10 ms·
Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia
- contingencies 13y agoThat's an extremely well written piece. Clearly Putin has good speechwriters, and the Russian literary tradition is famous! Do you think a US speechwriter could produce such a thing in a foreign language? I doubt it.
- Sagat 13y agoPutin is badass enough not to need speechwriters.
- contingencies 13y agoOh yeah? So you're saying Putin is like Kim Jong Il: he doesn't give speeches very often, but when he does, it's always to a standing ovation.
- zmoreira 13y agoWhy would you doubt that Putin is intelligent and articulate? He is Russian so me must be a some crude vodka drinking bear hunter?
- Scienz 13y agoWell, yes. It obviously wouldn't be a foreign language to the speechwriters, of which I assume there were many people involved in writing, editing and reviewing. Unless someone expects an English language document addressed to US citizens to have been written by a Russian-born writer who didn't speak English.
- andrewljohnson 13y agoA lot of this is rhetoric that we expect from Realpolitik, but overall, I think Putin burnishes his and Russia's reputation with this sort of dialog. I also wonder how common place it is for major heads of state to write essays in the Times.
- te_chris 13y agoWell, al Assad has been active in the onion recently....
- hrasyid 13y agolol, good one!
- foxhedgehog 13y agoI believe you mean, "how commonplace it is for major heads of state to commission PR firms to advance their interests in US media."
- bvssatish 13y agoWTF, - If they express view point it's, "advance their interest" - If they don't, they are arrogant or indecisive What you are saying is, - If your view is not same as my opinion, I will find an excuse to insult you.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoI would not insult Putin for not doing this, but your summary would seem to apply to your own comment.
- rhizome 13y agoThere's a whole spectrum in there, you can't just say that all choices imply extreme perceptions.
- skylan_q 13y agoThis double standard is what makes America an exceptional nation. ;)
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- 13y ago
- andyl 13y agoHow is this relevant to HN?
- frinxor 13y agoTheres a lot of stuff thrown into HN these days. I'd say that interesting pieces on world events is a lot better than some local story (such as some local Boston or SF event) which has popped up on the front page from time to time.
- area51org 13y agoHN is about anything that interests the community. It doesn't strictly have to be about hacking. (Witness the number of science articles here.)
- rhizome 13y agoThe logic is that if the submitter is interested in it and also reads HN, then it's relevant to HN. It's a nice circular relationship.
- skylan_q 13y agoIt sets the tone of world affairs. If things went slightly worse in the last few days, there could have been WWIII. I think "hey, we've backed off a bit from dying in a nuclear hellfire" is somewhat relevant. :)
- egze 13y agoSorry it wasn't about another YC company hiring.
- rdl 13y agoThis is of global importance on the order of war being declared between two mid-tier countries. It's probably not worthy of 50 articles about this article on HN, but a single direct link to the primary source seems more than warranted.
- gdy 13y agoIt's got upvoted on HN therefore it's relevant to HN J
- PhasmaFelis 13y agoHow much evidence do we in fact have that the rebels gassed their own people in a false-flag operation? I had heard it was a possibility, Putin seems to think it's all but certain, but I haven't studied the issue in depth.
- fludlight 13y agoIt's a pretty common tactic. IIRC, the Nazis allegedly shelled one of their towns and used it as an excuse to invade Poland. The Soviets were rumored to have done the same with Finland.
- JamisonM 13y agoIt 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.
- ethanazir 13y agoWhich American city will the CIA nuke to push us all into war?
- tedunangst 13y agoAccording to Jericho, there are 24 cities targeted.
- slurry 13y agoHopefully Tulsa.
- zalew 13y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
- arkx 13y agoRumored? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelling_of_Mainila
- welder 13y agoGreat closing paragraph: 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. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal. And yes, it's hypocritical and carefully crafted.
- dnautics 13y agoWell perhaps the pro-Putin youth group will take his words to heart.
- peterstjohn 13y ago"we must not forget that God created us equal." As long as you're not gay.
- cbhl 13y agoIIRC, that's illegal in Russia, unfortunately. America is known for being religious in general, so this line will work well with his target audience, in general.
- spacebe4time 13y agoSomehow I doubt this applies to NY Times readers.
