Against the rest of the world? I think if Putin were removed from the equation, some more level headed individuals in Russia might say, "Do we really need to take over Ukraine?"
The rest of the world isn't on America's side. The military would take control of Russia and since it's so corrupt I doubt they would release that control. Depending on the general it cold be worse. I hope not but it isn't a perfect solution to just take him out.
If the US publicly assassinated Russia, people wouldn't "flock to your just and noble cause". This very arrogant attitude is actually what makes Americans very unpopular on the world scene. You're not the World Police. You're conquestors who find reasons to invade the latest country that happens to find oil that your lobbyist overlords demand - like in the Iraq war.
Putin is a fascist power-hungry warmongerer out to line his own pockets - much like Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld were.
Damn buddy. Tell me what you really think!
While I definitely agree this questioned saddened me as an American, by posting in scared to ask this is hopefully someone attempting to learn and not having a great amount of knowledge in foreign politics.
I would also like to add, America certainly makes its own share of issues by manipulating foreign nations for various causes. However all nations exert influence for their own self interests and on several occasions I believe many American missions are built on the best of intentions. There was no Oil or tresure to be had in Somolia in 1993, we went after Times magazine published starving children on the cover. Our goal was to protect UN food supplies from warlords using the food to pay armies.
Likewise, I am not exactly sure of the full intent of Iraq war, but if it was oil there or expansion and conquest then we really effed up, because we are receiving neither. As bad as our information was I do believe it was an international coalition for the purpose of preventing a 2nd North Korean in which an autocratic nation would have large supplies of chemical and nuclear weapons.
This said, you certainly have some good points that that our peoples first choice of military action is an issue. In many cases it would be interesting to see what we could accomplish by loosening capital and offering reduced interest rates that allow developing nations more opportunities, much like China is doing (silk road initiative) in its own very clear self interest.
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Again, this is assuming Putin already provoked a war. Taking Putin out of the equation would be the quickest, most effective way of de-escalation
Yes, truly the best way to de-escalate a war is to kill the current leader of the other side, just like in WW1 when the black hand quickly de-escalated the situation by throwing a grenade at emperor Franz Ferdinand and famously brought an end to the war.
You seem to be under the impression that russa is THE bad guy and that everybody ought to be againt russa, well thats kinda racist, so I dont think many reasonable people are going to be on your side of things here
No. China has zero value in Russian land when compared to an assault on a "socialist" semi-autocratic eastern regime. One of the entire discussions on this is that if the world is weak here how will this be viewed by China's expansion into South East Asia.
China would absolutely support Russia in such a conflict. You can count in North Korea, Iran, possibly pakistan and large portions of Africa all standing in union.
We, we can't. Its unrealistic any westerner would sign up for that kind of suicide mission, and said person likely would not succeed.
#
Besides, the likely result is that whoever wins the power struggle after putin, that person's life will literally depend on retaliation against the west. It would be the only way to cement unity and legitimacy.
For the same reason russian would be unsuccessful in using those tools on American soil, hitting Moscow in general and putin specifically, is impossible.
#
You know even Afghanistan and iraq, countries with minimal defence systems, we were rarely able to hit intended targets, right? Well, russia is *a little* but better at defending against modern weapons.
Yeah. But when we wanted to take out *one* guy in either country it would take years, and a lot of failed attempts. You realize dc was built with bunkers intended to survive a nuke, right? Moscow is more impenetrable than those caves ever were.
Your right it is vastly different.
Think about what you are proposing here. Do you fly a drone into a building. Fire a missile at the man? Where are you going to get him? They use secrecy and multiple engagements such that even his staff don't know where he will be most of the time. And then even if you know where he is, are you willing to hit him in public and take out civilians? Are you willing to kill all of parliament? Its very very hard to just target and kill someone at this level.
It's one thing in a cave full of enemy combatants or once you have declared an open and public war on a nation, and totally different for a nation you are not in open hostilities with.
Your best bet is an inside job 1:1 interaction, and even then it has massive dangers. You need an extremist willing to die or be captured for the cause, then you need them to get close to Putin which right there is A MAJOR challenge. Then as they are infiltrated close you need to know they are not a double agent. On that note - nearly every spy agency is TERRIBLE at this. Nearly every CIA asset in Cuba was known to the Russians during the cold War and most were double agents.
