Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is dripping with it.
For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state" [1] and a government of thugs who are too busy stealing the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources to pursue the eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States. The Russian state has assassinated journalists [2] and jailed political opponents with impunity while the bureaucracy (now intertwined with organized crime) steals money at an alarming rate [3]. They don't even bother to hide it anymore (Egregious example: Magnitsky [4] and Litvinenko [5]).
I hate the idea of the US getting involved with a civil war on the other side of the world and Putin is right in his logic, but as an immigrant from Russia I can't help but feel I'm reading the same propaganda but with a translator. If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cable...
[2] There's a whole damn wikipedia article dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...
[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-def...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy
Edit: To clarify, yes this is emotional and ad hominem. But come on, how many of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following international law? This article is only on the front page of HN because of its author and it bears remembering how Putin's actions have spoken far louder than his words.
Allow me to point out America's veto record:
"Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence." [Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-r...]
(It's also inapplicable, since even if Russia consented, China wouldn't.)
No, but it is circular reasoning to base your argument for refusing consent by saying it is illegal. It's much less compelling if he comes right out and says: "Don't do it, because I don't want you too." So he tries to make the logic convoluted.
>> "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope..."
>> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.
Right there they mention that they are for peaceful dialog because they are trying to protect international law. If they were really concerned with international law, why would they veto? Obviously, because they don't want it to happen, not this nonsense about them being all of a sudden concerned about international law.
- Stop this! You're hurting me. Stop it! You'll go to jail.
- I wouldn't go to jail if you just consented to sex.
- Hey *, colored section is that way! You'll go to jail.
- I could sit here if you white people weren't the one making the law.
(That's the thing I love about analogies, they can be turned both ways and prove nothing)
The parent comment was stating the point that Putin was making it illegal himself by vetoing and retracting the veto would have made it legal. The same thing happens in sex, if you consent to it, it's ok; if you don't, it's rape. That's the mechanism of consent and of veto.
In your analogy there is no way the white bus passenger could instantly change the law by consenting to the black man sitting in the wrong section. It is illegal regardless of his opinion.
In sex as in international diplomacy you need unanimity (at least of the security council).
The whole analogy business in arguments is one witty exercise in strawman.
If there is unilateral consensus, you don't need formal bodies to do stuff, since everybody agrees anyway. However, if we want the global community to be effective, then we need an ability to make decisions and do stuff even if Russia or USA or China is against that, if the vast majority of the world understands that, say, a massacre must be prevented.
Currently we can't do that. As I said, in a number of cases Russia has prevented any progress by using the veto or threat of it. USA has done the same regarding Israel/Palestine - my impression is that it's their major use, media doesn't represent others much. China has as well - often things are abandoned simply because it is clear that it will be vetoed anyway. In essence, only trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there, but any serious things that matter - can't, as definitely someone with some interest will veto that. So the veto powers should be reformed.
"trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there" I wouldn't call the UNSC resolution on Mali "trivial and unneccesary thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...
What is ironic, is that oddly I prefer the unashamed way Russia acts, compared to the cover-ups and lies of the west. You know where you stand. We in the west are supposed to be better, but all we are better at really is PR. In Russia, people know what the deal is, and can deal with that one way or another. In the west people are just dismissed as silly tin foil hat people, and nothing gets done until a Snowden comes along and busts the bubble.
That's baloney, also known as reverse cargo cult. As you know, cargo cult is a fallacy when people simulate external appearances of some process without actually performing it (original cargo cult was building fake airfields and simulating actions of the people working in airfield in hope that actual planes with plentiful food and goods - i.e. cargo - would arrive) and without understanding what exactly causes the external effects. Reverse cargo cult happens when people postulate that there actually were no actual planes ever, just those people that claimed they fly the planes are much better at pretending (or, as you say now, in PR) than the cargo cult practitioners, thus they appear to have more success, even though under the pretense there's no actual essence in either case, and the essence doesn't actually exist and is just a lie.
