Putin’s gambit: To kill a president

Eighty years ago this Monday, in the early months of World War II when Japan was gobbling up much of Asia after sinking America’s battleship fleet at Pearl Harbor, 16 B-25 bombers under the command of Lt. Col. James H. Doolittle launched from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet to strike Tokyo in a daring, one-way raid. Little physical damage was done. But the psychological effect was massive. The invulnerability of Japan promised by the senior military was shattered.

It is a good thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin, like many Americans today, is probably not well versed in this history. With the sinking of his Black Sea Fleet flag ship, the Moskva, presumably by Ukraine’s Neptune cruise missiles (or utter incompetence by the crew), Putin needs some “shock and awe” of his own to recover from this equivalent of the Doolittle raid. What might that be?

Given the influx of presidents and prime ministers to Kyiv in support of the Zelensky government and the magnificent Ukrainian resistance, the White House is considering dispatching a senior representative.  No doubt President Biden is carefully evaluating whether he should make that trip.  Or would sending the vice president or secretaries of state or defense be appropriate?

If Biden were to go, most Americans would likely support him. But serious blowback would be inevitable. The president would be at personal risk. If he were to be targeted or killed, what would be the response, if one existed?

Republicans would label such a trip as reckless in the extreme. Should disaster occur, many will ask if the vice president is ready or capable of assuming the duties of chief executive and commander in chief. And if anyone other than the president were chosen, given all the other heads of state and government who have made the trek to Kyiv, would that comparison be politically damaging to Biden?

From Putin’s perspective, how might the Kremlin exploit such a visit regardless of who represented the U.S.? Even a Cabinet secretary would be a tempting target. As Ukraine’s army has done its best in killing Russian generals, Putin would like to even the score.

In war, assassination of heads of state has been exceedingly rare. Winston Churchill reportedly believed that after the U.S. entered World War II and the battle had reversed, killing Hitler was a bad idea. The fuhrer was the Allies’ best weapon in that his so-called genius had turned to gotterdammerung. Killing Hitler might have led to a successor who sought peace and thus derail the aim of unconditional surrender. 

The most successful example in World War II of a directed assassination against a major leader was the plan to intercept and shoot down the aircraft carrying Japan’s senior admiral and the architect of Pearl Harbor, Isokuro Yamamoto, in 1943 over the South Pacific. The plan worked perfectly as envisaged by the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, Admiral Chester Nimitz. 

From Putin’s perspective, clearly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a prime target. If Zelensky were killed, who would replace him? And would a successor have the same charisma to rally the nation and the West? And if President Biden were also in Kyiv, would that not raise the ante?

Obviously, any visit by an American dignitary would be wrapped in the utmost secrecy and security. But suppose that Russian intelligence assessed that there was a probability of a Biden visit at a certain time and date. Given the huge losses Russian forces have suffered and the Moskva debacle, how might former KGB Lt. Col. Putin evaluate his options?

Unlike America’s SEAL Team Six that dispatched Osama bin Laden in 2011, Putin does not have that option. Hence, the only certain, or near certain, means to ensure elimination of the presidents could be through a nuclear attack obliterating Kyiv and killing possibly hundreds of thousands of people. In Putin’s mind, could such a barbarically stunning act so paralyze any U.S. and NATO response and force a victory in Ukraine, however defined and regardless of whether Biden were there?

Dangerous in the extreme, such a decision could provoke a thermonuclear war. One of the more frightening aspects of this ghastly invasion is that this scenario is no longer confined to fiction or Hollywood action films. And a further nagging problem for President Biden is that if he does not go to Kyiv and there was serious speculation he might, clearly his adversaries and critics would challenge his courage.

Oh, for the days of Jimmy Doolittle!

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D, is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the primary author of “shock and awe.” His latest book is, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.”