I was hoping to se a discussion of the historical aversion to attacking leaders directly. I’ve always heard that it sets a dangerous precedent of tit for tat and state sponsored assassination. I’m not sure it’s worse than millions of innocent soldiers on both sides being killed.
I’d be interested to hear a thoughtful discussion of both sides of the argument.
In immediate terms, top assassinations prolong modern conflicts. It creates uncertainty around who can make commitments and disrupts comms. It also tends to result in more combative leadership not conciliatory.
As a side note, this Iran attack is an enormous slap to Putin, especially on the heels of the Venezuela/Maduro kidnapping. With the earlier loss of Syria, Putin is seeing the obliteration of Russia’s overseas interests.
What aversion? russians killed 3 Chechen Presidents, 2 ordered by putin:
1996 Dzhokhar Dudayev. 2 missiles. Rumor has it with the help of Clinton in form of intercepting satellite phone and providing exact coordinates - goodwill gesture towards russians.
2004 Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev. Car bomb, 2 fsb agends convicted.
2005 Aslan Maskhadov. Killed by FSB - putin boasted about it live on TV
tim-tday|1 day ago
nacozarina|1 day ago
As a side note, this Iran attack is an enormous slap to Putin, especially on the heels of the Venezuela/Maduro kidnapping. With the earlier loss of Syria, Putin is seeing the obliteration of Russia’s overseas interests.
rasz|1 day ago
1996 Dzhokhar Dudayev. 2 missiles. Rumor has it with the help of Clinton in form of intercepting satellite phone and providing exact coordinates - goodwill gesture towards russians.
2004 Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev. Car bomb, 2 fsb agends convicted.
2005 Aslan Maskhadov. Killed by FSB - putin boasted about it live on TV