Of course, it is trivially obvious to any informed person that while we have major undeniable problems with surveillance running amok and other serious problems in the US, situation with personal rights and liberties in the US is way better than in Russia. In US there are no things like Khodorkovsky's or Magnitsky's affairs, there are no laws introducing internet censorship, there is Bill of Rights, there are independent courts, there is a free press, there is the police that mostly is doing its job and not racketeering businesses, and I could continue all day long. Yes, abuses do happen, and yes, they are bad, and yes, right now we are living through a number of them and US citizens need to fix them if they want to preserve their liberties - but claiming "all we are better at really is PR" is misguided at best and playing right to the hands of dictators like Putin and Assad at worst. After all, if everybody is only pretending, why should Putin or Assad change anything? They just has to lie more and better and everything would be fine.
Of course it is, because guess who's paying for said opposition?
I agree with you, of course - Putin is by all accounts a monster, and he has no moral standing whatsoever. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
Suffice to say, the welfare of the people of Syria is the last thing on Obama's mind. Let's take a look at how well the last place he got involved in is doing these days:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/special-repor...
Hell, one might even say it's true for America itself.
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
However, everything changes if Assad regime falls and rebels - among which would be such organizations as Syrian Islamic Front or Syrian Islamic Liberation Front, with predictable amount of love for Israel - were to come to power. They would have no experience of losing the war like Assad regime had, and no problem with suffering a bit more of mayhem is it's for the good purpose - after all, that's just what they did right before it and succeeded. And they'd own all munitions that Assad regime had assembled (at least those that left after the war, but there would probably be sizeable amount left, and if not, Putin could help), including WMDs. How there's any benefit for Israel in that?
Israel would be glad to have Assad's ass get some thorough kicking. However, having an explosive unstable government with WMDs on its borders is not exactly one's dream. Israel already has this problem with Lebanon, and it didn't work that well so far. Having second one is really not anybody's wish.
The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others.
So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?
I hope you're kidding. Apart from the obvious generic interests everyone has in the region (oil, pipelines and all that), Syria is one of the top 5 buyers of Russian military hardware and is a long-standing Russian ally in a region immediately South of Russia proper. The whole Syria/Iraq/Iran/Turkey setup is of deep concern to the natural security interests of Russia, which is in actual target range of missiles from that area.
It'd be like saying that the US have no big interest in Caribbean and Central American states.
There are two competing natural gas pipelines being built, both of which must transit through Syria to get to the Mediterranean.
What's at stake is who gets to sell energy to Europe for the next 50-100 years!
None of this is a secret. The Financial Times and others have reported on this over the years.
But yeah that does look like a pretty serious issue. (Although fossil fuels in the middle east will run out long before 50 years pass, so I doubt it's all that accurate)
I don't have a fancy French word to back me up, but I'm going to disagree. His arguments shouldn't be dismissed out of hand due to his history, but they deserve to come under extra scrutiny. The simplest reason being, as a politician, he is doubtless lying by omission about something, and as he is a politician whatever that something is undoubtedly changes the value equation of his arguments.
I think what I'm saying is given his status as a politician, as well as his history in relation to the subject, we have great cause to suspect him of telling half-truths, which must be evaluated before his arguments can truly be.
* The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition.
* There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military.
* The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage.
* For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance.
* There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing.
The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very credible.
Having said all that, I must add that there is not enough proof for either point of view and it's exactly the reason why UNSC shouldn't authorize a military operation agains Syria.
As a side note, who benefits the most from the use of chemical weapons and what seemed to be emminent US attack? Looks like it's syrian terrorists, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the US.
And here is an interesting thought experiment for you: if tomorrow it turns out that it was the terrorist's false-flag op, will the US intervene and wipe out the terrorists in Syria? Because, you know, they crossed the red line by using chemical weapons that are banned throughout the world?
* Syrian military was driving back the rebels in this particular neighborhood just fine without the use of chemical weapons. So Assad in light of this decides to use significant amounts of nerve gas on the very day that he invited UN inspectors to come back?
* Who said that the sarin used was stolen by the FSA from government stockpiles? In an earlier bust of a rebel holdout there were nerve gas delivery mechanisms discovered which appeared to have been produced in Saudi Arabia.
* Finally there is the case of German warships who were patrolling the area and intercepting Syrian military communications and recordings of Assad repeatedly forbidding use of chemical weapons.
