And the number of countries that Turkey has invaded in the last decade is a LOT smaller than the number Russia has.
That’s easy.
We organise a peaceful PKK protest. Then ‘someone’ starts shooting. Maybe a sniper here and there. Would be good to have deaths on both sides.
violence escalates, government cracks down, hey presto: Erdoghan is EEEvil.
Insert dirty bomb and we can all chant ‘He gassed his own people!!!’.
Or little green kurds start showing up in Turkey.
Russia has weakened drastically over the last few years and its international position has declined. Ukraine and Syria are both similar situations. Russia had influence, was in danger of losing it, took drastic measures, and now has more drains on its resources to carry. The end result of all Putin’s actions have been to make Russia weaker and drive countries away from its influence. The plus side of this to Putin is that it makes him look strong to his domestic audience.
As long as the US does not make Putin appear weak, he will continue to make Russia weaker. The only danger in this plan is if we get into a situation where an actual shooting war might break out. The best way to do that is to make sure not to make Russia look weak, and let Putin continue to beat himself.
And America, France and the others do? Russia at least has the permission of the Syrian government, the others don’t.
This was poorly phrased. What I was trying to say is that Putin will continue to make Russia weaker, and everything will be fine unless we make him look weak to his domestic audience. That’s a dangerous situation because the reaction will be for Putin to do something drastic to not look weak.
Yes, fucking France has a fucking right to bomb fucking ISIL after they fucking murdered 130 fucking people.
And Russia responds by bombing trucks carrying aid and food.
Russia has the permission of a Syrian government.
“Local Syrian activist Maamun al-Khatieb…”
Perhaps I’m way off-target, but it sounds like he’s one of the Syrian rebels the Russians have been attacking. Perhaps we shouldn’t be accepting his word unquestioningly?
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has been a frequent source of information for respected Western media outlets, including the BBC, New York Times, NPR, and others, for many years.
You might want to do a quick Google search. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights consists of one guy who lives in the UK. His sources all appear to be anti-Assad rebels.
Nice Russia Times article, bro.
Serious question: do you believe the world’s leading press outlets are being duped? Sure, maybe if only the New York Times used them as a source, there’d be some good questions to be raised by other quality news sources may eschew the group. But that isn’t the case. So far, it’s only really people who are in the tank for Putin and Assad seem to be criticizing the group.
Russia has been sticking it’s nose in NATO airspace for the last couple of years, and finally someone punched them on it. I’m sure they got the message now.
Here is a far better source.
It is true that the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is - as the New York Times article puts it - “virtually a one-man band.” He does have plenty of contacts on the ground in Syria, though.
God is that it, one guy ? That is shit.
Well, you know, if they have permission (from the guy and his regime that routinely barrel bombs their own civilians as well as uses chemical weapons on them) then it’s all good, right? Yeah, Russia totally has the right to be there while the US, France and the rest should just pack up and go home, obviously. And if Russia wants to bomb folks on Turkey’s border and violate their air space, well, who the fuck is Turkey to squawk about it?? Russia has Assad’s permission and all!
Yeah man, totally see where you are coming from on this…
From your link:
I’m unsure of what point you are trying to make. Let’s say he is just one guy. Why is that important? Does that make his information less good somehow? Less reliable? What’s the event horizon number we need to attain critical mass to be respectable or acceptable? 10? 100? 1000?
Well, if international law doesn’t matter then the UN has the right to invade America because of the terrible gun slaughter it’s citizens impose on each other.
End the slaughter now ! No fly zones over all American cities !
If rape is an problem of international concern, and cause for military intervention like it was supposed to be in Libya, NATO should be bombing US prisons.
If chemical attacks are a problem, then the international community should have been sending troops into the Pentagon when it was helping Saddam target the Iranians with chemical shells.
International law only matters if countries think it matters, because in the end it’s like pirate rules. So, if the UN thinks it can impose a now fly zone over the US then they certainly can try to do so. It’s not something that happens by fiat. On the other hand, if international law DID matter then we’d still be in Syria…in fact, the international community would have come together to invade the country since Assad et al violated said law when he used chemical weapons on his own civilians (let alone the violations for the use of things like barrel bombs). So, you can’t have it both ways here…either it matters in which case we should be doing more in Syria, or it doesn’t matter, in which case the US and France, not having been invited in by Assad to help in slaughtering his people should not be allowed (allowed by whom?) to do stuff.
The point I was trying to make was the point that I made:
I.e. no “point” other than to set the record straight.