He has plenty of patience with the US itself. I read today that in 1997 the US undertook to destroy its stores of chemical weapons by 2007. The treaty allowed for an extension of five years if those ten years proved to be insufficient. However even that was not enough and now the US promises to have them destroyed by 2021 outside the treaty.
Syrian Crisis...2013
- Thread starter plawolf
- Start date
The US will try to make this move an open door to enable its intel officers onto the ground and use various means to disrupt SAA operations and feed intel to the terrorists. It was clear that they were trying to use "Humanitarian Assistance Corridors" in the same way given the highly "aggressive" way they were being promoted before the Kerry Gaffe.
It does seem as though this is a contingency that Russia and its allies have been working on for some time, witness by the speed at which they have been able to deliver a detailed proposal to Washington already. This means that Russia has its roadmap very well prepared
I also believe that the SCO Heads of State on Friday will have considerable bearing on this and that they will prevent the US hijacking the process for its unadulterated regime change agenda benefit.
Just out of interest. There are apparently 5 Russian Amphibious Assault Ships off the Syrian Coast and I was wondering what that meant in terms of Marine forces?
It does seem as though this is a contingency that Russia and its allies have been working on for some time, witness by the speed at which they have been able to deliver a detailed proposal to Washington already. This means that Russia has its roadmap very well prepared
I also believe that the SCO Heads of State on Friday will have considerable bearing on this and that they will prevent the US hijacking the process for its unadulterated regime change agenda benefit.
Just out of interest. There are apparently 5 Russian Amphibious Assault Ships off the Syrian Coast and I was wondering what that meant in terms of Marine forces?
This comment highlights a severe problem affecting everyone: remaining attached to misinformation and old crude prejudices instead of stepping back and looking at the whole situation with clear vision. This person obviously does not understand enough nor know enough to comment effectively on this issue.
That was well written by Putin, all his points are valid, the fact that people ignore the true face behind this conflict in favor of prejudices is deeply distressing.
I was just thinking:
You can't expect the inspection, collection and destruction of the chemical weapons to take place in the midst of a "civil war" fed by foreign countries. So there will need to be an agreement that the US and its friends Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey will not interfere in the country until the work is done. When we remember that the US needs from 1997 till 2021 to destroy its own chemical weapons that might take a long time and there will likely be no "civil war" at the end of it. Some Members of Congress are bright enough to see this so what will they say next week?
You can't expect the inspection, collection and destruction of the chemical weapons to take place in the midst of a "civil war" fed by foreign countries. So there will need to be an agreement that the US and its friends Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey will not interfere in the country until the work is done. When we remember that the US needs from 1997 till 2021 to destroy its own chemical weapons that might take a long time and there will likely be no "civil war" at the end of it. Some Members of Congress are bright enough to see this so what will they say next week?
It's truly amazing that Putin now looks like the completely sane and reasonable person in this dialog. Kerry and the entire Obama administration sounds like idiots when answering questions. The best they can come up with is "we think it's probably Assad that launched the chemical weapons".
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Look at all the manipulation going on in the media and with politicians. They're trying to paint Obama's actions as everything but trying to escape responsibility falling on only himself. He wanted a coalition for a military strike but couldn't get it. Then he lays it to Congress to spread the burden of action or inaction because attack or no attack both have ramifications. Then Obama claims the red line wasn't drawn by him but instead the world. Now with Putin stepping in you notice every time Obama speaks or with someone else repeating the White House talking points, they emphasize and seed first how now it's all on Putin.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
And the toppings on the cake Obama has to read a op ed in the new York times written by Putin critiquing American foreign policy.
basicly a total epic fail.
So what went wrong? One the Obama administration is reactionary, with out a vision for American foreign policy and the world, other then end the America involvement in the conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan which its self only consisted of getting out. He had no idea how to counter someone who had a vision and well placed leverage.
Putin has a vision of the world he wants its with a strong Russian influence. He has allies who will help him to get that. He also has enacted a road map to a restored Russian empire.
Two Obama has lost his advisors. At the start of the administration he had people who knew what to do and were willing to challenge him. Now they are all gone he filled his ranks with yes men.
Putin has a experienced staff and has dealt with three American presidents. (I suspect Xi would not be able to pull off the same kind of maneuver due to his short time in office.) this gave Putin an edge. He knew his rival and assessed his weaknesses. Putin is quoted as saying Obama is a weak leader. He knew he could be painted into a corner by his own hand and then led out like a lost child.
three Obama kept seeking to pass the buck. Its his key weakness he cannot take responsibility for any thing other than killing OBL. If its good its Obama if its bad its some one else. Obama pressured NATO for Libya and the French for Mali. He wanted someone else to hold the bag for this.
four he never made the case. Chemical weapons are bad, but those killed in the chemical attack are a drop in the bucket compared to those killed with conventional weapons in this disaster.
basicly a total epic fail.
So what went wrong? One the Obama administration is reactionary, with out a vision for American foreign policy and the world, other then end the America involvement in the conflicts of Iraq and Afghanistan which its self only consisted of getting out. He had no idea how to counter someone who had a vision and well placed leverage.
Putin has a vision of the world he wants its with a strong Russian influence. He has allies who will help him to get that. He also has enacted a road map to a restored Russian empire.
Two Obama has lost his advisors. At the start of the administration he had people who knew what to do and were willing to challenge him. Now they are all gone he filled his ranks with yes men.
Putin has a experienced staff and has dealt with three American presidents. (I suspect Xi would not be able to pull off the same kind of maneuver due to his short time in office.) this gave Putin an edge. He knew his rival and assessed his weaknesses. Putin is quoted as saying Obama is a weak leader. He knew he could be painted into a corner by his own hand and then led out like a lost child.
three Obama kept seeking to pass the buck. Its his key weakness he cannot take responsibility for any thing other than killing OBL. If its good its Obama if its bad its some one else. Obama pressured NATO for Libya and the French for Mali. He wanted someone else to hold the bag for this.
four he never made the case. Chemical weapons are bad, but those killed in the chemical attack are a drop in the bucket compared to those killed with conventional weapons in this disaster.
Zool
Junior Member
That's one interpretation, but I don't think it's based in Realpolitik.
Both Russia & China have stated their desire for a Multipolar world. What we have now is US Hegemony. Some like to call it Imperialism but that's stretching it. And I note all of this without a judgement one way or the other.
All of these conflicts save perhaps GW1 & Afghanistan, which was a legitimate Counter Attack by the US for 9/11, are pulley wars to maintain or sway influence in a given region. If you examine these conflicts without national bias, you will see many have arisen from Overt or Covert US action. In the most direct case involving the US-Russia balance of power pre-Syria I would reference Georgia.
Where Putin touches it in his Syria Op-Ed and I agree, is the danger of unrestricted use of force outside UN Resolution or Direct Self Defence of ones Nation and/or citizens.
If major nations in the security council (US, Russia, China or other) decide to forgo UN International Law to pursue their agenda's then it's Pandora's Box waiting to be opened. Because now it's not just the US and Russia vieing for power as in the Cold War, but add China, India, Japan and many others. Other nations will take from the example of operating outside the UN and we'll have the League of Nations and chaos all over again.
Cheers,
Zool