If you were the guy in charge of those when they got raided, I wouldn't blame you if you were reluctant to inform your superiors that you dropped the ball on that. =P
Except this is a political discussion, so the text isn't truly the subject. It is relevant that Putin is a KGB gangster AND that he's claiming the moral high ground AND that he's protecting a Syrian hand-me-down regime's use of chem weapons. The punchline is how badly the US has screwed the pooch post 9/11.
Well, at this point with the NSA scandals, this Syrian civil, I am convince that Putin is the reasonable voice and that we ARE in deep shit.
If a criminal says that helping an old lady cross the street is the right thing to do, would you discard his statement because he is a criminal? No! For the same reason, Putin may be doing evil things in his country, but I still side with him: bombing Syria is a silly idea.
many people unfamiliar with Russia or similar countries forget that selective enforcement of law is a well established and widely practiced form of tyranny and abuse of power there. The same principle applies when people like Putin are selectively say/do something that may look like a right thing - it is just a tool of advancing their agenda. Like in your example with a criminal when he would point you to the lady requiring assistance, and would do whatever he wants while your attention is diverted. You'd need to discard his statement precisely because he is a criminal.
Since being short-sighted is bad and we clearly should be looking at it from all sides/perspectives, please enlighten us as to what impact Obama's short-term plan (to bomb Syria) will have in the long-term plans that he might have? While at it, please share what's Obama long-term plan for Syria what why American should have one at all.
- We in America are free to criticize our government without any penalties!
- Duh, us Soviets are free to criticize your government too!
This very publication is a great example of the difference between the USA and Russia. A publication in major Russian media criticizing the government policy is soo not happening anytime soon.
Even a good person can be wrong sometimes, even a bad person can be right.
Is attacking Putin's character useful in this context?
P.S I don't think it's irony either, I think it's hypocrisy.
<quote>
> Putin is the head of a "virtual mafia state"
And what was Russia the year before Putin became head of it? It's not like corruption came in with Putin. Most Russians I know think Putin has lowered the amount of corruption, and I agree. Russia was so corrupt it was barely functioning under Yeltsin. You're correct there is significant corruption in the government, but amazingly there was even more corruption before Putin came in.
> eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States
Russia's GDP is one eighth of the US's. It's ratio was even lower back in 1917. Who thinks this? Not even Zhirinovsky thinks this is realistic.
> The Russian state has assassinated journalists
Then you link to a list of journalists killed by persons in Russia. Where's the link?
Who killed Chauncey Bailey in the US in 2007? Who killed Dona St. Plite? Who killed Manuel de Dios Unanue? Scores of journalists in the US have been killed who did not agree with the government foreign policy on Haiti, on Vietnam etc.
> and jailed political opponents with impunity
How about Manning? They want to extradite Snowden. Lynne Stewart is in jail. American jails are filled with political opponents. Oh, they broke the law? Well that's what they say in Russia too.
</quote>
Usually these claims are made by people who have never been to Russia, don't know anything about Russian culture or history and who takes US news articles about russian politics at face value.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
>This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Yes this is essentially a civil war between the current regime and a multifaceted opposition. Putin is heavily arming one of those sides.
The point I was making was that this a political play by an invested actor, not the passionate reasoned plea it was trying to come across as. That was quite an omission he made there, though it made sense rhetorically for his purpose. The poster above found him/herself "not only nodding along but inspired" by they man who is responsible for the weapons that have killed tens of thousands in this conflict so far.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-be...
The irony of Putin is doubtless there, and the words logical and true, but the greater truth is that this is just nothing more than tit for tat on the international stage. Hopefully it will work out and bloodshed will be prevented...
He probably had someone to write it down and translate the speech for him. So I have no doubt that Putin was the author of the speech/letter.
Those are mostly stylistic issues but they're indicative of non-native grasp of the English language.
Furthermore it's clearly written by someone with enough capability to express themselves eloquently and succinctly, but as mentioned it's clearly non-native.
Just off the top of my head, Russian doesn't have articles. A Russian learning English is more likely to confuse definite and indefinite articles than a speaker of a Romance language.
