Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

diMario t1_iuflshl wrote

Reply to comment by Aut6 in U.N. says it agreed with Turkey, Ukraine on plan to move 16 vessels under Black Sea grain deal by alumidi

I agree. But there are some considerations. You cannot kill him outright, that would lead to Russia falling apart in dozens of regions controlled by the local warlord and having armed conflicts with each other.

The thing to do would be transition power to a more sane consortium than what they have had the last 30 years. But that is not an easy thing to do. Everyone is corrupt, and everyone expects elections to be corrupt as well.

9

hieronymusanonymous t1_iugb8uc wrote

Don't overrate Putin's individual importance to Russia. Eliminating Putin is vital, but unfortunately wouldn't break up the so-called "Russian Federation" into its 85 occupied parts. More than this would be required.

13

diMario t1_iugul2p wrote

I'm pretty sure military and political strategists have been working on a solution for several years, starting way before February 24.

CIA, Mossad and MI6 probably have several kill teams on standby in st Petersburg and Moscow, ready to take out various people who might oppose a regime change. They are cooperating, although reluctantly.

The problem is that you don't want to create a power vacuum, that attracts the wrong kind of people and/or might lead to a civil war. You don't want that.

What you want is a transition of power in an orderly way.

My theory is that they are just going to wait him out. The man is well past his best before date, and no one lives forever. In the mean while, damage control.

3

Imperial2MetricRobot t1_iuhhku1 wrote

>no one lives forever

Genetics plays a huge role when it comes to long life. His parents/grandparents lived quite long. He has access to the best medial care possible today. Of course he isn't immune to death but if he has no cancer/heart failure, we can expect him to live till his 80s.

The thing is, a lot of cancers can be cured if detected early. I have no doubts that they examine him regularly. He has trained for most of his life, isn't smoking, isn't drinking and is a health nut in general. All ingredients are there, we better think a way to assist his death otherwise it isn't very likely.

4

HighGuyTim t1_iuhv7o1 wrote

I think it’s romanticizing to think that there are “kill teams” in Russian cities. That’s very much just taking information from movies and thinking they are real.

Even if a vacuum was created, dealing with a dead Putin and a broken Russia now is 100% easier than a famine right now.

They probably are trying to figure out ways to take him out, but I highly doubt there are teams just idling their thumbs waiting.

2

diMario t1_iuiguqe wrote

In one form or another, the possibilities are being explored and implemented.

Perhaps there are no spooks actually living in those cities with the intention of going out and killing people on short notice.

Intelligence is being gathered, and plans are continually updated. Could be they send in teams when the moment turns critical. Could be they target them through blackmail. Could be they block their access to financial assets.

1

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_iug7aou wrote

Power shifting to small local warlords who turn on each sounds infinitely better than putin.

And getting someone sane in place would be darn near impossible. If the usa couldn't do it in Cuba. They def cant in russia.

7

Kal-Zak t1_iugd730 wrote

So, you basically want Afghanistan prior to the Taliban retaking the country, but give the local leaders nukes... that sounds awesome. /s

7

diMario t1_iugssbq wrote

That is indeed one part of the problem. Another part would be huge streams of refugees, creating problems for everybody. A third consideration would be local warlords financing terrorist actions in other parts of the world.

2

Kromgar t1_iugsx4t wrote

They wont havr nuclear codes though

2

Fainting_GoatMilk t1_iufwxhw wrote

I like this post, what sources do you have for that argument though? Genuine interest in reading about this.

5

diMario t1_iugsism wrote

> what sources do you have for that argument though?

Just my own common sense and about sixty years of experience with how humans do things.

1

willkode t1_iugarm4 wrote

We've tried this many times with disappointing results in smaller countries. We're talking about Russia, it's massive with many cultures. It would fail and we would end up with multiple countries. Which isn't a bad idea imho

1

eemamedo t1_iugf19m wrote

It’s a very bad idea but I don’t expect Americans to understand it.

3

diMario t1_iugtstc wrote

Multiple countries or regions in a loose federation is indeed a good idea.

The problem is that you would have to transfer power to legally established governments in those countries and in Russia, basically everyone who holds a position in any government function is a corrupt thug (not only in Russia, by the way).

You would have to restart things from scratch, like they did in Germany in 1945. Now that was a situation where several other big and mighty countries pushed for it, and in general the German population saw a need for things to change so they had a positive attitude.

In Russia, the effort to change things would be much greater. First, Russians are natural born pessimists. "And then it got worse" could as well be the first line of their national anthem.

Second, they have had a considerable brain drain in the past decades. It will be difficult to find qualified and honest people to run local governments. You have your elected representatives of course, but for each of those you need a hundred civil servants doing the actual work. Contrary to popular belief, that actually takes some brain power.

2