- teamgb 13y agoNot really true from a legal perspective. It is legal to be gay in Russia, but the recently passed law makes it illegal to spread "propaganda of nontraditional sexual relations to minors".
- skylan_q 13y agoAnd 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. This will go over just as well as the malaise speech. It's a nice attempt at trying to make a great nation humble, but that's not going to happen. :(
- gph 13y agoI can't say I disagree with a lot of what he says. But I doubt he honestly believes in all of this. This rationalization just happens to coincide with his (and Russia's) interests. I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on my own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.
- stefantalpalaru 13y agoTake 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).
- gph 13y agoTrue. 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. will spam their viewers with "This is what Putin says, it must be wrong." I don't know if there is really a lot of people sitting on the fence on this one, other than the apathetic who won't read it anyway.
- jackowayed 13y agoHe's not trying to convince anyone. It's all posturing. He's trying to look as good as possible (look like a reasonable, restrained, trustable major player in international politics), and put the US in a position where we look as bad as possible if we do intervene. 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.
- icambron 13y agoThis. If you were looking for a reason to support the war, that it goes against Russia's interests is a pretty good one. Reminding people of that seems unwise. Putin would be smart to distance himself from it, since he must know the American people dislike him and consider Russian interests to be a threat. That the rational thing to do as a reader is to ignore his identity and examine his arguments is mostly irrelevant, since that's not actually what people do. I suspect it's a miscalculation. Edit: minor changes for clarity
- iamshs 13y agoThis piece hits the right spot for a very wide demographic. He evokes trust through previous collaboration during WW2, mentions cold war, pope and increasing trust between nations and then goes on to evoke empathy from the people using "we are one" kind of deal, and even manages to sneak in a reference to League of Nations tangentially hinting/threatening irrelevance of UN. I am fairly impressed. I wish I could write such an elegant Cover letter. Opening paragraph sets the tone, and finishing one solidifies it. A good piece, nevertheless, wherever individual opinions lie.
- ethanazir 13y ago"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not." ... unless you are a rogue regime that wants to use chemical weapons?
- foxhedgehog 13y agoOr if we work for the KGB, of course.
- muerdeme 13y agoPutin (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 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.”
- rdl 13y agoAssad's media consultants also did an excellent job with his TV appearance (I assume they were Lebanese?). He basically was in the context of a US voter or politician making a seemingly sane and rational appeal.
- light3 13y agoWhat are the chances Putin didn't write the article?
- JacobSkyler 13y agoHe probably directed the writing of the article but I doubt he actually sat down and wrote it with his own hand.
- ihsw 13y agoThere are some grammatical and capitalization errors, and numerous comma splices (stringing similar sentence fragments together in an effort to form a coherent statement). There was also usage of very short sentences in repeated succession. Those are mostly stylistic issues but they're indicative of non-native grasp of the English language. Furthermore it's clearly written by someone with enough capability to express themselves eloquently and succinctly, but as mentioned it's clearly non-native.
- sytelus 13y ago
- dariusm5 13y agoHere's a good read regarding the Syria conflict and how Russia and other world powers are involved: http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...
- mitchelllc 13y agowhat all of them want are just two things: power and money
- alexhomer1 13y ago"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 results after the attack, and that they planned to continue and expand the attack after the initial wave of gas was used. I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have, which is the ban of chemical weapons. If they aren't punished, then we are telling the world that it is OK to use chemical weapons. Putin claims that the United States' position with Iran will be weakened if we intervene. The opposite is clearly true; our prior negotiations with Syria over their acquisition of chemical weapons in many ways mirrors our ongoing negotiations with Iran. We told Syria there was a red line and they crossed it. If we don't intervene in Syria, we are effectively telling Iran that our word is meaningless. Putin's claims that an intervention will cause an escalation of the conflict and more terrorism are simply not true. The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way. Our objective would be to prevent the Syrian army from using chemical weapons again, and show the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Intervention would lower the risk of chemical weapons being used in the future, help discourage nuclear proliferation, and prevent the U.S.'s credibility in the region from being destroyed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- untog 13y agoI would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. I'm sure plenty of people will jump on some kind of "LOL you trust Obama?!?" bandwagon, but I agree with you. But. I think we've seen the NSA as an example of a government body out of control. I don't believe anyone in power knew the full extent of what they were doing - after all, why risk telling Obama when you already have all the money and leverage you need anyway? My roundabout conclusion is this - I don't see any reason why the US does not declassify at least some of this evidence. Because I don't trust that vested interests haven't manipulated things in order to get what they want.
