But that raises the question of what could China or our other adversaries do to Trump? Assassination of foreign leaders has long been an accepted no-no among the more developed nations, but that can change, and if they were serious about it, I doubt it could be prevented.
Absolute Resolve frames the issue around bringing an unpopular authoritarian to face court charges within the existing rules-based order. Washington never recognized Maduro’s sham election.
If Beijing were to choose escalation and attempt to assassinate American political leadership, not only would this be seen as an unacceptable and illegitimate use of force, but it would also generate maximal blowback against CCP leadership within the political dimension - the dimension that CCP leaders are most cautious operating within.
At the same time, constitutional republics do not rely on their executives anywhere near to the extent that authoritarian systems do - hence why this move is asymmetric. American Presidents are replaceable and electable within a tested institutional framework for the transition of power. Something that the CCP General Secretary system will never have - by design.
The sequencing argument here is compelling. Targeting authoritarian leaders individually rather than entire state apparatuses is efficient, but it hinges on one assumption: that the removal itself doesn't create more chaos than leverage. Venezuela showed the execution capability, sure. But I'm skeptical that running Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran in sequence actually buys Washington 5 years. The CCP reads this as escalation, not intimidation, and teh bureaucratic delays might get offset by accelerated contingency planning.
But that raises the question of what could China or our other adversaries do to Trump? Assassination of foreign leaders has long been an accepted no-no among the more developed nations, but that can change, and if they were serious about it, I doubt it could be prevented.
Absolute Resolve frames the issue around bringing an unpopular authoritarian to face court charges within the existing rules-based order. Washington never recognized Maduro’s sham election.
If Beijing were to choose escalation and attempt to assassinate American political leadership, not only would this be seen as an unacceptable and illegitimate use of force, but it would also generate maximal blowback against CCP leadership within the political dimension - the dimension that CCP leaders are most cautious operating within.
At the same time, constitutional republics do not rely on their executives anywhere near to the extent that authoritarian systems do - hence why this move is asymmetric. American Presidents are replaceable and electable within a tested institutional framework for the transition of power. Something that the CCP General Secretary system will never have - by design.
You have been noticing America's "tested institutional framework for the transition of power"....no?
The sequencing argument here is compelling. Targeting authoritarian leaders individually rather than entire state apparatuses is efficient, but it hinges on one assumption: that the removal itself doesn't create more chaos than leverage. Venezuela showed the execution capability, sure. But I'm skeptical that running Nicaragua, Cuba, and Iran in sequence actually buys Washington 5 years. The CCP reads this as escalation, not intimidation, and teh bureaucratic delays might get offset by accelerated contingency planning.