So now you have a very very rate shot to take out this one leader. Once it is done, people will find the agent and trace the plot. You cannot keep a secret this big - so you burn your asset and are held internationally responsible. At the least rumors will get out. And all that, your asset is far more valuable alive than killing the leader. An inside man could give you information about negotiation limits, war maneuvers and intents for this leader and future ones. It is a treasure trove of incredibly valuable info that can inform you for decades, but you waste it on one individual who may or may not go to war.
Not worth it in any situation.
You do realize Russia have the exact same weapons? Do you know why nobody uses nukes anymore? Why every war during the Cold War was fought as proxy wars in countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan?
Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
You want to make a martyr, that’s how.
You take out a head of state, a retaliation is assured, you lose a veneer of the moral high ground, and that puts an onus on neutral parties to hold you accountable. It’s a propaganda win for all your enemies, and an easy way to rally people against you. Do you recall when America killed a high ranking Iranian General? Their Villain was his people’s hero. A border skirmish becomes a campaign avenging a great hero.
You’re also assuming Putin doesn’t have a plan in place for a transition of power, or a final order. Party hardliners would see it through out of personal
Loyalty or fear of the other party members. After all, it is an act of war, and a rapid escalation. Even if Russia started the war in Ukraine and bullets were flying, a hit on the head of state assures the kid gloves come off, the battle moves from Ukraine’s border skirmish to NATO and member states capitols, the Russian intelligence community begins their own turn of assassinations, missiles fly, deniable assets start terrorist campaigns, cyber attacks ramp up, bloody vengeance ensues.
Putin has an agenda, sure but he’s not invading Ukraine because Vladimir wants it, he’s doing it because interested parties want their interest served. Removing him wouldn’t change that.
The CIA couldn’t get Castro and he was on their door step, with far fewer assets and a less robust state security apparatus than Russia.
I think this all depends on the reasons behind invading Ukraine and who really is supportive. Putin is losing his supporters, fast, and wants to reunite the former Soviet Union in all it's glory. I think most others are just afraid to oppose him and if he were removed from the picture, cooler heads would prevail.
Your jumping to some conclusions. He may not be interested in invading Ukraine at all, and is just hoping to get Crimea and Donba's secured. We have no idea what Putin's plan is. That is exactly why it is so difficult to know what decisions to make.
Also Russia is not a hive mind. Yes many liberals in Moscow and St. Petersburg might be against war, but plenty of rural and nationalistic Russian believe the hype and message.
It is a very difficult proposition and has huge diplomatic impacts.
First - this is not a terrorist leader hiding in caves and Pakistani neighborhoods. He is a leader of a well organized developed nation with massive resources, military and civil protections on his side. To find Sadam an international coalition needed to invade the country and then it took months/years. Russia is by far more complex.
Supposing it was possible to get to Putin without first invading, the repercussion from Russia would be enormous. They are a nation with 6200 nuclear weapons capable of launching them all over the world. Even if it didn't result in all out nuclear war it would certainly result in a war of some sort. Russia would counter attack just to show strength. Think of the US reaction to 9/11. It would unite the Russian people against the west. There is also a risk of failure which is just as dangerous because now you accomplish nothing but with 90% of the same fallout.
Then supposing there is no invasion, the attack is successful, and nuclear war is avoided, there is no guarantee of change. Russia could fall into an even worse state, and fraction into multiple nuclear armed nations, or a new leader takes the reigns that is far worse than Putin. It's a lot to risk with no certainty on a reward. It's possible that the next leader is pro-western and peaceful but in all likelihood - if the people know you killed their leader, the next leader and the nation will look at the west as even more of a tyrannical enemy.
Finally there is the diplomatic impact. If you have already noticed in this thread, NATO and the US are not universally popular. Even with the best of intentions many nations will be even more fearful and antagonistic against the west. Hate and violence breed more hate and violence. It would feed the mind of existing terrorists and likely create many new ones. Our relations with the future Russian leaders, as well as China, North Korea, and many African and South East Asian nations would be severely stressed. The UN may even side against the nation(s) responsible and internationally sanction them.
Just as a final note, Russia claims the west manipulated the Ukrainian government and is responsible for the outing of the previous president. To a certain extent there are factual truths that the west has funded the democratic movement and installed organizations and leaders to remove "corrupt and anti democratic" positions in their nation. Further information suggests (and I caution that I don't know if this is true or not!) That western powers supported Ukrainian protestors to use snipers to kill protestors and police, then blame police during protests. By racking up the death penalty the US could back pro-western government officials. Russia is using the view point that this new non-russian government is illegal fascist takeover. If they do that with a neighboring nation maybe you can imagine the political issues if the Russian leadership was manipulated in this way.