I've been learning Thai and teaching English in Thailand. Thai has no articles, no tenses (in the way we think about them) and a simpler syntax with many prepositions and other "small words" omitted. When they start learning English, they often omit too many words and don't conjugate anything, so a sentence like "I don't have any pencils." becomes "No have pencil".
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.
And yes, it's hypocritical and carefully crafted.
The Russians in general and Putin in particular talk all the time about how the Russian soul is exceptional, how Russia is somehow different from western democracies and has its own unique (and largely mystical) economic and political path, how you can't understand it with intellect and can only believe in it (which is a classic bit of Russian poetry internalized by pretty much everyone), and how the Russians are somehow more "spiritual" than everyone else.
Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union this reads like something from the Onion.
EDIT: here is a specific example to illustrate my point. In a recent interview, here is how Putin characterized the difference between the American and Russian "soul". He brought up a quote by the main heroine from Gone with the Wind where she said "I can't imagine what it would be like to be hungry all the time". Putin then pointed out that something like this is a primary concern of an American soul (implying base concerns for physical comforts), while this wouldn't be a concern for the Russian soul, which allegedly is concerned with much more important spiritual matters.
This isn't an isolated example -- this happens all the time. Going on NYT and criticizing american exceptionalism seems incredibly hypocritical to me.
EDIT2: I also feel compelled to point out either the sleaziness or sloppy thinking (you decide which one) of taking a single character from a work of fiction and extrapolating it to a conclusion about an entire people (of course in service of "proving" that Americans are far baser people than the Russians).
It's not poetry, it's a self critical fable. It's so obvious too, "you can't understand it" because it's not logical. This is in line with everyone being proud of how Russian roads are the worst in the world. This particular attitude of being exceptional, regardless if it's exceptionally corrupt or drunk, is perpendicular to the concept of exceptionalism by the virtue of being chosen by God as special people. The concept of American self-righteousness does not exist in Russia the way it does in US.
>Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union this reads like something from the Onion.
I'm curious, were you born and raised in the former Soviet Union?
Also this might be nitpicking, but Americans don't typically believe that they were chosen by god as special people. They typically believe that they're special people because they themselves made it happen (which IMO is largely true).
Jon Stewart, arguably a much better and more intelligent comedian than Zadornov, makes much more ignorant jokes (vodka/bears/Putin) about Russia than Zadornov, whos jokes in part play on the fact that Westerners simply don't have to be smart about some things because they don't deal with 3rd world problems. A lot of people who like Zadornov know this and are crying through tears.
It's a bit complicated. Both Russian disgust towards ethnitities they consider inferior, and their bloated exceptionalism are manifestations of massive national inferiority complex that nearly everyone there suffers from.
UK has this trait also and it is well illustrated in "Great Britain".
Russia might have been a great place to live, if it weren't for rampant corruption. It's sad, but on a personal level, I just can't take the risk of raising a family there or trying to do business. In US, entrepreneurship carriers financial and psychological risks, but in Russia it carriers very real physical harm risks, in addition to vastly greater financial risks.
It's not openly taught in schools but most ethnic Russians consider themselves higher race and everyone else is intellectually inferior.
This is even taught by Russian Orthodox Church. I graduated from high school after Soviet Union collapsed. We had this course called Christian Morality. In the class room I learned curious thing. It turned out that Jews drank blood of innocent Christian infants during their religious rituals. I am not kidding you.
Russian exceptionalism is outright nationalism and borderline nazism. My own father is openly hostile Ukrainians and Pols (other Slavic people). Why? Well, because they are Ukrainians and Pols and are not Russian. Therefore, it makes them half-human.
Soviet and Russian empires are long gone. But Putin and many Russians still dream to restore it.
This is a common misconception. The "Great" part it not meant in the sense of it being important or excellent. Rather, it refers to the size of the island.
The name "Great Britain" has been around since the UK was a wet and rainy corner of the Roman Empire - in a sense, it is a relic of an empirical past... just not the British Empire.
>but Americans don't typically believe that they were chosen by god as special people.
very funny. That's what American Exceptionalism is pretty much about if you listen to the right of the political spectrum.
It makes perfect sense. A Russian doesn't have to imagine what it's like to go hungry, he just knows from experience.
when i read those lines i was just enjoying the chiding he gives the american national psyche. i delighted in the kong of putin with one hand drawing obama closer and with the other preparing to slap him for being so proud.
