• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Plea for Caution From Russia

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
26,361
Reaction score
13,240
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Opinion piece run in the NYT written by Vladimir Putin

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion

"RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."



It is an interesting read, filled with the standard half truths and appeals to raw emotion that is common in progressive politics. It's just funny seeing someone use it on Obama for a change.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Opinion piece run in the NYT written by Vladimir Putin

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion

"RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."



It is an interesting read, filled with the standard half truths and appeals to raw emotion that is common in progressive politics. It's just funny seeing someone use it on Obama for a change.
This may not turn out so well for "the One"....
 

Samhain

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2011
Messages
4,939
Reaction score
2,131
Location
Northern Ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In case anyone had any doubts as to who Putin is, this confirms it. He's a troll.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
26,361
Reaction score
13,240
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The thing I find funny is that when push comes to shove on the subject of Syria, and Obama finds his apologetic media fleeing to the side of Putin, his most sympathetic venue would suddenly be Fox News.
 

DDD

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 26, 2012
Messages
12,351
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Republic of Dardania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A President of another country gets to address the people of USA and the USA free media is racing over each other to air or press him. Only in USA I tell you, only in USA.

You know what is the message? USA and Russia allow each other to influence one anothers' people for foreign arrangements. It is a joint venture to divide the world!

What is next, Obama addressing Russia?
 

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
51,127
Reaction score
33,277
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Syria has set partisan politics on its head. We have Putin writing to urge caution, Fox news coming out against war, the Democrats attempting to back their president, the US on the same side as the terrorists, it's quite the hodge podge of ideologies.

I predict that the outcome will be that Syria will at least pretend to turn its weapons over to the Russians, Putin will beat his chest and claim victory, Obama will maintain the claim that it was fear of a US attack that prompted them to turn them over and thus claim victory himself. Meanwhile, Assad will manage to regain power in Syria and the world will keep spinning. So will our heads, of course, trying to understand just what really happened.

and the Mid East will still be a powder keg just waiting for a spark, any spark.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Syria has set partisan politics on its head. We have Putin writing to urge caution, Fox news coming out against war, the Democrats attempting to back their president, the US on the same side as the terrorists, it's quite the hodge podge of ideologies.

I predict that the outcome will be that Syria will at least pretend to turn its weapons over to the Russians, Putin will beat his chest and claim victory, Obama will maintain the claim that it was fear of a US attack that prompted them to turn them over and thus claim victory himself. Meanwhile, Assad will manage to regain power in Syria and the world will keep spinning. So will our heads, of course, trying to understand just what really happened.

and the Mid East will still be a powder keg just waiting for a spark, any spark.
Yep, and defenders of the president will change their defense with every hourly twist and turn. Credibility be damned.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,817
Reaction score
10,196
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Some thoughts on President Putin's op-ed:

President Putin understands that without broad public support, policy is not sustainable for the long-term in the U.S. He wants to reach out to an American people who are either skeptical or against military action to maintain public opposition to military strikes on Syria. How the public turns might well turn out how Congress votes. As the issue of force was put before Congress, a degree of legitimacy would be lacking were military strikes conducted in the absence of Congressional authorization. President Putin is using the op-ed as part of a larger strategy to press the U.S. against using force against Syria.

For those who have read some of President Putin's major addresses, his narrative of frequent uses of force by the U.S. and his critique of "American exceptionalism" are recurring themes. That he repeated them in this op-ed is not surprising. He also maintained his position that the anti-Assad movement was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

In terms of substance, he points out that military strikes against Syria could be destabilizing. I don't disagree, but believe President Putin goes too far in suggesting that the damage would be so great that it "could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance."

Having said that, his point that Syria "is not witnessing a battle for democracy" and that "there are few champions of democracy in Syria" is spot on. The war is a brutal sectarian conflict between a repressive minority regime and repressed majority seeking to topple it. It is not a democratic or liberal uprising. UN investigators who have been to Syria have confirmed the absence of support for democratic governance among the anti-Assad movement. Earlier this year, Reuters reported, "Most Syrian rebel fighters do not want democracy..., independent U.N. investigators said on Tuesday."

U.N. investigators say most Syria rebels not seeking democracy | Reuters

IMO, it is both inaccurate and dangerously naïve for U.S. policy makers (most prominently Senators McCain and Graham) to view the anti-Assad movement through the prism of their preferences in transposing their ideals on the movement. The movement should be viewed as it is, not as one might wish it were.