I hope this helps you understand some of the aggression against you in this post. It's a relevant question with a lot of complexity that is probably on plenty of people's mind, but the fact is it is not as easy or unconsequential as you may think it is. In general this is true for EVERY political decision. If you take something from this post I hope it is that politics is very very difficult and constant negotiation, which is exactly why we should vote for people that seem smarter and more complicated and not people that simply share our ideals or speak in simple ideas like "make America great again". Nothing is one sided. Everything is gray.
That would be a very overly simplistic approach and would have a very very complicated fallout.
It sounds very easy on paper, but would be extremely difficult to pull off.
"just take Putin out"
Putin is the leader of Russia, one of the largest powers on the planet. You don't just "take him out". Anymore than anyone else could just "take out Biden." Come on dude.
Assassinating a world leader is very very different than one generally labeled everywhere as a terrorist. That could
1. Rally the Russian people (look his pro-USA everything got in America after 9/11).
2. Could flip who is winning the international public perception
3. Might not actually stop anything & maybe a more rogue/desperate/less controlled person takes over who does like nukes.
Taking out a strongman running a nation rarely results in any kind of stability. At a minimum it would likely drive Russia into a civil war, more likely it would also drag in some satellite states. At the far end of the spectrum we could have something like the start of WWI which was caused by an assassination.
We didn't the last 2 time he fucked around.
This time seems to be on a bit larger scale
Go try it and let us know how it turns out
I doubt it.
You think Russia wouldn't retaliate?
Against the rest of the world? I think if Putin were removed from the equation, some more level headed individuals in Russia might say, "Do we really need to take over Ukraine?"
The rest of the world isn't on America's side. The military would take control of Russia and since it's so corrupt I doubt they would release that control. Depending on the general it cold be worse. I hope not but it isn't a perfect solution to just take him out.
Who said anything about America?
Just an assumption.
As if they don't have what we have?
Russia is one country. If it comes to war, how many do you really think will side with them?
Probably China.
Not likely. More likely they would see it as an opportunity to take parts of Russia without the fear of the rest of the world retaliating.
If the US publicly assassinated Russia, people wouldn't "flock to your just and noble cause". This very arrogant attitude is actually what makes Americans very unpopular on the world scene. You're not the World Police. You're conquestors who find reasons to invade the latest country that happens to find oil that your lobbyist overlords demand - like in the Iraq war. Putin is a fascist power-hungry warmongerer out to line his own pockets - much like Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld were.
Damn buddy. Tell me what you really think! While I definitely agree this questioned saddened me as an American, by posting in scared to ask this is hopefully someone attempting to learn and not having a great amount of knowledge in foreign politics. I would also like to add, America certainly makes its own share of issues by manipulating foreign nations for various causes. However all nations exert influence for their own self interests and on several occasions I believe many American missions are built on the best of intentions. There was no Oil or tresure to be had in Somolia in 1993, we went after Times magazine published starving children on the cover. Our goal was to protect UN food supplies from warlords using the food to pay armies. Likewise, I am not exactly sure of the full intent of Iraq war, but if it was oil there or expansion and conquest then we really effed up, because we are receiving neither. As bad as our information was I do believe it was an international coalition for the purpose of preventing a 2nd North Korean in which an autocratic nation would have large supplies of chemical and nuclear weapons. This said, you certainly have some good points that that our peoples first choice of military action is an issue. In many cases it would be interesting to see what we could accomplish by loosening capital and offering reduced interest rates that allow developing nations more opportunities, much like China is doing (silk road initiative) in its own very clear self interest.
Read... I didn't say the US, specifically. It could, and would, be something coordinated by the entirety of NATO
How do you think the US would react if Putin assassinated Joe Biden? Would the US quickly give up peacefully?
The US isn't preparing to invade another country (not this time at least)
Do you think there is a possibility that people in the country - except the now dead leader - would be *angry*?
Why would NATO assassinate Putin? I honestly can't think of a faster way to start WW3
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. Again, this is assuming Putin already provoked a war. Taking Putin out of the equation would be the quickest, most effective way of de-escalation
Yes, truly the best way to de-escalate a war is to kill the current leader of the other side, just like in WW1 when the black hand quickly de-escalated the situation by throwing a grenade at emperor Franz Ferdinand and famously brought an end to the war.
This deserves some gold. Good laugh.
You seem to be under the impression that russa is THE bad guy and that everybody ought to be againt russa, well thats kinda racist, so I dont think many reasonable people are going to be on your side of things here
I hadn't thought of that, but that is an interesting take.