In fact, I think it is very helpful to see what an eloquent and reasonable public statement can be created by someone who advocates policies so awful.
We are inclined by nature to treat the public opinions and actions of world leaders as internal to themselves, rather than ones simply chosen by expediency. If Russia were in a different situation, if Russia's public felt differently, if Putin ruled a different nation, the same man would produce a statement through the bureaucracy and the PR folk which would be entirely different.
In other words, when reading statements by world leaders, our natural inclinations to judge the accuracy, worth and truth of what is said are entirely worthless. The whole thing is manufactured by highly, highly competent organizations which can produce whatever gems are required of them.
See: http://www.amazon.com/The-Man-Without-Face-Unlikely/dp/15944...
link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour_revolution
Another move that makes it plausible that this is in fact his reasoning for the "gay propaganda" law is the "foreign agent" law.
The foreign agent law makes it mandatory for NGO's to be transparent about who they are associated with, and from which foreign country they receive money.
To me, this paranoia is going overboard, but on the other hand there are precedents where coups happened after NGO's, that received money and other resources from foreign governments, incited protests.
And inciting protests from within is probably one of the few options left, if you want to facilitate a regime change in Russia, since conventional war is not going to go well with that many nukes on both sides of the table.
As long as you're not gay.
America is known for being religious in general, so this line will work well with his target audience, in general.
Using tomahawk diplomacy against Syria was never a good idea. And "unbelievably small" strikes against Assad's regime was just a stupid threat to make. Chemical weapons are only a tiny part of the many very serious and relevant (even to Americans) geopolitical issues at stake in the Syrian civil war right now. A handful of bombing runs would be unlikely to improve the situation, even in regards to preventing the use of chemical weapons.
But I can guarantee you that Putin cares not the slightest about the citizens of Syria. His interests are with maintaining the Assad regime, as a geopolitical ally, and extracting money from Syria through arms trade. But now he has an opening to rub America's nose in a very public foreign policy failure. The president doesn't want to get involved in Syria but he set a "red line", which has been crossed repeatedly, and now he's forced into an enormously uncomfortable spot. And while the US wriggles out of this snare Putin will take as much geopolitical advantage out of the situation as he possibly can. Which will be a lot. Because he is very skilled at this game and everyone else (the US, France, even the UNSC) has already put their cards out on the table for everyone to see.
Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. He stated that the Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks, that documents show Syrian generals reviewing the results after the attack, and that they planned to continue and expand the attack after the initial wave of gas was used. I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims.
Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have, which is the ban of chemical weapons. If they aren't punished, then we are telling the world that it is OK to use chemical weapons.
Putin claims that the United States' position with Iran will be weakened if we intervene. The opposite is clearly true; our prior negotiations with Syria over their acquisition of chemical weapons in many ways mirrors our ongoing negotiations with Iran. We told Syria there was a red line and they crossed it. If we don't intervene in Syria, we are effectively telling Iran that our word is meaningless.
Putin's claims that an intervention will cause an escalation of the conflict and more terrorism are simply not true. The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way.
Our objective would be to prevent the Syrian army from using chemical weapons again, and show the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Intervention would lower the risk of chemical weapons being used in the future, help discourage nuclear proliferation, and prevent the U.S.'s credibility in the region from being destroyed.
>Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened.
You've made quite a jump to go from one sentence arguing that Obama is more credible than Putin to (indirectly) calling Putin a liar.
From what I've read, the following claims have been made by the Obama administration [1]:
1) Possess satellite imagery showing rockets firing from a location controlled by the Syrian army.
2) Transcripts of Syrian officials telling forces to ready gas masks.
3) Transcripts of Syrian officials discussing how to handle U.N. investigators inspecting the aftermath.
If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? Maybe this is already in the works, but I've seen no mention of it.
[1]http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusuniteds...
The thought is that Russia will find a way to veto the proposal no matter what, because they have financial interests in Syria.
I'm sure plenty of people will jump on some kind of "LOL you trust Obama?!?" bandwagon, but I agree with you. But.
