If a fight is INEVITABLE - strike FIRST

One from the archives - Valdai Discussion Forum 2015. "If a fight is inevitable - you have to hit first" said Vladimir Putin in context of fighting terrorism in Syria. As a recap - there were an estimated 10,000 fighters within the ranks of ISIL of Russian or Central Asian citizenship/s. Russia has visa-free regimes with many of these countries, therefore the threat of violence returning to home turf was very real.

As a side note - I couldn't help but notice the correlation to the advice of Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince". Often considered one of the earliest writings on the topic of governance and ethics, he debated on the subject of whether it is better to be loved or feared, as a Ruler of said people.

"Men ought either to be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so that the injury done to a man ought to be such that vengeance cannot be feared." In the same way - to strike first, is to have the advantage of strategy and full fighting capacity as opposed to reactive capacity. To deliver the first blow can often incapacitate the enemy. What do you think?

(I don't believe this can apply to the nuclear doctrine due to 'Mutually Assured Destruction' as a consequence. )

Видео If a fight is INEVITABLE - strike FIRST канала Inessa S