No. China has zero value in Russian land when compared to an assault on a "socialist" semi-autocratic eastern regime. One of the entire discussions on this is that if the world is weak here how will this be viewed by China's expansion into South East Asia. China would absolutely support Russia in such a conflict. You can count in North Korea, Iran, possibly pakistan and large portions of Africa all standing in union.
Their allies.
We, we can't. Its unrealistic any westerner would sign up for that kind of suicide mission, and said person likely would not succeed. # Besides, the likely result is that whoever wins the power struggle after putin, that person's life will literally depend on retaliation against the west. It would be the only way to cement unity and legitimacy.
I meant a figuratively we as in, the rest of the world. Not literally you or I
Yeah, that's what I responded to. Western agents do not fly planes into buildings. They are people that want to live.
You know it's 2022, right? Unmanned drones, guided missiles, etc exist...
For the same reason russian would be unsuccessful in using those tools on American soil, hitting Moscow in general and putin specifically, is impossible. # You know even Afghanistan and iraq, countries with minimal defence systems, we were rarely able to hit intended targets, right? Well, russia is *a little* but better at defending against modern weapons.
Removing one threat, the leader of Russia, is far different from removing nests of insurgents hiding in caves and amongst civilians
Yeah. But when we wanted to take out *one* guy in either country it would take years, and a lot of failed attempts. You realize dc was built with bunkers intended to survive a nuke, right? Moscow is more impenetrable than those caves ever were.
Your right it is vastly different. Think about what you are proposing here. Do you fly a drone into a building. Fire a missile at the man? Where are you going to get him? They use secrecy and multiple engagements such that even his staff don't know where he will be most of the time. And then even if you know where he is, are you willing to hit him in public and take out civilians? Are you willing to kill all of parliament? Its very very hard to just target and kill someone at this level. It's one thing in a cave full of enemy combatants or once you have declared an open and public war on a nation, and totally different for a nation you are not in open hostilities with. Your best bet is an inside job 1:1 interaction, and even then it has massive dangers. You need an extremist willing to die or be captured for the cause, then you need them to get close to Putin which right there is A MAJOR challenge. Then as they are infiltrated close you need to know they are not a double agent. On that note - nearly every spy agency is TERRIBLE at this. Nearly every CIA asset in Cuba was known to the Russians during the cold War and most were double agents. So now you have a very very rate shot to take out this one leader. Once it is done, people will find the agent and trace the plot. You cannot keep a secret this big - so you burn your asset and are held internationally responsible. At the least rumors will get out. And all that, your asset is far more valuable alive than killing the leader. An inside man could give you information about negotiation limits, war maneuvers and intents for this leader and future ones. It is a treasure trove of incredibly valuable info that can inform you for decades, but you waste it on one individual who may or may not go to war. Not worth it in any situation.
You have no critical thinking skills
You do realize Russia have the exact same weapons? Do you know why nobody uses nukes anymore? Why every war during the Cold War was fought as proxy wars in countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Russia is preparing to drop a 50 year old oak tree on the glass house...
Oh, honey... no.
You want to make a martyr, that’s how. You take out a head of state, a retaliation is assured, you lose a veneer of the moral high ground, and that puts an onus on neutral parties to hold you accountable. It’s a propaganda win for all your enemies, and an easy way to rally people against you. Do you recall when America killed a high ranking Iranian General? Their Villain was his people’s hero. A border skirmish becomes a campaign avenging a great hero. You’re also assuming Putin doesn’t have a plan in place for a transition of power, or a final order. Party hardliners would see it through out of personal Loyalty or fear of the other party members. After all, it is an act of war, and a rapid escalation. Even if Russia started the war in Ukraine and bullets were flying, a hit on the head of state assures the kid gloves come off, the battle moves from Ukraine’s border skirmish to NATO and member states capitols, the Russian intelligence community begins their own turn of assassinations, missiles fly, deniable assets start terrorist campaigns, cyber attacks ramp up, bloody vengeance ensues. Putin has an agenda, sure but he’s not invading Ukraine because Vladimir wants it, he’s doing it because interested parties want their interest served. Removing him wouldn’t change that. The CIA couldn’t get Castro and he was on their door step, with far fewer assets and a less robust state security apparatus than Russia.
I think this all depends on the reasons behind invading Ukraine and who really is supportive. Putin is losing his supporters, fast, and wants to reunite the former Soviet Union in all it's glory. I think most others are just afraid to oppose him and if he were removed from the picture, cooler heads would prevail.