- snowwrestler 13y agoThe block in the UN is Russia. If Putin wanted action in Syria to carry the UN imprimatur, he could make that happen tomorrow.
- cdash 13y agoWell that is kind of the point of the UN.
- jnardiello 13y agoChina. You are forgetting about China.
- anigbrowl 13y agoChina has no dog in this fight, and getting them onside just involves reminding them how they feel about the Japanese use of chemical weapons in the battle of Changde.
- raquo 13y agoI 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.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoHe also happens to have a naval base there.
- handsomeransoms 13y agoIt's also their only naval base in the Middle East: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartu...
- gdy 13y agoWhich is tiny and nearly unused
- graeme 13y agoThere are many comments here about Putin's character and policies. That shouldn't be relevant to judging the quality of Putin's argument. I think it's a very reasonable one.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoI also thought that "Industrial Society and Its Future" made some good points.
- InclinedPlane 13y agoPutin 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 (even to Americans) geopolitical issues at stake in the Syrian civil war right now. A handful of bombing runs would be unlikely to improve the situation, even in regards to preventing the use of chemical weapons. But I can guarantee you that Putin cares not the slightest about the citizens of Syria. His interests are with maintaining the Assad regime, as a geopolitical ally, and extracting money from Syria through arms trade. But now he has an opening to rub America's nose in a very public foreign policy failure. The president doesn't want to get involved in Syria but he set a "red line", which has been crossed repeatedly, and now he's forced into an enormously uncomfortable spot. And while the US wriggles out of this snare Putin will take as much geopolitical advantage out of the situation as he possibly can. Which will be a lot. Because he is very skilled at this game and everyone else (the US, France, even the UNSC) has already put their cards out on the table for everyone to see.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoYes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- pcrooks 13y agoVery, very circular argument Mr Putin. He strongly defends the UN security council as being the custodian of international law. Yet, he seems to say that he is using his veto to disallow action - because action without full consent would be in contravention of that law. 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.
- dill_day 13y agoIf there's "every reason to believe" it's the opposition forces and not the Syrian government in control of and using chemical weapons, what good does it do for the Syrian government to "place its chemical arsenal under international control"? How can these two statements be reconciled? 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.
- cdash 13y agoMaybe to satisfy the stupid Americans? I am not sure what you are getting at, offering up your chemical weapons when some country that can crush you is about to attack you because they suspect that you used them even if they don't provide any proof is not admitting guilt. Its almost like you think people who plea guilty in court are actually always truly guilty.
- Demiurge 13y agoI think you can reconcile them the same way as these two statements. > I did not shoot anyone. > You can take the gun, so I won't be able to shoot anyone. They don't need to be reconciled because they are not in conflict.
- kbrwn 13y ago1)The instability of Syria could cause the rebels to gain access to unsecured chemical weapons that the obviously incompetent Assad govt may have. 2) Some rebel groups may have chemical weapons and if they use them Assad might feel like he can use his in defense.
- jlgreco 13y agoAssad has chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were used. Assad did not necessarily use chemical weapons.
- cremnob 13y agoThis is actually a great piece of propaganda that serves Russia's strategic interests. Judging by the comments here and on the NYT, it seems to be working. 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.
- tanzam75 13y ago> 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. Actually, Putin stated that the UN Charter allows military action either in self-defense, or by a decision of the Security Council. Which is accurate. The Georgians attacked the South Ossetian capital, killing a number of Russian peacekeepers stationed there. Big mistake, because it supplied the "self-defense" component that Russia needed to justify their intervention. The EU commission later found that the Russian response to Georgian provocations was a legitimate use of force. However, they also noted that Russia should have stopped at the border.
- foobarqux 13y agoObama's address is actually a great piece of propaganda that serves the United States' strategic interests. Judging by the comments here and on the NYT, it seems to be working.