I think we've seen the NSA as an example of a government body out of control. I don't believe anyone in power knew the full extent of what they were doing - after all, why risk telling Obama when you already have all the money and leverage you need anyway?
My roundabout conclusion is this - I don't see any reason why the US does not declassify at least some of this evidence. Because I don't trust that vested interests haven't manipulated things in order to get what they want.
The image of Colin Powell being sent with his slides full of incontrovertible "evidence", like a lamb to the slaughter to the UN to justify the Iraq invasion has left me scarred for life such that I can never trust again such so called "evidence" unless it comes from a multiplicity of neutral sources, most especially somewhere other than the US government.
I don't care what the President may have said. He was fed it by the same military-industrial establishment that stands to benefit to the tune of billions (or even hundreds of billions) of dollars every time a major war breaks out. Probably the same high level advisors that came up with the idea Iraq was a "slam dunk", and fed into the willing ears of the bush administration.
>Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks
gas mask are for defense more so than for attack, giving those out is totally reasonable if they feared the insurgence could use gas. using this as an argument is playing to ignorance.
Syria are not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (neither are the USA, Israel or Russia) which is why Kerry has chosen his words carefully and described what the Syrian government did as against international norms, not laws.
> The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way
This is the part of US foreign policy that perplexes me. On one hand you argue that what Syria has done is outrageous, breaks international law, is a threat to American children if not met with force - but on the other hand you argue that its not important enough to risk troops on, and you won't hit them too hard.
The US, Russia and Israel most certainly are signatories to the CWC. US and Russia both ratified in 1997, Israel has signed but not ratified. The CWC had the force of law once it had 65 signatories. Why would you not bother to check such a simple fact before posting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...
Maybe there should be a UN resolution requiring all countries in the Middle East to declare and destroy their chemical weapons under UN supervision.
But I doubt he honestly believes in all of this. This rationalization just happens to coincide with his (and Russia's) interests.
I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on my own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.
I'd prefer if he didn't, silence is a cancer. If anything has been blatantly apparent in the last 20 or 30 years it's that the American people as a whole simply cannot form any correct conclusion about anything that actually matters.
Sure, they'll all ring in to vote on American Idol, but it's a tough sell to vote yes on gay marriage.
They'll make sure they hit 'like' on hundreds of Facebook posts in a day, but can't bring themselves to make an educated vote in an election (or even vote at all).
Nationalize healthcare and reform social security to help millions of your own countrymen from dying broke? Busy watching Gangnam Style.
Vote out corrupt congressman and other government officials who take massive payouts from lobbyists? Football's on, get out of the way.
The information age has quickly turned into the distraction age, and it's showing.
And yet that has a fair degree of legal protection at the federal level and is legal in multiple states now, whereas in Russia it is now a crime to promote the view that homosexuality is normal.
The American people have always been politically conservative and reluctant to abandon their residual Calvinism; if you think this is peculiar to the last 20 or 30 years you're dead wrong.
I'm not sure who this is trying to convince. People who agree with him like me, it probably won't affect much. People who want to invade Syria are the type of people that will see his name and only feel vindicated in their belief. You know Fox News, et al. will spam their viewers with "This is what Putin says, it must be wrong."
I don't know if there is really a lot of people sitting on the fence on this one, other than the apathetic who won't read it anyway.
And he's doing a great job. The offer to get Syria to put their chemical weapons under international control was brilliant. Obama was saying, "They crossed a red line, there's no option but military," and then Putin put forth a peaceful solution.
That the rational thing to do as a reader is to ignore his identity and examine his arguments is mostly irrelevant, since that's not actually what people do. I suspect it's a miscalculation.
Edit: minor changes for clarity
The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of-the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very blunt instrument that cause a lot of civilian casualties when used. More innocent people died during the U.S. occupation than under Hussein! A big reason for this was the U.S.'s over-reliance on technology. Instead of using foot-patrols and talking to the locals, who might have been inclined to point out that they'd seen rebels planting IED's, U.S. SOP was to ride over the locals (and anything else) in tanks and hummers and call in air-strikes if they felt threatened. Forces from other nations, such as the UK, proved the effectiveness of foot-patrols, but the U.S. still largely ignores this. Technology has transformed the face of war, but the fundamental fact that boots on the ground are what let you hold territory has not changed one bit. The U.S. ignored this in Vietnam, ignored this in the first Iraq war, ignored it in the second Iraq war, and continues to ignore it in Afghanistan. You can't cower in a fort, blowing things up with rockets and drones and expect to actually provide security!
