Putin's assassination? "If you come for the king, you better not miss"

That question became particularly topical after the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, and as Instant adds, questions arose as to whether America had &quot;hands in&quot; in the crash of the helicopter carrying Raisi.London says the question has been raised ever since, should the US and its allies try to oust Putin by facilitating a coup in his absence or by assassinating him during a trip like the Russian president&#39;s state visit to China?EPA-EFE/GAVRIIL GRIGOROV / SPUTNIK / KREMLIN POOL MANDATORY CREDITA long-time CIA intelligence officer says that the answer to these questions lies in the assessment of risk in relation to profit, i.e. what would be gained by killing Putin and would the war in Ukraine stop and Russia cease to be a threat?However, as he reminds, historically, the US has always stood for the status quo, and the operations to overthrow Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran, Salvador Allende in Chile, and Castro in Cuba depended more on internal elements that facilitated conspiracies.&quot;Regime change did not work well for US interests. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq was no small factor in bringing about the Arab Spring, with effects that continue to reverberate throughout the Middle East, reflected in the unresolved civil wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, as well as to the ongoing political instability in Egypt and Tunisia,&quot; wrote London, reminding that the American occupation of Iraq facilitated the rise of the Islamic State.The Taliban eventually outlasted the United States in Afghanistan by returning to power despite 20 years of American blood and treasure, and now harbor insurgent groups that threaten Pakistan, Iran, its Central Asian neighbors and China.Tanjug/Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via APThen, he adds, the status towards maintaining the status quo with a predictable adversary like Putin is further strengthened by the fact that adversary is a nuclear power.In his analysis, London then states that there are few services in Russia that could even carry out something like a coup d&#39;&eacute;tat, because they are all under the control of the Kremlin. There are three such services: the Federal Security Service or FSB, the Russian Guard or National Guard, and the Presidential Security Service within the Federal Protection Service, or FSO.The FSB is Russia&#39;s internal security and intelligence arm through which Putin operates given its relatively massive and ubiquitous presence in all of the country&#39;s institutions.The FSB enforces Putin&#39;s rule, monitors dissent, intimidates, punishes and links to organized crime. Rosguard is Putin&#39;s brute force. It was established in 2016 from the ranks of the militias of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the various responsible for internal order and security of borders to be Putin&#39;s long red line against protests, uprisings and armed organized coup attempts.There are indications that it, like part of the top of the FSB, is connected to organized crime.The Rosguard of about 300,000 men is commanded by Viktor Zolotov, Putin&#39;s longtime former bodyguard.The FSO, on the other hand, includes the presidential security service, about 50,000 soldiers, and is responsible for Putin&#39;s close physical protection. Little is known about its director, Dmitry Viktorovich Kochnev, now 60 years old.&quot;If Putin had been killed abroad, regardless of the evidence, the old guard would probably blame the United States and use it as a lightning rod to consolidate power and rally the public. Sharing Putin&#39;s paranoia over the existential threat of the West, there is a credible risk that they will retaliate militarily, directly and with precarious restraint. Believing themselves to be insecure, they would also lash out at home in an indiscriminately ruthless manner that could unleash long-held revolutionary strength among the populace, throwing a major, nuclear-armed power into chaos,&quot; predicts London, who is now a professor of intelligence studies at Georgetown University&#39;s School of Foreign Affairs and a fellow at the Middle East Institute.But could the US do that if they wanted to, he asks? He immediately states that assassinations of such persons are extremely complicated to carry out. According to leaked documents and the testimony of Gleb Karakulov, a former FSO engineer and captain, Putin is paranoid about his safety and health, communicates only with a limited number of people, leaves the Kremlin only when he has to - all of which make him a difficult target.For any such operation to succeed, close-in reconnaissance of the &quot;target&quot; and good intelligence is needed to determine patterns and vulnerabilities from which to plan.Other considerations include the means of infiltrating and exfiltrating the various members performing the operation, as well as their tools.ProfimediaCertainly, London continues, there are additional risks when Putin, or any foreign leader, ventures outside the layered, redundant and tested security protocols enjoyed in their home cocoons. Then they must rely on the ability of the &quot;host&quot; to organize protection, which extends from the issue of securing a route of movement and beyond.On the other hand, even with the best-laid plans to protect Putin, one weak link could be &quot;crucial.&quot;It is the outdated and problematic Soviet-designed Ilyushin Il-96 aircraft that Putin uses, as he did recently, when he traveled to North Korea and Vietnam.&quot;While there is probably an element of Putin&#39;s pride in wanting to use Russian equipment, I suspect his preference is driven more by paranoia about what adversaries might plant in his transport, which prevents him from adopting newer Western aircraft, as commercial airlines have companies of his country&quot;, pointed out London.And then there is the question, what if you fail to kill?&quot;Russia, on the other hand, as Putin often reminds the West in his rattling speeches threatening nuclear war, is another matter. What happens if you fail? As The Wire&#39;s Omar Little said, paraphrasing Ralph Waldo Emerson, &#39;&#39;If you come for the king, you best not miss&quot;, the text concludes.

Putin's assassination? "If you come for the king, you better not miss"

1 Komentari