On September 11, 2013 an op-ed penned by President Vladimir Putin of Russia appeared in the New York Times. What follows is my take on what I considered the questionable points.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
It is possible if the UN drags it's ass applying leverage, as well.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Of course, Syria has stood alone without weapons supplied to them. I love "300" and "The Alamo."
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.”
Millions around the world see America as a model of democracy, also.
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. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
Yes, we must follow the law whether we like it or not, and that includes law against using chemical weapons.
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. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
This is enough bullshit to solve the fertilizer problem for eternity.
More below the fold.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
Again, I agree. If you cannot count on international law to protect you from those such as Bashir-al-Assad, you have to do something.
I wouldn't give up on non-proliferation, Mr Putin; after all, America and Russia are regular beavers when it comes to destroying their chemical weapons.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
Climb in the way-back machine and tell that to Assad circa March 6, 2011.
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.
Show me one solitary nation that doesn't already think of itself as exceptional. No encouragement is required. It's a human thing. Go-Team-GO! Get it?!
We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
From the bowels of the KGB Holy of Holies to you know who.