What the U.S. proposes to do is to keep their soldiers safe in remote locations while raining robotic death down on Syrian government positions that, if they weren't already hardened, probably started preparing for air strikes after the 2006 war with Israel (Note: Israel was attacking Hezbollah, but did far more damage to civilian infrastructure). Will air strikes have much of an impact on Syrian government forces? What security will Syrian civilians gain as a result?
There are ways to provide security for Syrian civilians, but all they require boots on the ground. A force could be sent to get in between the rebels and government forces, but they'd get the holy hell pounded out of them from both sides! Peace-making forces do not exist for a reason. If a cease-fire could be negotiated, perhaps peace-keeping forces could be sent in. This carries a lot of risk if negotiations break down. A third option is to occupy a portion of Syria or territory bordering with Syria, establish refugee camps, and try to provide ways for civilians to relocate safely.
It's great that the U.S. wants to do something to help Syrian civilians, but blowing stuff up like retarded cowboys isn't the answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_emb...
The victims of such bombings are called in U.S. newspeak the "collateral damage." That would be the language if they'd hit the chemical weapons storages.
To comprehend responsabilities and "who did what" you just have to look at the situation with critic eye, ignore all the politics (and propaganda that comes with it, the US are masters. Just calling it with a different name: PR and Marketing) and just look for the side which is actually gaining anything from ongoing events.
I bet that 99% of the people reading this know absolutely nothing about Syria. And you all probably know nothing about Russia too. Everything you know is from news (which honestly, aren't a good source for understanding a culture) and - maybe - from a bit of literature.
That said, my very pesonal opinion is that Assad is an extremely culturate person with very close western connections. He has a degree in medicine, studied abroad, has chosen a wife which lived almost all her life in England, etc.. Surely he isn't an idiot and knows perfectly that the only thing he needs to do to stay alive and (maybe) win the war is to NOT provoke the UN and Western countries. An outside intervention is the only actual real chance of victory for the rebels, therefore they are very very likely the people behind the gas attack.
One very last thought:
Let's talk about Fallujah, as a general example. Iraq War 2003 [1] where the US Army used White phosphorus on unarmed civilians to "regain" the control of the city after a few tens of insurgents killed 4 US contractors. Bitch please.
I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't go to war when the only reasoning behind it is evidence that you're fitting to your model.
Why would Assad use chemical weapons when he knows that the US is looking for a reason to invade?
He isn't an idiot.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/graphic/2013/sep/03/syria-c...
It isn't very good, it seems to be a case of finding scraps that fit your narrative rather than building a case.
One thing that leads me to believe that it might have been the rebels: the civilians and soldiers killed in that rebel controlled area around Damascus were part of the more moderate Syrian opposition forces. It is actually one of the few areas controlled by moderate opposition. It is entirely possible that the Salafists or more extreme al Qaeda associated forces carried out the attack using captured supplies. They dislike the moderate opposition about as much as they dislike Assad, and prompting US action suits them the most.
First and foremost is Putin needs to keep Syria in place to prevent Europe from having access to another natural gas pipeline that he or his allies do not have influence over. Qatar wants to sell natural gas to Europe, they want to build a pile line to do it. Well they need/want to go through Syria to get there.
Second, Syria is home to a Russian naval base, their only one in the region.
Third, Syria buys a lot of weapons from Russia, they buy quite a bit of other materials as well.
Fourth, outside of Syria Russia's only real ally in the area is Iran but they are a bit more off the leash than Syria is.
Top it off with one of the weakest in international affairs US administrations and you give Putin the means to control the worlds opinion. Lets be honest, the amount of dithering on how to act by this Administration is really depressing. It almost seems they were convinced the Middle East would love them and do want they //the Administration // wanted just because they weren't GW Bush. Yet, we have Benghazi, we have the indecision regarding Egypt, Iran is off and running catching drones or faking it all the while mocking the US, and now Syria has shown this Administration is clueless. Its almost as if there are a dozen cooks all trying to do stuff and they either don't make a decision or one does something forcing the others.
