Calls to Assassinate Putin

Political leaders don't normally call for the assassination of other political leaders, and when they do, such calls are reserved for times when a conflict is all but over and victory is assured. No-one called for the assassination of Gaddafi before the end of the Libyan war. Nor was there such calls for Saddam Hussein before he was chased out of Bagdad.

The reason for this is that assassinations work both ways. They are cheap to carry out, so any charismatic leader can orchestrate an assassination anywhere in the world with a good chance of success. It's therefore foolhardy of political leaders to make such calls.

However, this basic insight has now been put aside. A prominent American politician has called for a Julius Caesar-style assassination of Vladimir Putin by asking rhetorically if there's a 'Brutus in Russia?' The man is either ignorant of history, stupid, or both, because history tells us that the assassination of Julius Caesar achieved the opposite of what was hoped for. The republic was for ever buried. Augustus Caesar continued what Julius had started, and Rome become a place where assassinations of political leaders became the norm rather than the exception.

Killing Putin will not end the Russia Ukrainian war because the war is not due to a private grudge held by Putin against the Ukrainian people. It's about NATO's eastward expansion, something most Russian politicians are opposed to. If Putin is assassinated, the next leader will most likely continue what Putin has started, but with an all clear when it comes to assassinations. The new leader may develop this into a widely used tool, wielded against adversary leaders and their henchmen. Why limit the list of targets to the president of the US when there's plenty of congressmen, senators, and top level bureaucrats to choose from?

The wise response to calls for assassinations, is for politicians to denounce them as foolish. Otherwise, they risk ending up on top of someone else's list, and life will turn into a paranoid hell. However, as an anarchist, I don't care one way or the other. If politicians start knocking each other dead, they may find themselves less concerned with petty tyrannical measures, and more concerned with their own safety. But they may also go completely bonkers, making life even worse for their subjects.

The correct anarchist response to wars and calls for assassination is to take no side in such matters. Our only concerns should be the welfare of people in our private domain and the moral imperative to leave others alone to live their own lives. If no-one goes to war and no-one participates in games of cloaks and daggers, peace will break out on its own. We don't have to kill anyone to achieve this. Only fools rush into battle when there are peaceful alternatives that work just as well.

The only legitimate use of deadly force is to protect ourselves and our domain from physical harm, and Putin is of no danger to me, nor is the war in Ukraine interfering in my life in ways that force me to react violently. I've positioned myself for this storm. My personal wealth is not threatened by it. Quite the opposite is the case. Gold, measured in Euros, is up 10% this year.

As it says in the Bible, the meek shall inherit the Earth. When the dust settles, it will be those with the discipline to act rationally and peacefully to world events that remain standing. It will be our job to put things back in order.

The social contract