Excluding military intervention and amputation of the diplomatic solution, all that remains is to theorize the murder of the Tsar at the hands of a very faithful
Let’s face it. In this orgy of lies, disinformation, half-truths, propaganda that also marks the Ukrainian conflict at least with ourselves, we have the obligation of sincerity. Fortunately, the hypothesis of entering the war directly with men, planes, atomic bombs was excluded, the possibility of relying on diplomacy was amputated having defined Putin the new Hitler with whom the only possible relationship is as for the Nazis, to meet in the classroom of a court set up for a second Nuremberg, the number one plan of Biden, of NATO and also of the Europeans is only one: that someone in Moscow kills Putin freeing us from the burden. In short, a “happy ending” is invoked, not too openly, through tyrannicide, conspiracy. All that remains is the dagger of a monarch, as it was said in the iron age, that of the wars of religion (and which century is more iron than this one just started?).
We plumb a guide from the oligarchic regime who for thirty denarii or to save his skin eliminates the tyrant. We will take care of transforming the traitor into a fearless Brutus struck down on the path of democracy and human rights. We already smell the delicious smell of blood. The dagger is an old tool. The CIA (and their colleagues from the KGB and then the FSB) have a certain practice in the murder of the single enemy that is not always crowned with success: from cigars bombs to polonium, the Borgia armamentarium has been technologically enriched. In the first days of the war, rumors ran about ingenious plans by the Russians to behead Ukraine by killing the tough and hypercommunicative Zelenski. Plan evidently either non-existent or inconclusive. Who knows if they don’t have something more decisive in mind on the other side of the ocean.
The aftermath scenario? That too would already be written: at the announcement of the premature and hasty end of the despot, the Russian crowds take to the streets, finally free from fear, to greet the advent of the first Russian democracy, the repressive apparatuses fall apart, Navalny and the other opponents freed from the galleys they are brought in triumph to the Duma and take power. Especially the soldiers mired in the mud of Ukraine and the disgust of war throw down their weapons and go home. The oligarchs either flee to North Korea or are captured and forced to confess their crimes. The whole world returns to its place. However, the tyrannicide must be found. Is this a possible scenario? Or rather: is it a probable scenario?
First of all, it is suggested, let us lighten ourselves from the moral burden: that is, ask ourselves if a crime has justification in this circumstance. Yet since the time of Harmodius and Aristogiton who eliminated Hipparchus, a pioneer of tyranny in ancient Athens, this debate has strained philosophers and theologians. In fact, the physical elimination of the dictator has unpleasant but evident kinship with the practices of terrorism. The borders are blurred since even the terrorists use the same methods and call for the absolution that comes from a good cause, theirs.
Then I am not proposing to you about the legitimacy of killing. These are not the right times for these ethical details, you would answer me. The only debate is the practical, materialistic one: has tyrannicide been shown to have a high probability of success? That is, the despot is dead, what happens? The crux of the matter, cynically imposed, is not whether murder is ever justifiable but whether murder is effective. You must be able to answer that it is: that it will allow us to reach, in today’s Russia and in this war situation, objectives otherwise inaccessible due to the iron control that Putin exercises over the country; or for the impossibility in a short time that he will lose the war and be overwhelmed by defeat. Which is a safer trap in which wolves far more cunning and ferocious than him have left their paws. Furthermore, we must be certain that a different elimination from power would require a high price, that is, a prolonged war that is more expensive than a single victim. In this case you could say that plan number one, and only one, is an effective political act. This is confirmed by the Koran which explains: if there are two caliphs, one of the two must die because death is better than discord. Are we in the Koranic case of the two caliphs? Does the elimination of the man who embodies Russian neo-imperialism solve all problems even in the long term?
An assault on the winter palace, or rather a revolution, does not seem possible, analyzing the society shaped by Putin in twenty years. And then, as the realist Machiavelli taught, we need a conspiracy “made by great men or very familiar with the prince”. But be careful, he adds: conspiracies fail out of recklessness or lightness every time those who are aware of them exceed the number of three or four people. It is therefore necessary that someone in the narrower circle of Putin’s power betray. In looking at the past, it is necessary to have a big palate: after all, many of the tyrannicides of the classical age had, alongside the proclaimed demands for freedom, far more personal and petty reasons to take revenge on the master. The same Brutus after all … Perhaps one can hope for some oligarch humiliated in his aspirations or robbed of a part of the booty that was due to him. I would give the military more chances: many generals die in the Ukrainian war, a sign that Putin demands them on the front line on the Stalinist model, perhaps dissatisfied with the results. Those who ordered a retreat Stalin had them shot. A memory that can tickle some idea of a life-saving revolt.
It remains to solve the problem of what will happen next. Are we sure that the violent and oligarchic elimination of the tyrant does not trigger a worse chaos? Pessimism is mandatory. The result almost never conformed to the wishes of those who thought they could solve everything at the price of a single life, and what’s more, unfortunate. In 1914 the Serbian Gavrilo Princip deluded himself: by killing the heir to the Austrian throne, the problems of the Balkans would be solved, he thought. Instead he eliminated the one character who probably, not by a pacifist nature, would have prevented Europe from falling into the tragedy of the First World War.
Unlimited access to all site content
€ 1 / month for 3 months, then € 3.99 / month for 3 months
Unlock unlimited access to all content on the site
#UkraineRussia #war #killing #Putin