http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/op...anted=all&_r=0
Printable View
Nice rhetoric, Putin doesn't give a shit about anything except his interests.
Still better than civil war or one-sided uber-pwnage. Best case: dialogue -> compromise -> Butcher Al-Assad steps down.
http://lolimage.com/img/ups/61179806781337642569.jpeg
On second thought, drop Ashton there to spread chaos and ensure free markets. And liek it wasn't clear before Russia won't "intervene". Wishful thinkers...
well, score one for Russia... in one go, Putin paints Obama as a warmonger, promotes himself a champion of peace, and manages to discredit the US even further in a time when it already looks weak.
Putin is being opportunistic in way that makes his country look good - at least as good as it can possibly look while still calling itself Syria's ally. with the US currently damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, Putin is just taking advantage of the fact that (amazingly) he's in a better place than Obama is right now. clever to release the op-ed right before Kerry met with the Russian foreign minister for talks, too.
Russia's gloating might not last for long though. as long as this doesn't escalate much further, i'm wondering that if in the end, Syria will just be perceived as a clumsily-handled foreign policy blemish for this administration - but not anything that will (on its own) majorly taint Obama's record. in the grand scheme of contemporary American relations with the Middle East, it's yet another episode damning the US for its involvement there.
Putin wins.
Fatality.
Good article. I think the major difference between US and Russia on the Syrian Civil War is that the US, both Democrats and Republicans have been politicizing the war and blindly supported overthrowing Assad as a matter of cause (The USA seems to hate royalty that isn't British royalty and has historically worked to remove foreign monarchs by painting them as dictators).
Contrast Russia's stance on the matter; being that the conflict occurring in Syria is a Syrian matter and that the international community should stay out and let them resolve this matter themselves. I'm not quite sure what the people in Washington DC are thinking but non-intervention would be the obviously intelligent thing to do.
However, I think the main stumbling block for the President has been that the Republicans (GOP) in Congress have been growing increasingly louder about attacking Syria. Overthrowing every regime in the region is a major part of the GOP agenda so party leaders are rattling their sabers rather loudly. Luckily, if the President does agree go with the plan to destroy Syria's chemical weapons then he would be able to wash his hands of the matter of attacking Syria and he would be seen as making good on his promise of removing chemical weapons from the Syrian War.
Backing the international plan to destroy the chemical weapons in Syria is the best decision President Obama could make of this entire convoluted situation. :thumbsup:
Putin's article is purely for US domestic consumption to further tie the hands of Washington and to prevent us from intervening. Russia has nothing and can do nothing if the US decides to attack, thats why this is so important to influence the US's decision from the inside out. In that he's done a good job, but the reality is Washington is listening to interests that have a huge stake in the outcome of this war (e.g. AIPAC and the arms industry), so what they ultimately decide to do will have little to do with what Putin wants and everything to do with US domestic opinion weighed against the forcefulness of the lobbies pushing for an attack.
There are no "huge stakes in the war". The widespread revolution that was predicted has already fizzled out. That's why the President is refusing to send any more troops to the Syria/Middle East because US citizens are sick of war and no one wants to perpetuate it. There are however, Republican agendas which are now falling apart since the Democrats control both the Congress and Executive Branch. :thumbsup:
You're right, they're not "huge" stakes, but you still the domestic arms lobbies, you have countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar willing to bankroll arms purchases for the rebels and you still have Israel's lobbies in Washington as we speak lobbying for intervention (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.546315).
Yes, there are some very powerful lobbies and interests who want to see the President to attack Syria but it seems, to me at least, that the President is more willing to listen to the UN and international community rather than some lobbies who want nothing more than to see the President fail.
As of Sept 9, 71% of Republicans oppose the president's plan to attack Syria, and 55% of Democrats oppose the plan, according to the Washington Post. "As President Obama launches a media blitz to build public support for a military strike against the Syrian government, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds Americans moving in the reverse direction, with Republicans leading a growing legion in opposition." http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...gainst-action/
It's politics. When the President was arguing for restraint against the Syrian government the Republicans were foaming at the mouth to press an attack. After the chemical weapons attack and the President declared that a strike was necessary, conservative support swung in opposition. Do you think the GOP, the party that's been quite literally kicked to the curb support anything a Democratic President wants? No, they're using the same tactics they used during the healthcare debate, the debt ceiling, the country's credit rating, etc. Again, it's all just politics.
Small minds, big tantrums would be the cour de rigueur for the Republican party these days.