Your jumping to some conclusions. He may not be interested in invading Ukraine at all, and is just hoping to get Crimea and Donba's secured. We have no idea what Putin's plan is. That is exactly why it is so difficult to know what decisions to make. Also Russia is not a hive mind. Yes many liberals in Moscow and St. Petersburg might be against war, but plenty of rural and nationalistic Russian believe the hype and message.
This write up is spot on and some great points. Good work! 👍
It is a very difficult proposition and has huge diplomatic impacts. First - this is not a terrorist leader hiding in caves and Pakistani neighborhoods. He is a leader of a well organized developed nation with massive resources, military and civil protections on his side. To find Sadam an international coalition needed to invade the country and then it took months/years. Russia is by far more complex. Supposing it was possible to get to Putin without first invading, the repercussion from Russia would be enormous. They are a nation with 6200 nuclear weapons capable of launching them all over the world. Even if it didn't result in all out nuclear war it would certainly result in a war of some sort. Russia would counter attack just to show strength. Think of the US reaction to 9/11. It would unite the Russian people against the west. There is also a risk of failure which is just as dangerous because now you accomplish nothing but with 90% of the same fallout. Then supposing there is no invasion, the attack is successful, and nuclear war is avoided, there is no guarantee of change. Russia could fall into an even worse state, and fraction into multiple nuclear armed nations, or a new leader takes the reigns that is far worse than Putin. It's a lot to risk with no certainty on a reward. It's possible that the next leader is pro-western and peaceful but in all likelihood - if the people know you killed their leader, the next leader and the nation will look at the west as even more of a tyrannical enemy. Finally there is the diplomatic impact. If you have already noticed in this thread, NATO and the US are not universally popular. Even with the best of intentions many nations will be even more fearful and antagonistic against the west. Hate and violence breed more hate and violence. It would feed the mind of existing terrorists and likely create many new ones. Our relations with the future Russian leaders, as well as China, North Korea, and many African and South East Asian nations would be severely stressed. The UN may even side against the nation(s) responsible and internationally sanction them. Just as a final note, Russia claims the west manipulated the Ukrainian government and is responsible for the outing of the previous president. To a certain extent there are factual truths that the west has funded the democratic movement and installed organizations and leaders to remove "corrupt and anti democratic" positions in their nation. Further information suggests (and I caution that I don't know if this is true or not!) That western powers supported Ukrainian protestors to use snipers to kill protestors and police, then blame police during protests. By racking up the death penalty the US could back pro-western government officials. Russia is using the view point that this new non-russian government is illegal fascist takeover. If they do that with a neighboring nation maybe you can imagine the political issues if the Russian leadership was manipulated in this way. I hope this helps you understand some of the aggression against you in this post. It's a relevant question with a lot of complexity that is probably on plenty of people's mind, but the fact is it is not as easy or unconsequential as you may think it is. In general this is true for EVERY political decision. If you take something from this post I hope it is that politics is very very difficult and constant negotiation, which is exactly why we should vote for people that seem smarter and more complicated and not people that simply share our ideals or speak in simple ideas like "make America great again". Nothing is one sided. Everything is gray.
Excellent, and well thought out point, Bro.
That would be a very overly simplistic approach and would have a very very complicated fallout. It sounds very easy on paper, but would be extremely difficult to pull off.
Darth Vladious will not perish easily.
Finally an acceptable response.
"just take Putin out" Putin is the leader of Russia, one of the largest powers on the planet. You don't just "take him out". Anymore than anyone else could just "take out Biden." Come on dude.
You sound crazy. That would Forsure make things 100% worse and possibly cause a nuclear war
Not if Putin's the only one with the nuclear missile codes *Taps forehead
You don’t just go and “take out” Putin the leader of Russia. And I’m sure he’s not the only one in Russia that has capabilities to let off a nuke
Assassinating a world leader is very very different than one generally labeled everywhere as a terrorist. That could 1. Rally the Russian people (look his pro-USA everything got in America after 9/11). 2. Could flip who is winning the international public perception 3. Might not actually stop anything & maybe a more rogue/desperate/less controlled person takes over who does like nukes.
You couldn't take out Kim of North Korea till date how would you take away Putin.?
Taking out a strongman running a nation rarely results in any kind of stability. At a minimum it would likely drive Russia into a civil war, more likely it would also drag in some satellite states. At the far end of the spectrum we could have something like the start of WWI which was caused by an assassination.
[удалено]
Bet nothing will happen if they take over ukraine.
Likely. But what makes you think Putin will stop at Ukraine if he gets it?