Remember that appointment in Samara?I'm pretty sure it's impossible. He has a fortress hideaway on the Black Sea coast that he can run to.
Remember that appointment in Samara?I'm pretty sure it's impossible. He has a fortress hideaway on the Black Sea coast that he can run to.
There's better access to various lethal assets within Russia than outside. Vlad is much more vulnerable to a stab in the back than the long arm of some foreign intelligence service...Anyone has as much common sense as Michael Corleone
would understand it is a lot less costly for a crime boss to order
his henchman to kill someone than through charity donation
to an army to get the job done. Perhaps people are already
wanting to win the Ukraine proxy war on the cheap to have entertained
the option of taking out Putin by assassination.
Um, the assassination of a head of state by another state would be considered this yes.You said it was in the constitution.
Also "when the very existence of the state is put under threat”"
His death does not put the state under threat. I mean he could say it does but that would put him in the realm of addict and some of the other lads here.
And more importantly, what would follow.The question isn't CAN he be, but WILL he be.
Not a threat to the existence. If Biden got killed, there is Kamala Harris. If she bites it then McCarthy, Murray and so on.Um, the assassination of a head of state by another state would be considered this yes.
Can you imagine how the USA would react to a radioactive isotope in Biden's tea?
When the clause was put in the analysis was what I said.
Im not disagreeing. It was assumed at the time by the analyists that Putin did it as a pre-emptive threat knowing, now in hindsight, he was heading into Ukraine.Not a threat to the existence. If Biden got killed, there is Kamala Harris. If she bites it then McCarthy, Murray and so on.
You know what would be a threat to the existence of the US, setting of a full scale nuclear war.
When Kennedy was shot, the US lived on. It wouldn't have made a difference if it was a lone gunman or someone working for the Grand Duchy of Fenwick.
Ditto for Poutine. If he was to die, someone else would take over. Life would go on. World leaders die all the time. No reason to murder 100 million people.
Now is a foreign power assassinating a national leader and extremely hostile act. Yeah buddy. Does it warrant a DoW, perhaps, if you and friends can take on the enemy. You kill Castro and Cuba ain't doing shit because it can't. If Cuba killed a US president, there is going to be some very serious payback.
However it would not qualify for a threat to the existence of the Russian state that would allow for a nuclear response FFS.
Approx. how long would it take for a bullet to travel that distance?Get an excellent sniper with a clear shot within 2 kilometers of him with no drone supression, even though Russias drone suppression devices seem to be unreliable, and it is possible.
Canadian military snipers target practice at 3 kilometer ranges.
10 seconds.Approx. how long would it take for a bullet to travel that distance?
Just asking, aren't those rifles pretty loud and wouldn't the noise give Poutine a chance to duck. I thought [but don't know] that at that range you are pretty much talking .50 cal which are rather loud.10 seconds.
I guess it's a matter of the speed of the bullet vs. the speed of sound.Just asking, aren't those rifles pretty loud and wouldn't the noise give Poutine a chance to duck. I thought [but don't know] that at that range you are pretty much talking .50 cal which are rather loud.
That all depends on what Klaus, Putin, and the rest discussed about the various scenarios they ran in the boardrooms of the W.E.F.It could be done, but what happens afterwards might be even more scarier
Oh yeah, they wouldn't be subsonic rounds would they. Dooh!I guess it's a matter of the speed of the bullet vs. the speed of sound.
As well, there's a big chance of movement on the part of the intended target in 10 seconds, That was my point in asking how long it would take. It's almost like you'd have to have a stationary target, such as seated, which most likely means indoors.
That is why snipers observe their targets and establish movement patterns.I guess it's a matter of the speed of the bullet vs. the speed of sound.
As well, there's a big chance of movement on the part of the intended target in 10 seconds, That was my point in asking how long it would take. It's almost like you'd have to have a stationary target, such as seated, which most likely means indoors.
50 days, that is just insane dedication. As was said about Richard Sharpe. Sniper, that's soldiering.That is why snipers observe their targets and establish movement patterns.
In the interviews I posted, it was said that the snipers had remained in their hide for 50 days observing and gathering intel before firing their first shot.
They knew who lived in what house, how many people lived in each house,what time the kids would come out and play, when the talibam were active, what people were having for breakfast lunch and supper etc.
Except its hard to say if Putin's war is popular enough that it would continue to be supported should he be removed.The problem with assassination is Putin and his aides are all part of the old KGB intelligence community. He has spent more than 20 years purging the system of anybody who is competent, and has a different view. All the people in his circle view the threats the Russia exactly the same as him… so you can change the figure head, but you still get the War. And the corruption. And the ultimate goal of controlling Eastern Europe as they did in the good old days.
I agree, I think for most it's apparent that the war is causing Russia a lot of unneeded pain except most are afraid to admit it with Putin still in charge.Except its hard to say if Putin's war is popular enough that it would continue to be supported should he be removed.