51–60 of 264 posts
I agree with what he says here but I wonder what his true motivation is. You can see that he wants a strong and stable power in Syria. Easier to deal with and less risk than all these rebels, who in all likelihood will turn out to be either pro-US or fundamentalists, neither of which is good for Russia.
How is this relevant to HN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take it as an opportunity to separate ideas from persons. You may agree with an idea even if you dislike the person proposing it (and the other way around, of course).
True. It certainly hasn't changed my mind on the Syria situation, though it has perhaps stated a lot of what I was thinking a lot more eloquently than I could. 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. wil…
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.
Putin is a stone cold dictator, but he is very sophisticated about it. And here you see how deftly he manipulates public sentiment and perception. Who wouldn't want peace and cooperation? 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 (eve…
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be many things but a common tactic it is not. There might be famous examples in history but their fame is indicative of just how uncommonly it is used.
Which American city will the CIA nuke to push us all into war?