TL;DR
Putin's concerns are economic (natural gas), military (base/arms sales), and prestige. With a weak US Presidency he saw an opportunity and took it. Sadly he is/might pull it off
... and I just saw that it's written by Putin. Wow.
Does he think we are stupid?
Nobody could give a rats ass about Syria other than those who are part of the Iran vs just about everyone else game of regional influence.
International law is like the Pirate's code. It's is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. It's convenient to use it to validate kicking some ass. And it's ignored when you need to kick ass regardless of the circumstances.
Yes, Putin, this new turn of events is great for making Russia look like a big power, but the only reason the U.S. is even looking at this is because we really, really don't want to bother with Syria. In fact, we kind of like that Assad is weakened by the civil war but still strong enough to stay in power. That means he is well occupied, but we still know who it is that we are dealing with.
Unfortunately, Obama screwed up with that red line thing. He didn't have to say that. He could have made his case regardless if he really wanted to. But chemical weapons are certainly a problem. We don't want those things coming back at us. And even if the Assad regime were to go down, we would probably need boots on the ground to secure those stocks. So, giving the chemical weapons over to international control is a slice of pie handed to us on a silver platter.
We doubt that you can really pull this off, Putin, but we thank you for trying. At best, this would help ease one of our biggest worries, and at worst it allows us to kick the can down the road a bit farther.
Thanks!
That shouldn't be relevant to judging the quality of Putin's argument. I think it's a very reasonable one.
I also wonder how common place it is for major heads of state to write essays in the Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/opinion/06obama.html
Fun footnote:
Barack Obama is the president of the United States.
- If they express view point it's, "advance their interest"
- If they don't, they are arrogant or indecisive
What you are saying is,
- If your view is not same as my opinion, I will find an excuse to insult you.
Deleted comment
Putin says:
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.
Then later:
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction.
Its almost like you think people who plea guilty in court are actually always truly guilty.
> I did not shoot anyone. > You can take the gun, so I won't be able to shoot anyone.
They don't need to be reconciled because they are not in conflict.
2) Some rebel groups may have chemical weapons and if they use them Assad might feel like he can use his in defense.
Wow, if Putin communicated with Russian voters in the same manner, he would totally have me as a voter!
On the other hand - I do agree with many of his other views expressed here. It certainly is a tough situation, and I have no idea how I would react if I had the power to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...
http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
They're starting another proxy war right now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-be...
The actual reality of what he thinks can be known only to himself, the best we can go on (for him, and indeed anybody else. Hell, even the pope...) is what he claims.
* Qatar wants to establish a pipeline between them and Turkey for natural gas, but Syria is between them.
* Turkey would partner with Qatar for transiting natural gas to Europe.
* Russia has a strangle-hold on the natural gas market in Europe, so Syria would prefer Qatar not send natural gas to Europe.
* Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria.
I won't go into the complex incestuous intertwining of geopolitical relationships, but the above points are pretty much what broke the camels back.
Let them kill each other in the Middle East and show the world what "the religion of peace" is all about.
Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he didn't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in South Ossetia in 2008.
Actually, Putin stated that the UN Charter allows military action either in self-defense, or by a decision of the Security Council. Which is accurate.
The Georgians attacked the South Ossetian capital, killing a number of Russian peacekeepers stationed there. Big mistake, because it supplied the "self-defense" component that Russia needed to justify their intervention.
The EU commission later found that the Russian response to Georgian provocations was a legitimate use of force. However, they also noted that Russia should have stopped at the border.
This will go over just as well as the malaise speech. It's a nice attempt at trying to make a great nation humble, but that's not going to happen. :(
He called a vote and a debate for the Congress and now called it off. So on top of the whole mess now there are hurt feelings and egos. What comes now are talks. Which take time and can you know - fail. So in 3 months when Bashar tells Yuck Fou with the silent support of China and Russia, Obama will stand all alone, the chemical attack faded from the memory, the president not dared to respond to the red line and with no friends whatsoever.
If going to Congress was a gambit this is Russian roulette. With semi-automatic pistol.