It seems to me that most of the objections in this thread are not about the contents of the letter, but the fact that Putin’s actions don’t seem to match the sentiment of it. If we ignore his actions, and consider the letter’s text only, wouldn’t your reaction be different?
Sure, if this were an op-ed by an obscure academic, reactions would be different. Because the meaning would be different. As it is, this is a political act by a political figure, with a history and context which are inextricable from its overt text.
Or the part where he fails to assure you that he’s in no way suggesting that Assad would so attack Israel and call it a false flag operation? Really, he’s not. It was the rebels that used gas, and it will be the rebels that do it again, next Monday, 3pm, if weather conditions are right.
I’m going with that one.
A letter from Putin about international relations, peace, and things like that would be as valuable as a letter from ME on how to be rich and bang hot chicks all the time.
(not very valuable)
I read the letter as
bla bla bla …Here’s a way out, lets offer Syria weapon inspections so everyone is happy,blah blah blah .
And I think: Obama, did I just see you get Russia on board, despite your previous falling out, with a peaceful resolution of ths that will pacify most people, and prevent a bombing no-one wanted? All with the little cost of letting Poetin strut his best statesman stuff? Barack, that is fucking brilliant. You rock.
Yeah, I don’t agree that Americans are unique in the nationalism department, but that don’t matter.
The topic should stay focused on Syria, and what the world should do about the gas attacks there. Pointing out that Americans are annoying seems to be a little off topic.
Since 2/3’s of Americans polled state that they don’t want to bomb Syria, why did Putin feel he needed to reach out to us regular citizens?
I don’t think Obama wants to bomb Syria either. Otherwise he would have just gone and done it, like he did in Libya [without going to Congress first]. So what, then, was this letter all for?
It was a play by a political player. In the broadest sense, it was to strengthen Putin and Russia (and their client Syria), and to weaken Obama and the United States.
Just another move by the chess master.
I can’t help but wonder what folks would be saying if he’d written a letter like that to, say GWB?
This a thousand times this. And ironically, people claiming that Putin “embarrassed” us, are kind of proving his point about American exceptionalism.
Putin has had his hand on the pulse of the Americans for a long time, he is very receptive and smart. Even though he pissed some people off he said what a lot of them are thinking. No comment on my feelings on the subject.
Putin’s a dick.
The letter contains a lot of good points.
If the chemical attack was done by the rebels and the Syrian government is not in control of the rebels, then how can the Syrian government make any deals to surrender chemical weapons they are not in control of?
The NY Times has finally eliminated the middleman and is printing propaganda straight from the horse’s mouth, rather than via others, e.g., Walter Duranty.
I think the previous falling out was because Obama **didn’t **want a peaceful resolution in Syria. He wanted a military strike.
I don’t see how this is Rockin’ Barack’s doing at all. It seems to me that Putin would not go along with the strike, i.e., Russia/China/US citizens, wanted the peaceful resolution, Russia and China gave the international (UN) inspections options, and Obama had to cave in and, finally, just glommed onto that.
You are amazing me.
I hear that the letter was written by an American PR company.
Our newspapers saw it another way.
Obama wanted to draw a line at the use of Chemical weapons in the Syria conflict
Assad crossed that line,
Obama wanted to do something,
The “hawks” on both political sides framed the “something” as an airstrike
Obama thought an airstrike wouldn’t do much good, and would be impopular, so instead of making the airstrike happen, he kept the threat hanging, and he bought some time by allowing Congress to vote on the matter, and seeking international partners.
Meanwhile, Obama mends the relationship with Poetin, that had been temporarily cold because Russia offered shelter to that wikileak guy against US wishes.
Syria and Russia come up with the idea of inspections;
Everybody agrees on the inspections.
A big win all around, if you ask me.
Putin is 100% right. He is correct that the Syrian opposition is little more that terrorists under another name. As for “American exceptionalism”-he is right on this-what give the USA the right to impose its will on another country? Look at what our efforts achieved in Iraq, for example. We will regret our support of the rebels-years from now, when Syria morphs into something like Iran.
When a point is good, it doesn’t *matter *who makes it. I agree that the US should stop doing whatever the fuck we fucking please, especially when it involves 1) bombing innocent people and 2) trying to go around the UN. Either we agree to be part of the international community, or we think we’re above it.
The US isn’t perfect, but the Russian invasion of Chechnya or Georgia did not have UN support either. The idea that Putin is someone with credibility on international affairs is ridiculous.
Putin doesn’t want US involvement in a civil war against Russia’s ally. That is all his letter is. It makes good points about how this isn’t a war for democracy, or how Al Qaeda linked extremists are among the rebels. But cui bono still applies.
Considering your politics, you’d most certainly have supported the Iraq War. And the Syrian opposition is quite diverse-saying they’re all Islamists is as inaccurate as saying the entire Mujahadeen were Taliban (which they were not).
What about bombing the military of a tyrant who is murdering innocent people (ie what we’re actually going to do).
So then what if the SC is preventing an intervention to stop a massacre. If individuals can engage in civil disobedience so should states.
Civil disobedience and murder don’t belong in the same ballpark, much less the same sentence. Get back to me when the US is talking about sending in troops to do a peaceful protest.