He makes some good points about the fall of the League of Nations, though I still think he's playing the "I'm not touching you" game with President Obama. Escalate it just enough to put America in a tight spot, then offer a way out, but not before humiliating them into agreeing.
I think this statement is true, and I think it's evidenced by the overthrow of pretty much every dictator in the mid-east; they all have just a small enough majority of extremist Muslims that that faction always wins the day. It is sad (unbelievable, really) that Putin has become a voice of reason. WTF kind of world do we live in where Putin, a guy who unapologetically throws his political opponents in jail willy-nilly, has to be on the side of common sense, reason and law, because we've derelicted those things years ago? Does he have ulterior motives? Certainly. But I'm not sure it matters why he's right, just that he's right in this case (and I'm convinced he is right). We have no business getting into this fight. It's a no win for us any way it turns out. We should stick to the business of humanitarian aid here. It's also interesting that he suggests that the opposition may have released the chemical weapons, not a line you hear often in the American media, but often suggested in the foreign media (so I'm told by people I know who can read Arabic). Bascially the argument goes like this: There was a chemical weapons attack in August just two days after inspectors arrived, and it took place about 5 miles from where they were known (by the government and everyone else) to be staying. Why in god's name would Assad do such a thing in such proximity to them when he controlled their movements from the outset? It doesn't make sense. This isn't evidence, but it's definitely curious. It's obvious that we can't win by any loose definition (perhaps Obama will adopt the Bush Doctrine, which is to wait and see what happens then call that a win? Can't lose that way; it's brilliant!). So what's the point? Is it about getting rid of Iran's biggest Arab ally? Is it just about the US saving face after drawing an arbitrary "red line"? Any other guesses?Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.
If can politely disagree with you here... First of all, Putin isn't acting in the interest of international law. Putin is acting in national interest: Russia's sole Mediterranean naval base is in Syria--and in the region in which the Syrian controlling group reside. On top of that, Russian arms contracts, both in progress and existing, value over $5,000,000,000. This is vital to the Russian arms industry; already, $13,000,000,000 has been lost due to sanctions against Iran, and $4,500,000,000 in cancelled Libya contracts. Russian companies' investments in Syrian infrastructure, tourism, and energy were valued at $19,400,000,000 in 2009. Second, these claims that "the opposition may have released the chemical weapons" are completely ungrounded. Both sides are spreading incredible lies about each other; the FSA blames attacks claimed publicly by Al-Nusra (Syrian arm of al-Qaeda) on the government, for example. Few claims are to be trusted. HOWEVER, the UN inspectors will provide evidence that points to Assad's regime. Given, the evidence is exclusively circumstantial, and the report will not directly accuse Assad of using chemical weapons. However, there is also this evidence, which I have researched myself: There are four chemical weapons production facilities in Syria. Three are in areas of regime control, one is in an area in disputed control (Aleppo). There are three chemical weapons storage facilities in Syria, and all of them are in areas of regime control. Evidently, the regime capacity for chemical weapons attacks are vastly superior to opposition and FSA capacity. Finally: On the actual strike against Syria. Syrian regime actions up until the usage of chemical weapons are regrettable, but do not violate international law nor do they necessitate any action by advocates of such law. However, the usage of chemical against the Syrian people by the Syrian regime is a direct violation of international law. As President Putin says, international law must be enforced. A red line has indeed been drawn; not by the USA, but by the UN. If the Russians are intent on preventing any UN action, then action must be taken by other means. Assad may continue his fight against the opposition, the FSA, and al-Nusra. But he may not, in my eyes, continue his usage of chemical weapons.But I'm not sure it matters why he's right, just that he's right in this case (and I'm convinced he is right). We have no business getting into this fight. It's a no win for us any way it turns out. We should stick to the business of humanitarian aid here.
U.N. inspectors have collected a "wealth" of evidence on the use of nerve agents that points to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad using chemical weapons against his own people, according to a senior Western official.
I've only seen this article on one "American" website, and it wasn't remotely reliable. I've been wondering what the foreign media are saying about that as well. Huh.It's also interesting that he suggests that the opposition may have released the chemical weapons, not a line you hear often in the American media, but often suggested in the foreign media (so I'm told by people I know who can read Arabic).
I think he could have potentially swayed many American's that are dismayed with Obama if he hadn't finished with the american's aren't exceptional, we all are bit. But it would be wrong to think that this letter was addressed to the US, it was addressed to the world. Putin is trying to play the good guy, but it's a difficult role to assume when you've secured your position through corruption and criminal behavior for years. He may have made some valid points, but the man is not to be trusted. He doesn't care about consensus or justice, this is just posturing and it's damned good posturing. If we don't go to war Obama looks weak and if we do he looks like an aggressor in the face of Putin's olive branch. Brilliant. But hopefully the world remembers who Putin is.
from a pro-US-hegemony standpoint (the stance that the president and the warhawks must inevitably take), opposing Putin simply because he's Putin is pretty much the only thing one can do. it's not a matter of 'doofus', it's a matter of maintaining the perception of dominance. btw, Putin is definitely a bad person.
I get that warhawks have painted themselves into a corner--as they do. But since Putin does make some valid points, and since the warhawks refuse to acknowledge the validity of these points, they only show themselves to be dishonest and one dimensional. And yeah, he is a bad guy (should go without saying).
>And will look like doofuses in the process since they will be obviously wrong Wrong about what? Wrong about what Putin says or that Putin's acting in good faith of international law?
Right now, because the UN itself is not acting to enforce international law, that is what is making the world look weak. Forget Putin's assertions of international law in favor of Russia UNSC voting habits; international law has already been broken in Syria by the Assad regime because it has made use of chemical weapons against civilians.Denying their truth just because you don't want to appear weak
I think this is a very important counterpoint to what Putin is saying: http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-russia-s-support-for-ass...