Thursday, September 12, 2013

Putin's Hallucinatory New York Times Op-Ed Piece

Russian President Vladimir Putin's Op-Ed piece in the New York Times today has caused an avalanche of American responses. Everything from "irrelevant" to "I wanted to vomit." It was somewhat shocking for a Russian president to address the American people directly, as Putin did, but before dismissing his message out-of-hand, let's take a look at what he said in its totality. ~~~~~ (1). Putin said this is "a time of insufficient communication between our societies. Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together." Yes, in WWII, American President Roosevelt linked the Soviet Union to the allied Normandy invasion and sweep toward Berlin to create a two-front war that Hitler couldn't handle. But, after the war, the Soviets dropped the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe despite promises made to US-British allies. But, today's lack of communication can be attributed to US President Obama's general lack of communication with world leaders, including sophomoric comments about Putin himself (2). Putin cites the UN as having been created after WWII "to prevent such devastation from ever happening again. 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." While in principle this is true, the Soviet, now, Russian permanent Security Council seat veto has often prevented an otherwise unified world from acting. The effort to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian civil war has been blocked by Russia for two years...not exactly a strong platform from which to lecture America about wanting to act to prevent further massacre of Syrian civilians. (3). Putin writes that an American strike is widely opposed because "it 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." Here, Putin is merely repeating what a majority of Americans and the US Congress believe. (4). Putin says an American strike "could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa....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 militant groups are planning more attacks - this time against Israel - cannot be ignored. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance." Again, Mr. Putin should clean up his own act - Russia supporting Iran's nuclear program and arming Hezbollah and al-Assad are not useful in the effort to resolve the complex Middle East mess. (5). Putin writes that "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country....there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government....This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world." Has Putin forgotten that the al-Assad regime is fighting with Russian-supplied weapons and weapons systems, chemical weapons technology and plants, as well as an air defense system and advisors sold to it by Russia? (6). Concerning the American strike, Putin writes "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." Dare we remind Mr. Putin of Russia's own aggressions in Afghanistan and Chechnya - both undertaken unilaterally as 'internal' matters outside UN jurisfiction and both involving suspected Russian chemical attacks and widespread civilian torture and massacres. Russia is making the same 'internal' conflict argument to protect al-Assad. (7). Putin wants America to stop trying to rule the world. "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.” But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. 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." There are many Americans who agree that Anerican cannot be the world's "policeman." And some countries agree. But, with the UN handcuffed by Russian obstructionism, who can peoples deprived of even the most fundamental human rights - by the way, guaranteed by that same handcuffed UN - turn to if not the largest, most stable democractic power in the world. (8). Concerning the Russian initiative to secure and destroy al-Assad's chemical weapons stockpile and manufacturing capability, Putin writes "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. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action. I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations. If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this." One can only agree. But every other hour, Russia puts new constraints into its chemical weapons proposal. Trust cuts both ways and if Putin is truly serious, he needs to stop throwing wrenches into the fragile process now being born. ~~~~~ Finally, dear readers, Mr. Putin makes the statement surely meant to arouse suspicion and disgust in the heart of every American. "I carefully studied his [Obama's] 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. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ~~~~~ America is exceptional, Mr. Putin. It operates under the world's oldest constitution, enshrining human rights, individual liberty and religious freedom. It does not arrest or kill people who publically disagree with it. It does not practice ethnic cleansing or state-led racism or sexual discrimination. It does not use chemical weapons or help those who do. It opposes nuclear proliferation. It welcomes refugees. Its political leaders are elected and step down routinely, without changing its Constitution to permit old KGB officers to lead forever. ~~~~~ Yes, Mr. Putin, America is exceptional. Instead of reading President Obama's speech, perhaps you ought to read and take to heart the US Constitution.

5 comments:

  1. Your so right on every issue and every critique of what Putin said.

    How dare he lecture the citizens of the democratic countries - the USA in particular - about rights and exceptionalism.

    But you saved your best shot until last. Do you think he'd even understand our constitution. i think the concepts would be beyond his grasp.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For God's sake Putin was trained by the KGB. Trust him? Never! He's up to something and I as an American would like to know what. Patton had the right idea...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't buy a used cow from Putin. he's Mr. KGB, Poster Child for all that is bad and underhanded. h
    He has such dirty hands from his previous involvements in the "old Russia" and now his "new Russia" (it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins)that all the soap in China wouldn't wash them clean.

    Putin reminds me of an old Vaudeville joke ... The comedian says to the audience " My sister was so ugly that my parents had to tie a pork-chop around her neck each day so she would have friends at school" I think Putin's parents ran out of pork-chops long, long ago with him.

    But on a serious nature why is anyone taking his sudden interest in peace, democracy, fairness, human rights (boy that's a real joke), etc that is spieling out of his mouth. Not a word of it is the truth or hos true feelings.

    Putin recognized a power vacuum thanks to Obama's in-actions and decided to fill it. this is all PR as we all know it is.

    And what it is really about is the Syrian pipe line to Europe that is in place and operable right now.

    Putin just today said that Russia would be glad to sell a Missile Defense Shield to Iran if the USA attacks Syria in any manner.

    Did we all save our "Cold War" survival manual

    ReplyDelete
  4. Those of you of a certain age will understand my grave concern here. Vladimir Putin has just asserted that he has a moral superiority to the president of the United States, and the president of the United States apparently is willing to allow that perception because the White House is out saying, "Well, Putin, he owns it, it's his policy," and Obama's happy to dump this, he thinks. I thought it was a brilliant plan. I thought he and Putin talked about it last week. If it's such a great plan, why didn't Obama want credit for it? Why is he happily dumping it off on Putin? And the better question than that, why does Putin want it? And there are answers to these, and they're not good.

    There is nothing seemingly good going on here and we all need to keep that in mind. This shell game that Obama likes to play with us (winning every battle and being connected directly to none) is now moving into dangerous territory.

    This "admiration society" of sorts that has started up between these two is scarey and disturbing.

    Also let's remember that Putin was once KGB ... and once KGB means ALWAYS KGB. Sort of like with experts on TV ... "he was once a CIA Officer" always a CIA operative is better and more honest.

    If it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck" folks it highly possible we have a duck in the house.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obama and this administration has single handily created the atmosphere for Putin ( or anyone else) to take this cheap shot at the US.

    What happened to "MALEFICENCE OF OFFICE". ISN'T EVERYTHING HE HAS DONE AS PRESIDENT QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR A CHARGE OF SUCH?

    This is all premeditated I think.

    ReplyDelete