If it's a war, then the enemy is a criminal with a death sentence. Otherwise the enemy will win the war and will kill.
More emotions and lack of concentration on the main body of the war. He gets it on the battlefield; that is where the efforts are concentrated. If you win this, you don't need anything else. If you lose this, nothing else will help. Everything about handing "death sentences" to "criminals" is just an emotion while war and territorial conquest is cold hard business.
Whoever first takes away the enemy's ability to kill will win the war.
What does that mean? Nothing that supports your argument. Russians take away Ukraine's ability to kill by literally killing off significant portions of their male population and causing another significant portion to flee. Ukraine does what? Assassinate a Russian general who's replaced so fast, it's an automatic function of the chain of command.
If a Ukrainian nobody can kill Russian generals, scientists and civilians,
Many many Ukrainian nobodys, often those who get arrested or killed without any fanfare because they were just nobodies caught up in a war.
but a professional Russian agent cannot kill Ukrainian leaders who order terrorist attacks,
I see the risk-to-reward concept flew way over your head. Also, I had already asked before, who are these "masterminds" that you claim exist? They look like just a function of the Ukrainian military unless you have some evidence.
then it's over. It's sad but apparently the Ukrainians are supermen and the Russians are subhumans with no ability to defend themselves, much less win a war.
Hold on, you read this paragraph and that's all you were able to get out of it?
"Russia kills them on the battlefield and it's fine with the ones that are failing and not on the battlefield. There is no individual who is a bane to Russia, producing force multipliers on the battlefield while safe in a Ukrainian city. Ukraine has no commanders of such worth and basically no scientists who produce anything at all. Sending assassins comes with risks; you don't need to take that risk if you're confident in combat. The risk-to-reward has to make sense for assassination attempts. Ukrainians risked a nobody to plant a bomb; if he were sniped in the head on the way over, nobody would care. His target was a Russian general would would be the highest profile target Ukraine ever aimed for. Risk-to-Reward makes sense. If Russia sends someone, they are risking a professionally trained agent from the Spetznaz or FSB with intelligence and operational value everywhere; his target would be some useless loudmouth beggar daydreaming about invading China while getting invaded by Russia. Risk-to-Reward, totally opposite of what it needs to be. Your assassination of leaders is just an emotional reaction which is an unneeded risk and endeavour in a situation of battlefield victory and in an enemy environment that is extremely poor in valuable/meaningful targets."
If that's what you concluded, then it is over for you and we've maxed out your intellectual capability at the risk-to-reward concept.
