I thought about this when a coworker mentioned in casual conversation that they wondered why a certain head of state (no reason to get into specifics) is not simply done away with to resolve a currently ongoing international conflict. To my knowledge that’s almost never done in the real world because it rarely works as intended. I was wondering if any politics/international relationship experts or avid Hitman/Assassin’s Creed players knows the real reason why this is, and if there’s even a official term for why this is not done in real politics? Thanks.
In: Other
When your enemy is making a mistake, It’s not a good idea to interrupt them.
Strongmen and Autherterians tend to surround themselves with Yes-Men instead of actual experts, This makes their regimes secure but ineffective. It’s better to have an ineffective enemy than an effective one.
Often though, It’s easier to keep an eye out for up and coming leaders and either assassinate their character, Corrupt them, or take them out before they gain popular support. (Eastern Bloc Countries this happens all the time)
If you have a Nation that has a Popular leader who will do things that your government doesn’t want, You can also engage in Economic sabotage which will turn the people against them, or make that Leader unable to follow through with the prosperity they promised (See Latin America).
Alternatively, You can quietly foster and support Extremists within the Enemy state to slowly sap international support for that State. Then you can point to those Extremists when they inevitably Seize power and say “There, They’re clearly the bad guys” (I’m definitely not talking about the Middle East, Don’t look into the beginnings of Hamas)
Latest Answers