I think the (disputable) argument is that, for global stability and equilibrium reasons, there should be a general prohibition against kidnapping/assassination of de facto heads of state, regardless of whether they were legitimately elected or are dictators.

I contend my net worth is actually 9 figures

It's also widely acknowledged that elections in Russia are rigged, and yet the US was quite angry at Ukraine over Russia's (false, as it turned out) claim that Ukraine attacked Putin...

> Note the US administration contends that he wasn't the legitimate head of state. [1] [2]

Trump contends that Biden wasn't the legitimate President because the 2020 election was rigged.

If Trump ends up contending the 2026 mid-terms are not legitimate is that valid too? Are they able to act on those contentions to… do stuff?

The 3rd section of the 14th amendment[1] states that no person having engaged in insurrection[2] shall hold any office, civil or military, in the United States. So technically Trump isn’t a legitimate head of state either.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_Un...

[2]https://www.npr.org/2025/12/31/g-s1-104190/capitol-riot-trum...

Well Russia contends Zelensky isn't the legitimate head of state of Ukraine.

So did the EU parliament and a whole range of European countries

Honestly, I'm getting increasingly fascinated with the utterly absurd logic that states are putting into their justifications for war.

You get "preemptive self defense" that urgently requires "buffer zones" on foreign territory, which then mysteriously become your own territory and have to be defended with even more buffer zones.

Some Terror Regime of Literal Nazis is doing Unspeakable Atrocities to its own population which practically forces you to invade the country purely out of empathy and the goodness of your heart. Nevermind that the population has never asked for the invasion and will in fact be worse off through the war than before - and that this other state who is your ally is doing the exact same things, but then it's suddenly "realpolitik" and just the way the world works.

Someone has broken the law of his own country. "Internal affairs" or grounds for invasion? Depends if he is your ally or enemy.

Pardon the cynicism, but my growing impression is that war justifications only serve as discussion fodder for domestic audiences and have very little to do with the actual war.

You know the president said that the Epstein files were a democrat hoax, right?

I feel like at this stage the US administration could contend that the moon is in fact made of cheese and news agencies would respond by running news stories about the implications of this on future possible lunar missions.