81–90 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.
He also happens to have a naval base there.
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." 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…
While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." 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…
It might be helpful to remember that this is merely a well written op-ed with Putin's name attached to it. It's an international relations gambit to influence the American public to consider Russia's point of view. To get bogged down by the name attached to the editorial is to miss the importance of the content.
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." 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…
While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.
... 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!
"There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] 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." 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 re…
Aside from the rest of your comment... >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.
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." 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…
It might be helpful to remember that this is merely a well written op-ed with Putin's name attached to it. It's an international relations gambit to influence the American public to consider Russia's point of view. To get bogged down by the name attached to the editorial is to miss the importance of the content.
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." 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…
While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an ad hominem attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits, regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.
Putin (or his representatives) knows his audience. This piece eschews the normal alpha bravado that I would expect from Putin in favor of a coherent argument in favor of restraint. I found myself not merely nodding along, but inspired, and I hope that we can at least agree with him on this. It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United State…
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.