Article by Putin on the USA and Syria

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for iHarlequin
iHarlequin

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 iHarlequin
Member since 2011 • 1928 Posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

"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."


"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."


"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."


"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in Americas 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 youre either with us or against us."


"And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States policy is what makes America different. Its 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."


---

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusion that Putin is a saint, but he does raise valid points (regardless of his personal credibility). The USA has shown time and again that the UN matters nothing to it, and that whenever its interests are confronted it'll just bypass whatever ruling went against them. He goes on to cite how the USA has made international invasions a common affair for them, and how that is affecting its public opininon amongst other countries (and I'd argue that amongst its own people).

 

What I find most interesting is how he finishes his article -- calling out Obama on his speech of regarding 'Americans' as exceptional, with the obvious implication that they are inherently  better  than other nations. Needless to say, when you're better (or under that impression) than someone else, opressing them and then justifying that it's for their own good, and that the US, as an advanced nation, knows this already, is easy. The USA needs to understand that democracy comes at its own pace, not at the cost of military intervention - and it needs to understand that when it breaks international law, it's comitting international crime. But who will hold these crimes against them?

Avatar image for VaguelyTagged
VaguelyTagged

10702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 VaguelyTagged
Member since 2009 • 10702 Posts

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

Avatar image for iHarlequin
iHarlequin

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 iHarlequin
Member since 2011 • 1928 Posts

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

VaguelyTagged

 

He didn't dodge anything - the article was comissioned by the N.Y. Times and requested he speak of the U.S., its foreign policy and the particular case of Syria. And by your first statement I assume you agree with all he's said, than?

Avatar image for II_Seraphim_II
II_Seraphim_II

20534

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 II_Seraphim_II
Member since 2007 • 20534 Posts

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

VaguelyTagged
Both sides, US and Russia are just as grimey as each other. US has been supplying the rebels with weapons. If they hadn't done that, the rebels would have been crushed quickly, the civil war would have ended a long time ago, and there would have been far less casualties. Russia has been doing the same, but instead with the Syrian government,. No good guys in this situation, all that happened here is that Putin outmaneuvered Obama...I'm waiting to see what Obama does next :P
Avatar image for VaguelyTagged
VaguelyTagged

10702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 VaguelyTagged
Member since 2009 • 10702 Posts

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

iHarlequin

 

He didn't dodge anything - the article was comissioned by the N.Y. Times and requested he speak of the U.S., its foreign policy and the particular case of Syria. And by your first statement I assume you agree with all he's said, than?

i don't think his intervention in Georgia was exactly a form of self defense, also he's not in a position to warn anyone about feeling exceptional while his country holds veto power.
Avatar image for iHarlequin
iHarlequin

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 iHarlequin
Member since 2011 • 1928 Posts

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

VaguelyTagged

 

He didn't dodge anything - the article was comissioned by the N.Y. Times and requested he speak of the U.S., its foreign policy and the particular case of Syria. And by your first statement I assume you agree with all he's said, than?

i don't think his intervention in Georgia was exactly a form of self defense, also he's not in a position to warn anyone about feeling exceptional while his country holds veto power.

 

I don't think you know what you're talking about. South Ossetia has been an independent country since 1990. Georgia has tried to claim it back multiple times, and in 2008 - after they declared war and invaded the country - Russia intervened in defence of its ally (motivated by the loss of a few of its diplomats in S. Ossetian territory by Georgian attacks). How you link that - an international conflict - to an internal rebellion between a government and a group of rebels is beyond me - specially because, by definition, Russia acted in self defense (not that that was the real motive, but it gave them legitimacy).

 

Elaborate on your notion of veto power and exceptionalism, then.

 

Edit1: Orthography

Edit2: independence was in '90, not '92.

Avatar image for LordQuorthon
LordQuorthon

5803

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 LordQuorthon
Member since 2008 • 5803 Posts

UN is evil islamist-communist plot to destroy Morica and take away our guns. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A SOCIALIST COUNTRY? UNITED NATIONS = SOCIALISM. REPTILIAN RACE OF MARXISTS OVERLORDS!!! IT'S IN THE BIBLE! 

Avatar image for iHarlequin
iHarlequin

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 iHarlequin
Member since 2011 • 1928 Posts

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"]

nothing we didn't already know, plus he's dodged to explain the role Russia has been playing in the conflict.

II_Seraphim_II

Both sides, US and Russia are just as grimey as each other. US has been supplying the rebels with weapons. If they hadn't done that, the rebels would have been crushed quickly, the civil war would have ended a long time ago, and there would have been far less casualties. Russia has been doing the same, but instead with the Syrian government,. No good guys in this situation, all that happened here is that Putin outmaneuvered Obama...I'm waiting to see what Obama does next :P

 

Not really an 'as grimey as' situation. Even if the Syrian government is a dictatorship, it is internationally recognized as legitimate and sovereign - Russia supplying it with weapons is not a crime, per international law, but the U.S. giving weapons to a rebel faction (with dubious intentions, might I say) is. As I said when the US invaded Iraq, I'd rather have a secular, level-headed dictator who's actually working towards the progress of society and equality (religious freedom, gender equality, etc.) than a state ruled by religious extremists. Besides, these so-called rebels don't even have a significant popular support (certainly not amongst the ethnical/religious minorities). It's often been from a revolution or rebellion that advancement has come, but I don't think this is the case - if anything, it would be a step back to allow a violent minorty, with no legitimacy and representation, to hold the power of a country which, compared to its "theocratic" neighbours, is as advanced as Iraq was prior to 2001.

Avatar image for LOXO7
LOXO7

5595

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 LOXO7
Member since 2008 • 5595 Posts
Putin or his aids showing their cleverness on how to have the US stay out of Syria. If you attack Syria you attack the UN. This is bad on the presidential administration because last year they believed that they needed permission from the UN to attack Syria. Putin is just reminding them on what they once non-forgetfully believed.