We civilians talk about 'why don't you just assassinate the Russian president?

I understand their feelings, but I think they are missing the point of view of what happens after the assassination of the Russian president.

For example, there should be a "No. 2" who is a moderate, civil-rights international reconciliation advocate who is opposed to the dictatorial president and who is supported by the public.

However, such a person, it would be natural to be removed from the line, and if he/she should have had to be purged.

Alternatively, the domestic situation should be one in which civilians are being slaughtered by the police or army and the dictator is completely turned against the people.

In addition, the best scenario is for the dictator to be executed by the people within the country.

Such favorable conditions, however, are not easy to realize.

After the assassination of a dictator -- as far as I know -- civil wars and terrorist attacks cause domestic casualties on an unprecedented scale, and those who advocate the establishment of a religious state like IS begin to dominate and terrorism spreads to other countries.

Anyway, dictatorships are terribly difficult to maintain after they are destroyed.

-----

In the first place, armed intervention from outside the country, including assassination, constitutes interference in internal affairs and invasion.

The current invasion of Ukraine is also the reason why NATO forces cannot invade Russia because of the above major principles (and of course, the nuclear threat).

The NATO organization is a military alliance designed to avoid this problem of interference in internal affairs and aggression -- "If one of the allies is attacked, all of the allies are considered to have been attacked.

Incidentally, the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty has the same structure.

For example, if Fort Collins, Colorado is attacked, our Self-Defense Forces, as an ally, "can participate" in the war.

However, in the case of Japan, the Self-Defense Forces cannot use force for any purpose other than territorial defense under the provisions of the Constitution -- and since this makes no sense for a military alliance, the "right of collective self-defense" was created (I will skip this topic today).

Anyway, to be frank, Ukraine joining NATO is certainly one of the worst of nightmares for Russia.

Regarding this, the BS Premium "Russia: The Origins of the Clash" was interesting.

-----

The same is true of "Why Don't You Just Assassinate the Head of North Korea?

That place is geopolitically located in a messy place.

Bordered by Russia, China, and South Korea, China and South Korea in particular find that monarchical socialist country to be a hassle at heart.

The U.S. has been fooled by that country many times, but since it serves to keep the troublesome powers (Russia and China) at bay, it will not seriously attempt a military attack.

It would be better to remain as they are now than to become desperate and attack the U.S. mainland with missiles.

-----

'If you assassinate the General Secretary of China' is no longer good enough, no questions asked.

I can easily predict that this will be a terrible tragedy, far beyond my imagination.

-----

Anyway, I honestly think it is a bit naive to estimate that 'killing bad people (but by our standards of value) will turn things around'.