The anti-Assad movement has never furnished any kind of manifesto declaring a commitment to democratic, inclusive government. In contrast, it has eagerly incorporated extremist elements into its ranks, some of which are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The growing influence of the extremist elements was documented in a UN report that was released yesterday. Just as is the case with the Assad dictatorship, the anti-Assad movement has shown little regard for civilian protections.

Those realities are wholly incompatible with a desire for inclusive representative government. Actions speak louder than words, and even words proclaiming a commitment to democratic inclusive governance are lacking.

In the end, an effective policy approach should aim to reduce the likely use of chemical weapons (the diplomatic initiative being explored might facilitate that effort, but a lot of difficulties lie ahead). A second element should involve reducing arms flows to all participants to reduce the intensity of the conflict. A third should involve a ceasefire to stop the conflict. The fourth should include increased pressure for the development of a political process to begin what will likely be a fairly lengthy effort to resolve some of the major issues related to the civil war.

However, it remains to be seen whether the parties would participate at this point--Assad had previously committed, but the anti-Assad movement did not--much less adopt the kind of flexibility necessary to reach agreement. In sectarian or ethnic conflicts, the parties usually view things through a zero-sum basis and don't accept the notion of mutual benefit. The extremist elements that comprise a significant part of the anti-Assad movement also view things through an uncompromising and fundamental religious perspective, which further undermines the possibility of near-term flexibility. The incorporation of outside elements on both sides of the conflict also suggests that some of the underlying issues may have little to do with purely Syrian matters.

If the first three elements can be pursued and implemented to a meaningful extent, Syria's people would benefit. Benefits to the armed participants in the sectarian conflict would be smaller, but those factions are not the victims. The civilians are the victims, caught between two ruthless parties, one seeking to retain power, the other seeking to gain power.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I see it more as a warning than a "plea".
Guys like Putin wont lay out a plea in these type of cases. Putin has squared up, and looked down his nose at Obama and told him how its going to be.
Or else.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Some thoughts on President Putin's op-ed:

President Putin understands that without broad public support, policy is not sustainable for the long-term in the U.S. He wants to reach out to an American people who are either skeptical or against military action to maintain public opposition to military strikes on Syria. How the public turns might well turn out how Congress votes. As the issue of force was put before Congress, a degree of legitimacy would be lacking were military strikes conducted in the absence of Congressional authorization. President Putin is using the op-ed as part of a larger strategy to press the U.S. against using force against Syria.

For those who have read some of President Putin's major addresses, his narrative of frequent uses of force by the U.S. and his critique of "American exceptionalism" are recurring themes. That he repeated them in this op-ed is not surprising. He also maintained his position that the anti-Assad movement was responsible for the chemical weapons attack.

In terms of substance, he points out that military strikes against Syria could be destabilizing. I don't disagree, but believe President Putin goes too far in suggesting that the damage would be so great that it "could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance."

Having said that, his point that Syria "is not witnessing a battle for democracy" and that "there are few champions of democracy in Syria" is spot on. The war is a brutal sectarian conflict between a repressive minority regime and repressed majority seeking to topple it. It is not a democratic or liberal uprising. UN investigators who have been to Syria have confirmed the absence of support for democratic governance among the anti-Assad movement. Earlier this year, Reuters reported, "Most Syrian rebel fighters do not want democracy..., independent U.N. investigators said on Tuesday."

U.N. investigators say most Syria rebels not seeking democracy | Reuters

IMO, it is both inaccurate and dangerously naïve for U.S. policy makers (most prominently Senators McCain and Graham) to view the anti-Assad movement through the prism of their preferences in transposing their ideals on the movement. The movement should be viewed as it is, not as one might wish it were.

The anti-Assad movement has never furnished any kind of manifesto declaring a commitment to democratic, inclusive government. In contrast, it has eagerly incorporated extremist elements into its ranks, some of which are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The growing influence of the extremist elements was documented in a UN report that was released yesterday. Just as is the case with the Assad dictatorship, the anti-Assad movement has shown little regard for civilian protections.

Those realities are wholly incompatible with a desire for inclusive representative government. Actions speak louder than words, and even words proclaiming a commitment to democratic inclusive governance are lacking.

In the end, an effective policy approach should aim to reduce the likely use of chemical weapons (the diplomatic initiative being explored might facilitate that effort, but a lot of difficulties lie ahead). A second element should involve reducing arms flows to all participants to reduce the intensity of the conflict. A third should involve a ceasefire to stop the conflict. The fourth should include increased pressure for the development of a political process to begin what will likely be a fairly lengthy effort to resolve some of the major issues related to the civil war.

