Because A: putting a bounty on the leader of a nuclear power is drastically different from the leader of a… terrorist rebel organization(I’m not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).
And because B: it would change basically nothing. Putin already can’t travel in most places internationally because there’s an ICC warrant out on him for war crimes. The bounty isn’t going to be relevant in Russia or allied places, and it’s not going to be much of a motivator to an entire government.
the leader of a… terrorist rebel organization(I’m not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).
No no. You got it right.
What’s the difference between that and a government other than the size/capability of violence?
International recognition and support, mostly.
the size/capability of violence
That’s, uh, not a small difference. Even if you’re saying that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, neither the terrorist nor the freedom fighter are comparable to a large, powerful country.
Edit: One more interesting difference is that because a country has a much greater capability to wage war, it also has much more to lose in war: it can lose that very capability. A small group of irregular fighters does not depend much on infrastructure, but a country has population centers, factories, military bases, the seat of government, etc. which are all vulnerable in a way that a hidden cave or tunnel isn’t. We’re seeing the effects of this distinction between Iran and its proxies play out right now.
Legitimacy.
Do they control a territory? Do they claim to be the official government of that territory? Can they back up and defend those claims? Do the civilians living in that territory overall recognize their authority as the government of that territory? Do other nations recognize them as the government of that territory?
It’s not a totally black and white issue
If I hypothetically rallied up a group of supporters who share my views and ideals and start carrying out terrorist attacks to force the government to address the issues I’m championing, I don’t think many would consider me to be a government. I’m still acknowledging the authority and legitimacy of the government, and am just acting in opposition to it.
If my goal is to seize control of a territory, let’s say Pennsylvania, I’m starting to look a bit like a country. But unless I have the support of enough Pennsylvanians, and have the resources and manpower to back up my claim, and can get other nations to recognize it, it’s a pretty empty claim.
If I manage to win over the popular support of the citizenry, they may start to regard me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania, however just because they’re willing to follow me, doesn’t mean that anyone outside of the state is recognizing my claim. Other countries aren’t going to engage in diplomacy with me the same way they would with other nations, they’re going to continue regarding Pennsylvania as part of the US until I manage to actually have control over the territory. That means in some way removing the existing government from power, and more importantly defending my claim from the US government, who isn’t going to just roll over and accept my claim.
So let’s say we manage to take control over Pennsylvania, the citizens support me, we’ve ousted the previous government, and are generally filling all the roles you would expect a government to handle, and at least for now we’re somehow managing to hold off the US government and defending our claim to Pennsylvania.
At this point, we’re the defacto government of Pennsylvania. However we still lack recognition. The US government is still trying to retake control and has not recognized our independence, nor has any other country, we’re seen as rebels, warlords, etc. by the rest of the world. We’re essentially on our own, unable to trade with other countries.
From here let’s imagine a couple different scenarios
-
Some countries start to recognize my legitimacy. They offer to support my regime and to open up trade. Popular support from my citizens remains high, and we’re managing to hold off the US government. At this point we’re in a situation not unlike Taiwan or Palestine. Whether we’re a legitimate government is going to depend on who you ask around the world, with answers ranging from that we’re a group of rebels trying to secede from the US to having their full support and recognition as the legitimate government of an independent nation.
-
Our rebellion is a resounding success. The US backs off, recognizes our independence, other countries also recognize our independence, maybe we even join NAFTA. It would be hard to argue that we’re not a legitimate government at that point.
-
I start to lose the support of Pennsylvanians, and they stop recognizing my authority, even though I still manage to maintain control over my territory by force. Some countries, especially those that are not friendly to the US, may still recognize my claim, although in the eyes of most of the world, I’m probably just a terrorist or warlord.
-
The US government is successful in ousting me, I manage to flee to a country that recognizes me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania or at least is willing to tolerate my presence, and I set up a government-in-exile. I continue to conduct myself as though I am the ruler of Pennsylvania, maybe some Pennsylvanians and other people and countries throughout the world continue to recognize me as such, but without the ability to actually exercise that authority over my territory, it’s a pretty empty claim.
-
The number of assholes involved.
When in doubt, I usually go with “asshole”.
They were right. Until they won.
Putin already can’t travel in most places internationally
He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel (and of course there are places where he does not want to - remember when Trumpeltier traveled to him, not the other way round)
He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel
Unless he wants to travel to a place willing to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant. Afaik he’s only been to Mongolia and South Africa since the warrant was issued, and both were criticized pretty heavily for not enforcing it.
Realistically, he’s not going anywhere that even might arrest him.
Either way, if nobody is going to enforce an arrest warrant they’re not going to claim a bounty either.
Wouldn’t that basically be a declaration of war?
Yes.
Nah, nations don’t do “war” any longer. They call it something else so that they don’t have to abide by the rules we’ve all agreed to when going to war. Now they’re “operations”.
They call it something else
Ok.
And I call it what it is.
It’s not war unless congress declares it.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm
The last war we had was WWII. War includes suspension of constitutional rights, along with a mass of other bullshit. You do NOT want them actually declaring war.
It’s not war
LOL
No idea why you’re so combative. We’re largely on the same page here. I’m describing the nuances of the situation, not arguing with you. It’s not war in a technical sense. There are reasons why it’s not considered war, and nobody really wants it to be defined as a “war” either. But is it war? Well, yeah…kinda. Just not in the general sense of the word, and without all of the baggage that comes along with it being a formal “war”.
It’s like asking is the sky blue.
Unintelligent people say: Yes.
Intelligent people might say: Yes, well - most of the time. Occasionally it can be oranges, reds, etc depending on the angle of incidence of light, cloud cover, etc. And the blue color is more due to Reyleigh Scattering of the incoming full spectrum light rather than the actual sky itself being blue; technically it’s clear.
The problem is that the belligerents will generally both agree that the conflict isn’t a war. This isn’t limited to the USA either. The Falkland Islands conflict involved the invasion and counterinvasion of the Falkland Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Officially, that conflict was not a war and neither side officially declared war on the other.
The US (at least by executive order which can always be rescinded) has an official policy not to assassinate foreign leaders:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11905
(See also EO 12036 and EO 12333 for confirming the policy)
Placing a bounty on Putin would probably violate that EO…
More importantly, the US is really fucking hoping Putin dies of old age or is voted out domestically because direct confrontations may result in Putin pushing ze button and launching ze nukes.
ze button and launching ze nukes.
But I’m Le tired.
Have a nap, then FIRE ZE MISSILE!
AHH MOTHERLAND
Weird line considering what we’re willing to do to nation states to keep their citizens from cooperating socially rather than competing against one another to keep their resource extraction rights open to our capitalists for maximum exploitation.
Who would replace Putin. If you don’t know the answer or you don’t like the answer any better what is the point. The short list of people likely to replace Putin are no better. (If you put me on the jobs I’d be shot within hours by one of the people on the short list)
Ok in your opinion who do you think would be on his or your list?
If you somehow killed him he would be replaced by someone who would be in a position of having to prove they were strong enough for the position.
