3 ms·

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

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.

foxhedgehog 13y ago
"I agree." -- Attilla the Hun
akiselev 13y ago
The content is nothing new, the author is the only interesting part of this article.
- waps 13y ago
  I doubt very much it's defending Russia's point of view. It's defending a point of view that has the outcome as Russia's and that Russia would like people to adopt, but I think we can be 100% certain it is not, in fact, Russia's point of view. Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others. So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?
  - teamgb 13y ago
    Er, Russia has huge interest in the region, as do the other players. There are two competing natural gas pipelines being built, both of which must transit through Syria to get to the Mediterranean. What's at stake is who gets to sell energy to Europe for the next 50-100 years! None of this is a secret. The Financial Times and others have reported on this over the years.
    - waps 13y ago
      Yes I didn't realize the gas pipeline. I think I saw the bond movie on the subject then just thought that any reference to that pipeline I found was a reference to the movie. But yeah that does look like a pretty serious issue. (Although fossil fuels in the middle east will run out long before 50 years pass, so I doubt it's all that accurate)
  - toyg 13y ago
    >Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). I hope you're kidding. Apart from the obvious generic interests everyone has in the region (oil, pipelines and all that), Syria is one of the top 5 buyers of Russian military hardware and is a long-standing Russian ally in a region immediately South of Russia proper. The whole Syria/Iraq/Iran/Turkey setup is of deep concern to the natural security interests of Russia, which is in actual target range of missiles from that area. It'd be like saying that the US have no big interest in Caribbean and Central American states.
    - foobarqux 13y ago
      More importantly Syria falling weakens Iran which is the bigger prize.
  - rthomas6 13y ago
    Syria is currently allied with Iran and Russia. The USA would prefer if Syria was not allied with these countries. That is my take.

foxhedgehog 13y ago

"I agree." -- Attilla the Hun

akiselev 13y ago

The content is nothing new, the author is the only interesting part of this article.

waps 13y ago
I doubt very much it's defending Russia's point of view. It's defending a point of view that has the outcome as Russia's and that Russia would like people to adopt, but I think we can be 100% certain it is not, in fact, Russia's point of view. Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). The problem here is that the same can be said about Obama. I do not know what his motivations are, I do think it's extremely likely he could care less about chemical weapons. But that is the whole point Obama's making. So what is his point ? Why does Obama want Assad out of the way ? America's interests lie the other way, the oilfields controlled by Saudi Arabia and others. So what are these "nations"/presidents after ?
- teamgb 13y ago
  Er, Russia has huge interest in the region, as do the other players. There are two competing natural gas pipelines being built, both of which must transit through Syria to get to the Mediterranean. What's at stake is who gets to sell energy to Europe for the next 50-100 years! None of this is a secret. The Financial Times and others have reported on this over the years.
  - waps 13y ago
    Yes I didn't realize the gas pipeline. I think I saw the bond movie on the subject then just thought that any reference to that pipeline I found was a reference to the movie. But yeah that does look like a pretty serious issue. (Although fossil fuels in the middle east will run out long before 50 years pass, so I doubt it's all that accurate)
- toyg 13y ago
  >Russia does not seem to have any big interests in the neighborhood (though it certainly has them nearby). I hope you're kidding. Apart from the obvious generic interests everyone has in the region (oil, pipelines and all that), Syria is one of the top 5 buyers of Russian military hardware and is a long-standing Russian ally in a region immediately South of Russia proper. The whole Syria/Iraq/Iran/Turkey setup is of deep concern to the natural security interests of Russia, which is in actual target range of missiles from that area. It'd be like saying that the US have no big interest in Caribbean and Central American states.
  - foobarqux 13y ago
    More importantly Syria falling weakens Iran which is the bigger prize.
- rthomas6 13y ago
  Syria is currently allied with Iran and Russia. The USA would prefer if Syria was not allied with these countries. That is my take.