Ukraine’s Avoidance of Assassination Tactics: A Comparative Analysis

In the ongoing conflicts involving Ukraine and Russia, various methods of combat have been employed by different parties to achieve their objectives. While Israel and America have shown a willingness to carry out assassinations, Ukraine has largely refrained from using similar tactics. This raises questions about the strategic reasons for Ukraine’s approach and whether adopting such methods would be beneficial.

Assassination Tactics of Other Parties

Israel and America have lethal tactics that have been effective in targeting Russian commanders and officials. According to reports, Russian commanders have been killed as fast as they stick their heads up, with a significant toll on their ranks:

1 Lieutenant General 6 Major Generals 89 Colonels 218 Lieutenant Colonels 419 Majors 618 Captains 1004 Senior Lieutenants 689 Lieutenants 126 Junior Lieutenants

These figures highlight the effectiveness and frequency of such targeted killings by Israel and America. However, the question remains, why does Ukraine not follow this example?

Reasons for Ukraine's Lack of Assassination Tactics

While there have been suggestions that Ukraine should implement similar tactics, the reality is more complex. There are several reasons for Ukraine’s avoidance of such strategies:

International Perception: Ukraine needs to maintain its image as a legally bound and responsible party in the international community. Adopting such tactics could harm its reputation and lead to international sanctions or diplomatic consequences. Moral and Ethical Considerations: The use of assassination tactics would involve significant moral and ethical debates. Some argue that employing such methods could escalate the conflict and lead to a loss of moral high ground. Ineffectiveness: Ukraine’s military capabilities in this domain may not be as advanced or as effective as those of Israel and America. Additionally, Russia has shown adeptness in protecting its commanders, making such tactics less viable.

Rules and Morality in Warfare

Warfare, like every other game, has rules that must be followed. The Geneva Convention, for instance, provides guidelines for the treatment of combatants and non-combatants. These rules are designed to protect the dignity and rights of individuals during conflict.

Some might argue that these rules do not apply in asymmetrical conflicts or that breaking them is justifiable to achieve tactical advantages. However, breaking every rule without expectation of reciprocity can lead to a cycle of violence that is difficult to control. The Geneva Convention is designed for regular armies and does not cater to the needs of ‘cutthroats’ operating in unconventional ways.

Comparative Analysis of Tactics

While Israel and America have employed drone warfare and missiles to target Russian commanders, Ukraine has not. This discrepancy can be attributed to several factors:

Military Capabilities: Ukraine may lack the necessary technological and logistical infrastructure to effectively use such tactics. Strategic Goals: Ukraine’s primary strategic goal is to maintain international support and uphold its international legal commitments. Using assassination tactics could undermine this goal. Risk Management: Assassination tactics involve significant risks, including retaliation, political blowback, and loss of life. Ukraine may be focused on more controlled and less risky methods of combat.

Conclusion

Ukraine’s avoidance of assassination tactics is a strategic decision influenced by a mix of international considerations, ethical constraints, and military capabilities. While the use of such methods by Israel and America has been effective, Ukraine’s different approach is informed by its unique situation and goals. The complexity of conflict means that there are multiple valid strategies, and each party must choose the approach that best aligns with its objectives and ethical framework.

As the conflict continues, it will be interesting to see if Ukraine decides to shift its strategy or remains committed to its current approach. The effectiveness of any strategy ultimately depends on its implementation and the evolving nature of the conflict.