- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,027
- Reaction score
- 19,491
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Another portion:
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.
Here you go.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/
Here you go.
I think it's already in the cartoon thread.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?