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
It was done in the past or at least tried. But we have stopped for multiple reasons. First of all if the other country finds out and is willing to go to war it will be seen as an act of war and most countries want to avoid going to war. Second of all we understand that in most cases the assasination of a leader is incredbly unpredictable and these countries often end up in a “worse position” than they were with the leader because if over throwing of the goverment doesnt start with the population of that country it is quite likly that they will get even more extreme and more in opposition to your own country. Then you also often have the problem that the leader is just replaced by someone else from the leaders circle that will just continue what the leader did.
Then there is also the problem its just hard to do. Russia tried to kill Selenskyj on multiple occasions but they failed. Famously the US tried to kill Fidel Castro dozens of times but also failed.
Latest Answers