There are parts of Putin's NY Times oped that I am in disagreement with, but for the most part, he is correct.
The major point of contention I have with the Putin oped deals with who has used the chemical weapons. Putin plays the "jury is still out" and false flag card that the rebels used the chemical weapons to bolster their support. He writes:
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
Now onto what I agree or find astounding from this oped.
He explains what unilateral decisions by the United States can do to the legitimacy of the United Nations.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
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.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
He then explains
who is part of the Syrian opposition and what can happen to the US and Russia if this situation spills out of its borders because of a unilateral strike by the United States.
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.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
...
It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa.
And then schools the United States on American exceptionalism
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.
In my honest opinion, this was an amazing or stunning oped by an adversary because he sees the problem at hand. And if Putin wants to be held to a standard in this debate, he is now on the record.
UPDATE [10:34] Pie fighting begins!
http://www.youtube.com/...
UPDATE [10:57]
When I say "remarkable" I don't mean that it is remarkable in the sense that it's amazing. I mean it in the sense of "unprecedented" or "stunning" or "jaw-dropping."
Also, I don't agree with Putin on any of his domestic issues with Chechens or LGBTQ legislation.