However, it remains to be seen whether the parties would participate at this point--Assad had previously committed, but the anti-Assad movement did not--much less adopt the kind of flexibility necessary to reach agreement. In sectarian or ethnic conflicts, the parties usually view things through a zero-sum basis and don't accept the notion of mutual benefit. The extremist elements that comprise a significant part of the anti-Assad movement also view things through an uncompromising and fundamental religious perspective, which further undermines the possibility of near-term flexibility. The incorporation of outside elements on both sides of the conflict also suggests that some of the underlying issues may have little to do with purely Syrian matters.

If the first three elements can be pursued and implemented to a meaningful extent, Syria's people would benefit. Benefits to the armed participants in the sectarian conflict would be smaller, but those factions are not the victims. The civilians are the victims, caught between two ruthless parties, one seeking to retain power, the other seeking to gain power.
Well thought out and superior post don.
 

Coin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
949
Reaction score
371
Location
Albania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Assad just confirmed the Russian plan about chemical weapons.
It seems like word of Putin has a bigger influence than Obama's one.
 

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Opinion piece run in the NYT written by Vladimir Putin

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion

"RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."



It is an interesting read, filled with the standard half truths and appeals to raw emotion that is common in progressive politics. It's just funny seeing someone use it on Obama for a change.
Another portion:

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
 

Fenton

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
29,771
Reaction score
12,231
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wow, Putin lecturing Obama on American Exceptionalism when neither one of them understand the real definition of it.

We are NOT exceptional because of our policies, or because we attempt to be a stabilizing force throughout the world.

We are Exceptional because our inalienable rights and liberty guaranteed by God and not Government.

Neither Obama nor Putin agree, I know, but regardless to hear the ex-KGB thug take the moral high ground or the perception of the moral high ground over a standing US President just shows what a incompetent clown we elected.

Our adverseries have only ever respected strength, and now that Obama and Kerry have been exposed as bumbling amatuers people like Putin and Assad know they have free reign to continue their destruction.

And while this is happeneing Iran's Centrifuges spin away.

I don't have much hope for this Country, not when our Public Education system cranks out remedial Democrats who are easily manipulated.
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Isn't it kind of like watching a spat in here say betwee HoJ, and Agent J? :lol:

{Sorry fella's, I couldn't resist....But it's only a joke so don't get all indignant k?}
 

ItAin'tFree

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 2, 2013
Messages
1,293
Reaction score
338
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Putin is pretty much saying the same thing the leftists in our country have been saying for years.

But now many leftists are acting all a**hurt just because it's Putin saying the stuff instead of them.

Just another example of how if a person supports Obama, they can't really be for or against anything. Because there is no telling what he will say or do next.
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Opinion piece run in the NYT written by Vladimir Putin

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion

"RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again."



It is an interesting read, filled with the standard half truths and appeals to raw emotion that is common in progressive politics. It's just funny seeing someone use it on Obama for a change.
Oh yes, you can tell Putin has read his Saul Alinsky!

Can't seem to copy this but thought it was damned funny! https://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/78874-cartoon-obama-winning-bingo-checker-playing-chess-putin/
 

j-mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
38,279
Reaction score
11,306
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here you go.



I think it's already in the cartoon thread.
What?!!! You mean that all the talk of Obama being just masterful in how HE single handedly divised this peaceful resolution of the escalation of events isn't true? :shock:
 

Grant

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
31,645
Reaction score
7,598
Location
Canada, Costa Rica
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Putin is pretty much saying the same thing the leftists in our country have been saying for years.

But now many leftists are acting all a**hurt just because it's Putin saying the stuff instead of them.

Just another example of how if a person supports Obama, they can't really be for or against anything. Because there is no telling what he will say or do next.
Obama was pretty much able to say whatever came into his head when he was first a candidate because he had the MSM behind him and internationally he had already won the Nobel Peace Prize, as well as international support from those who didn't really follow politics all that much. His lies against Romney's history and character also served him well during the last campaign.

But when Obama left the cocoon created buy the American MSM and his leftists apologists to take his act on the world stage it was soon recognized that he was unable, or had little interest, in putting America's interest first..

We really don't know what he meant by "Vladimir" giving him more space until after the election nor how it might figure in to this latest debacle, and may not know for a decade or two, but that slip alone should have cost him the election.

During missile defense talk, Obama tells Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after election | Fox News
 
Top Bottom