I think there’s a high percentage that Putin is a national leader who would take everything down with him if he felt that he (or his historical reputation) is existentially threatened. And by ‘take everything down with him’, I specifically refer to launching a MAD attack at the point he thinks that is the only option left for him before his power is permanently removed from him.
He isn’t the only such leader at present, or ever in the past. He, though, has some opportunity to launch a multi-thousand nuclear missiles attack as his final act — he can only be stopped from doing this by the refusal of the Russians necessary to launch those weapons.
There is at least on more similarly narcissistic person on this planet readily capable of doing the identical thing, in my opinion. That person has had the same means at hand in this century, although that person would have been unlikely in the extreme to have received the necessary cooperation of his nation’s military establishment.
But if elected again, and he has placed Michael Flynn-type sycophantic subordinates as heads of the military branches, and then at some point during his term he decides his personal game is a massive disgraceful failure, and he’s bound to go down in history as a loser, then …
I think there’s a high percentage that Putin is a national leader who would take everything down with him if he felt that he (or his historical reputation) is existentially threatened. And by ‘take everything down with him’, I specifically refer to launching a MAD attack at the point he thinks that is the only option left for him before his power is permanently removed from him.
He isn’t the only such leader at present, or ever in the past. He, though, has some opportunity to launch a multi-thousand nuclear missiles attack as his final act — he can only be stopped from doing this by the refusal of the Russians necessary to launch those weapons.
There is at least on more similarly narcissistic person on this planet readily capable of doing the identical thing, in my opinion. That person has had the same means at hand in this century, although that person would have been unlikely in the extreme to have received the necessary cooperation of his nation’s military establishment.
But if elected again, and he has placed Michael Flynn-type sycophantic subordinates as heads of the military branches, and then at some point during his term he decides his personal game is a massive disgraceful failure, and he’s bound to go down in history as a loser, then …