False dichotomy.
We were not a party, militarily speaking, to the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, though one can make arguments regarding American and Russian interference in Ukraine (politically, economically, and otherwise) in the years leading up to February 2022.
Endorsing the assassination of Putin with a public bounty would be a separate act of war by the United States against Russia.
He's now in the same category as Hitler and his henchmen.
Absurd hyperbole.
Putin is a wanted war criminal. He's no longer a leader that can be respected as the head of a foreign government. Is that too hard to understand?
Because the body that issued said 'warrant' is not only one which countries like Russia, India, Israel, and China aren't even a part of, but one that America also isn't a party to. We literally have a law (colloquially known as the "Hague Invasion Act") that authorizes the POTUS to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court." That is how little we actually respect the ICC's jurisdiction.
Even as recently as 2021, Secretary of State Blinken is on record proclaiming the United States' opposition to the ICC's jurisdiction over non-States Parties!
This is but one reason of many that it rings hollow, especially when another international body with greater standing and gravitas than the ICC — namely, the United Nations — has stated it has not actually found evidence of genocide in Ukraine committed by Russia.
Countless politicians and leaders get labelled with the title of 'war criminal' on a recurring basis. I remember well when Bush 41 was regularly accused as one, yet no one with anything approaching proper jurisdiction actually indicted him as one.
And yet, when it comes to the matter of Putin, all of a sudden the ICC's word merits consideration?
Hence my point: to accept the ICC's arrest warrant of Putin is to tacitly accept that the ICC has jurisdiction over non-signatories to the Rome Statute, which is a position our country's government has been flatly opposed to (on the record, as a matter of policy!) for multiple administrations across party lines. It is a sham and an utter falsehood, and thus nothing more than cynical virtue signalling without any true weight to it.