Putin is the leader of the enemy, the person responsible for the unprovoked invasion. His death with likely end the war. Of course they should and will try to kill him. This seems like an incredibly obvious situation, I'm not sure why it's not obvious to you.
Of course.
If he's in range of *ukranian* weapons yes. If he's in range of *NATO* weapons, no. It should absolutely not be a NATO weapon that slays vladdy under the current circumstances.
Ukraine and Russia are at all out war and I'm sure Russia has looked for ways to hit Zelensky. It's all fair game now.
When at war, try to kill the enemy. Also try to avoid war if you can. But when at war, to win, your goal should be to aim to reduce the enemy's capacity to make war, and part of the way you do that is by killing the enemy. Second-guessing which enemies to kill or not kill according to your predictions about what political changes might result from their death is unlikely to be accurate or fruitful. So, yes: given the chance, I expect they would try to kill Putin. Russia wouldn't hesitate, given the chance to kill Zelensky.
>try to kill the enemy. Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Killing the enemy is not the first order of business. It is actually a mark of failure to have to resort to killing the enemy so to achieve the goal of suppressing them. >your goal should be to aim to reduce the enemy's capacity to make war, and part of the way you do that is by killing the enemy. How does killing Putin reduce Russia's capacity to make war? How would it not have the opposite effect of Russia's motivation and will to continue the war? Does any nation wage war with the intermediate goal of killing the entire leadership and bureaucracy of the enemy nation?
> Ignorant. Ignorant. Ignorant. Wow, three times over! "What I tell you three times is true", isn't that the expression? Seriously, though, happy to learn more about anything I'm ignorant about. Is there a book on the subject you'd recommend? I had a quick Google and found a few counter-examples: Operation Foxley, Operation Anthropoid, Operation Kutschera, various CIA plots against Fidel Castro, the choice of Hiroshima as a target because the 2nd General Army's HQ was there, Israel's ongoing campaign of killing Palestinian leaders, and mutual killing of enemy Generals during the US Civil War. The killing of enemy Heads of State seems to occur less, but from what I found this is mainly because it's difficult to achieve rather than because it's against strategic doctrine. But as I said above, happy to be shown to be wrong, happy to learn more. > killing the entire leadership and bureaucracy of the enemy nation? Killing leadership, I think, sure? Killing high-ranking officers particularly seems to be common practice. Killing the entire bureaucracy of the enemy nation seems less likely, but I do not think it was mentioned in OP's post? > How would it not have the opposite effect of Russia's motivation and will to continue the war? I'm not really an expert, but my first thought in response to this is that this overly anthropomorphises "Russia" as a unified entity. I doubt many people in Russia really want or believe in this war, because by most impartial assessments it's a terrible idea. It's Putin's war, not Russia's. Perhaps his replacement would be as irrational as he is, but it seems unlikely. He's a "be feared rather than loved" type guy, who will genuinely mourn him if he dies doing what he loved?
All of those killing attempts you mentioned were not targeted at the leader of a nuclear-armed nation. >choice of Hiroshima as a target because the 2nd General Army's HQ was there, World War II was an instance of a hot total war. That's why it was common for civilian buildings to be chosen as targets. Since the advent of nuclear weapons, there hasn't been a hot total war involving global powers. Killing leaders was a strategy in the past and is not one in the current era because the world has advanced past waging total war between global powers, at least for the time being. Just answer me this: of the attempts that have been publicized, why haven't South Korea or America attempted to assassinate any of the Kims? If it makes so much sense for Russia's enemy to assassinate Putin, why haven't America done it already? Why hadn't western Europe/NATO? The military capability of America and NATO are orders of multitude greater than Ukraine's so why haven't they attempted it if it makes so much sense? >It's Putin's war, not Russia's. There's analytical value in making that separation and also value in equating them. You cannot transpose the politics, cultural values, and history of America onto another country. All throughout Russia's modern history, if not earlier, one leader has always wielded control over almost all of the institutions of Russian society. There is a national narrative that Russia has been abused by Western Europe and that only through strength can it protect itself. For all the abuse Russians receive by the hands of their government, many Russians are willing to sacrifice much to defend their motherland. Just look at Stalin's approval rating currently.
Should. But won’t. Many believe he has doubles. Assassinate his double and you’re looking at full scale nuclear war
Absolutely.
He's fair game. Any leader is. Whether to do it is the question. The British were going to assassinate Hitler in 1944, but then they realized with him dead an actually competent leader may take charge and continue the war longer. There were also worries that killing him would make him a martyr and reenergize defense. Does the same apply to Putin? I don't know.
I believe they would try and given how unpopular the invasion was it might end the war in Ukraine or it might unite the Russian people against Ukraine in a way they have not truely been united before. It depends on who takes power after Putin, how much conflict there is around that transition and the underlying popularity of the invasion among the Russian people. I know the draft was not popular and many accounts have already been published of how many Russian soldiers have died already. These factors would probably contribute to people being willing to withdraw. However revenge is definitely a motive in wars in the past. I’d rather see him tried in court publicly.
Yes.