- akiselev 13y ago"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 as a global hegemon on par with the United States. The Russian state has assassinated journalists [2] and jailed political opponents with impunity while the bureaucracy (now intertwined with organized crime) steals money at an alarming rate [3]. They don't even bother to hide it anymore (Egregious example: Magnitsky [4] and Litvinenko [5]). I hate the idea of the US getting involved with a civil war on the other side of the world and Putin is right in his logic, but as an immigrant from Russia I can't help but feel I'm reading the same propaganda but with a translator. If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the better of two devils, we're in deep shit. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-russia-mafia-kleptocracy http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cable... [2] There's a whole damn wikipedia article dedicated to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R... [3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-defense-b_n_866050.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-def... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy Edit: To clarify, yes this is emotional and ad hominem. But come on, how many of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following international law? This article is only on the front page of HN because of its author and it bears remembering how Putin's actions have spoken far louder than his words.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- venus 13y agoIrony, you say? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I agree with you, of course - Putin is by all accounts a monster, and he has no moral standing whatsoever. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoGarry Kasparov @Kasparov63 I hope Putin has taken adequate protections. Now that he is a Russian journalist his life may be in grave danger!
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gexla 13y agoThis article seems a bit naive. ... 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!
- jnardiello 13y agoOne general and universally true law: 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. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah
- dandelany 13y agoTl;dr you are all ignorant morons so let me tell you what's going on? Honestly, what did your second paragraph accomplish other than to alienate your audience? I think there's a good chance you're right, but I'm too distracted by the irony of a self-exceptionalist panning a Russian exceptionalist panning American exceptionalism to take you seriously.
- beloch 13y agoPutin is certainly playing to his audience and is guilty of more than a little hypocrisy in this piece, but I tend to agree with his central argument. If the world has any duty to those inside Syria, it is to safeguard the lives of the innocent. How will rocket attacks accomplish this? The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of-the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very blunt instrument that cause a lot of civilian casualties when used. More innocent people died during the U.S. occupation than under Hussein! A big reason for this was the U.S.'s over-reliance on technology. Instead of using foot-patrols and talking to the locals, who might have been inclined to point out that they'd seen rebels planting IED's, U.S. SOP was to ride over the locals (and anything else) in tanks and hummers and call in air-strikes if they felt threatened. Forces from other nations, such as the UK, proved the effectiveness of foot-patrols, but the U.S. still largely ignores this. Technology has transformed the face of war, but the fundamental fact that boots on the ground are what let you hold territory has not changed one bit. The U.S. ignored this in Vietnam, ignored this in the first Iraq war, ignored it in the second Iraq war, and continues to ignore it in Afghanistan. You can't cower in a fort, blowing things up with rockets and drones and expect to actually provide security! What the U.S. proposes to do is to keep their soldiers safe in remote locations while raining robotic death down on Syrian government positions that, if they weren't already hardened, probably started preparing for air strikes after the 2006 war with Israel (Note: Israel was attacking Hezbollah, but did far more damage to civilian infrastructure). Will air strikes have much of an impact on Syrian government forces? What security will Syrian civilians gain as a result? There are ways to provide security for Syrian civilians, but all they require boots on the ground. A force could be sent to get in between the rebels and government forces, but they'd get the holy hell pounded out of them from both sides! Peace-making forces do not exist for a reason. If a cease-fire could be negotiated, perhaps peace-keeping forces could be sent in. This carries a lot of risk if negotiations break down. A third option is to occupy a portion of Syria or territory bordering with Syria, establish refugee camps, and try to provide ways for civilians to relocate safely. It's great that the U.S. wants to do something to help Syrian civilians, but blowing stuff up like retarded cowboys isn't the answer.
- pekk 13y agoIt's amazing that you managed not to mention the chemical weapons issue even one time.
- codex 13y agoThe prism by which this editorial should be viewed is the age old question: what does Putin stand to gain here? And Obama?
- ihsw 13y agoObama and Putin are two figures standing at the front of a very long list of other players pushing behind them. * Qatar wants to establish a pipeline between them and Turkey for natural gas, but Syria is between them. * Turkey would partner with Qatar for transiting natural gas to Europe. * Russia has a strangle-hold on the natural gas market in Europe, so Syria would prefer Qatar not send natural gas to Europe. * Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. I won't go into the complex incestuous intertwining of geopolitical relationships, but the above points are pretty much what broke the camels back.
- sologoub 13y agoWell, the biggest surprise in the article for me is Putin invoking God. Never figured him for a religious man.
