> Worst possible
Reconsider this. This is a 1 man regime, possibly 2-3-4 men regime.
Do you want to keep running after gazillions of their bank accounts in Switzerland, and hope they run out of money, or kill the man who holds passwords for, probably, at least half of money for the regime?
And look at Norko... There are latest RolceRoyces on streets of Pyongyang.
It is gross oversimplification. It's basically political/special service elite (bound with personal loyalty) and thick layer of rent seekers (from oil & gas billionaires to countless bureaucratic sinecures).
Even if we assume that all power is indeed in hands of one person, who will gain power once he is killed and current system collapses? Ones who can act fast and are not hindered by too much reflection or morals: junta, blackshirts and organized crime.
>run out of money
No. Point is making desired behaviour more profitable than current behaviour for regime stakeholders. When risk coming from asset freeze becomes larger than risk from change in government - system will start to transform.
>holds passwords
That doesn't work that way. It's actually opposite - wealth is often spread among many loyal figureheads, with actual beneficiary holding nothing on his name.
>Norko
Russian regime is as far from classic totalitarian one as it is from european democracy. Probably even further, as it's basically democracy corrupted to the point of switching to new aggregate state.
It is not an oversimplification, it is how it is.
When even secret police officers have to make a soup of their boots, it is.
> When risk coming from asset freeze becomes larger than risk from change in government - system will start to transform.
When the system will start to transform, he will get a bayonet in his pooper.
> That doesn't work that way. It's actually opposite - wealth is often spread among many loyal figureheads, with actual beneficiary holding nothing on his name.
This works this way. All corrupt heads of Ex-Union countries hold personal accounts on a very tight leash. Maybe with few figurehead titleholders, but not how you tell us.
Internet banking has made things much simpler for them.
> Probably even further, as it's basically democracy corrupted to the point of switching to new aggregate state.
It is not a democracy, plainly and simple.
If you think you have an "alternative vision," tell us how you will call this: https://gdb.rferl.org/47AAAE02-01C2-46FF-87F6-5607ECF3427C_w...
No alternative "visions," and interpretations from high nosed "political scientists" needed.
Call things their their names.
So what are Usmanov, Prokhorov, Potanin, etc? Are they oppressed opposition, or are they eating boots too?
>bayonet in his pooper
While executions of government officials would be extremely entertaining and spirit raising sight, such revolutionary events will lead to much worse outcome in long term than reformation.
>All corrupt heads of Ex-Union countries hold personal accounts on a very tight leash
Ex-Union countries are very different. Claim that corrupt heads of 6M people/43G$ GDP Turkmenistan and 145M/4328G$ Russia are identical is a strong one. Other than size of economy, they are different in that most of them became authoritarian states right after gaining independence, while Russia had about decade of mostly working democracy.
>this
Elections. Corrupted to the point of uselessness, but they are still run, as government derives it's legitimacy from them, rather than from leader's charisma or ideology.
>Call things their their names
Sometimes it makes sense to distinguish between kinds of shit. Especially if shit is only material you have.
