Putin already can’t travel in most places internationally
He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel (and of course there are places where he does not want to)
Comment on How come the US does not put a bounty on Putin like they did Bin Laden?
SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Because A: putting a bounty on the leader of a nuclear power is drastically different from the leader of a… terrorist rebel organization(I’m not entirely sure what to call al qaeda).
And because B: it would change basically nothing. Putin already can’t travel in most places internationally because there’s an ICC warrant out on him for war crimes. The bounty isn’t going to be relevant in Russia or allied places, and it’s not going to be much of a motivator to an entire government.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 1 month ago
SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
He can travel as a proper national leader to all the places he wants to travel
Unless he wants to travel to a place willing to enforce the ICC’s arrest warrant. Afaik he’s only been to Mongolia and South Africa since the warrant was issued, and both were criticized pretty heavily for not enforcing it.
Realistically, he’s not going anywhere that even might arrest him.
kautau@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yeah he basically can go to China and North Korea, which, surprise, are also swimming in trade deals by providing fuel and military supplies
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 month ago
No no. You got it right.
Makhno@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What’s the difference between that and a government other than the size/capability of violence?
neidu2@feddit.nl 1 month ago
International recognition and support, mostly.
SolOrion@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Legitimacy.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
That’s, uh, not a small difference.
Fondots@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Do they control a territory? Do they claim to be the official government of that territory? Can they back up and defend those claims? Do the civilians living in that territory overall recognize their authority as the government of that territory? Do other nations recognize them as the government of that territory?
It’s not a totally black and white issue
If I hypothetically rallied up a group of supporters who share my views and ideals and start carrying out terrorist attacks to force the government to address the issues I’m championing, I don’t think many would consider me to be a government. I’m still acknowledging the authority and legitimacy of the government, and am just acting in opposition to it.
If my goal is to seize control of a territory, let’s say Pennsylvania, I’m starting to look a bit like a country. But unless I have the support of enough Pennsylvanians, and have the resources and manpower to back up my claim, and can get other nations to recognize it, it’s a pretty empty claim.
If I manage to win over the popular support of the citizenry, they may start to regard me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania, however just because they’re willing to follow me, doesn’t mean that anyone outside of the state is recognizing my claim. Other countries aren’t going to engage in diplomacy with me the same way they would with other nations, they’re going to continue regarding Pennsylvania as part of the US until I manage to actually have control over the territory. That means in some way removing the existing government from power, and more importantly defending my claim from the US government, who isn’t going to just roll over and accept my claim.
So let’s say we manage to take control over Pennsylvania, the citizens support me, we’ve ousted the previous government, and are generally filling all the roles you would expect a government to handle, and at least for now we’re somehow managing to hold off the US government and defending our claim to Pennsylvania.
At this point, we’re the defacto government of Pennsylvania. However we still lack recognition. The US government is still trying to retake control and has not recognized our independence, nor has any other country, we’re seen as rebels, warlords, etc. by the rest of the world. We’re essentially on our own, unable to trade with other countries.
From here let’s imagine a couple different scenarios
Some countries start to recognize my legitimacy. They offer to support my regime and to open up trade. Popular support from my citizens remains high, and we’re managing to hold off the US government. At this point we’re in a situation not unlike Taiwan or Palestine. Whether we’re a legitimate government is going to depend on who you ask around the world, with answers ranging from that we’re a group of rebels trying to secede from the US to having their full support and recognition as the legitimate government of an independent nation.
Our rebellion is a resounding success. The US backs off, recognizes our independence, other countries also recognize our independence, maybe we even join NAFTA. It would be hard to argue that we’re not a legitimate government at that point.
I start to lose the support of Pennsylvanians, and they stop recognizing my authority, even though I still manage to maintain control over my territory by force. Some countries, especially those that are not friendly to the US, may still recognize my claim, although in the eyes of most of the world, I’m probably just a terrorist or warlord.
The US government is successful in ousting me, I manage to flee to a country that recognizes me as the legitimate ruler of Pennsylvania or at least is willing to tolerate my presence, and I set up a government-in-exile. I continue to conduct myself as though I am the ruler of Pennsylvania, maybe some Pennsylvanians and other people and countries throughout the world continue to recognize me as such, but without the ability to actually exercise that authority over my territory, it’s a pretty empty claim.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 month ago
As a Pennsylvanian, I’d like to hear more about your policies.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The number of assholes involved.
mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
Same as a religion vs a cult
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 month ago
When in doubt, I usually go with “asshole”.
HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They were right. Until they won.
kautau@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Can you explain? I’m unsure what you mean by this
HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Terrorists are usually defined as non-state actors who use violence to achieve political goals.
As the ruling party of Afghanistan they are no longer a non-state actor, therefore not terrorists.