- jlgreco 13y agoOnly he and perhaps a few close family members can know if he actually is, but his claimed religion is Russian Orthodox. I don't really see much reason to doubt it.
- sologoub 13y agoHis is a former KGB officer, an organization hardly known for religious tolerance. Most Russians claim Orthodoxy, including me, but Putin is the last person I would associate with any sort of piety.
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm aware of those things, and obviously he knows that everyone else knows that too. If he says he is religious, I don't think mere conjecture is enough to assume that he isn't. The actual reality of what he thinks can be known only to himself, the best we can go on (for him, and indeed anybody else. Hell, even the pope...) is what he claims.
- sologoub 13y agoThat is your opinion, I have mine.
- enupten 13y agoThis a very well laid out essay; kudos to whoever actually wrote it.
- eloff 13y agoArticle without paywall: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-cau...
- cousin_it 13y agoAs a Russian person currently living in Europe and sympathizing with the Russian opposition, this was my first reaction to the article: Wow, if Putin communicated with Russian voters in the same manner, he would totally have me as a voter!
- Grovara123 13y agoWe are all equal... Except for the gay.
- Sagat 13y agoRussia's stance on gays does not invalidate the argument. Syria is an unrelated topic.
- EugeneOZ 13y agoIt's not Russian's stance. I'm russian and I hate all this homofobia in our government. It's shame for us to have that law and it's why I'm anti-patriot of my wild wild country. Please don't treat "Putin" or "russian government" as "whole Russia". More than half of russians hates their president and government. Not dislike, but literally hate. Our government is our shame.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- venomsnake 13y agoMy take on the whole situation. It was a mess and Obama made it worse by playing with Putin. While the back patting in Washington punditry is in full swing how the US threats have worked the reality is Obama is making things worse. He called a vote and a debate for the Congress and now called it off. So on top of the whole mess now there are hurt feelings and egos. What comes now are talks. Which take time and can you know - fail. So in 3 months when Bashar tells Yuck Fou with the silent support of China and Russia, Obama will stand all alone, the chemical attack faded from the memory, the president not dared to respond to the red line and with no friends whatsoever. If going to Congress was a gambit this is Russian roulette. With semi-automatic pistol.
- frank_boyd 13y agoThe CIA certainly should learn a thing or two about caution: They're starting another proxy war right now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-be...
- Shivetya 13y agoPeople need to understand Putin's motives here. First and foremost is Putin needs to keep Syria in place to prevent Europe from having access to another natural gas pipeline that he or his allies do not have influence over. Qatar wants to sell natural gas to Europe, they want to build a pile line to do it. Well they need/want to go through Syria to get there. Second, Syria is home to a Russian naval base, their only one in the region. Third, Syria buys a lot of weapons from Russia, they buy quite a bit of other materials as well. Fourth, outside of Syria Russia's only real ally in the area is Iran but they are a bit more off the leash than Syria is. Top it off with one of the weakest in international affairs US administrations and you give Putin the means to control the worlds opinion. Lets be honest, the amount of dithering on how to act by this Administration is really depressing. It almost seems they were convinced the Middle East would love them and do want they //the Administration // wanted just because they weren't GW Bush. Yet, we have Benghazi, we have the indecision regarding Egypt, Iran is off and running catching drones or faking it all the while mocking the US, and now Syria has shown this Administration is clueless. Its almost as if there are a dozen cooks all trying to do stuff and they either don't make a decision or one does something forcing the others. TL;DR Putin's concerns are economic (natural gas), military (base/arms sales), and prestige. With a weak US Presidency he saw an opportunity and took it. Sadly he is/might pull it off
- foobarqux 13y agoThe US concerns are exactly the same only in opposition.
- drill_sarge 13y agoI am not really a fan of Putin but I agree to the point that the USA are more and more seen as warmongers in the public. Our politicians may never admit/say this, but a lot of people only see the aggression which the US govt is bringing towards their so called enemies. Even a lot of people like the USA and their way of life but almost everyone doesn't like their government.
- dcc1 13y agoWhy get involved? Let them kill each other in the Middle East and show the world what "the religion of peace" is all about.
- joshfraser 13y agoPretend Putin wasn't the author. Do you disagree with any of this?