Putin's fate as a world player?

[metis]

Oh, come now, foreign policy under the Obama Administration has been a seriously flawed from the get go. It's not one Golfer-in-Chief's strongest areas - if, in fact, he has any strengths whatsoever. The threat of an "unbelievably small" military response was never meant and was never taken seriously. It was bluster, hyperbole, theater or comic sideshow - take your pick. I guess it was just another aspect of his outreach to the Muslim world. No doubt, they are deeply impressed.


Anyone up for screwing around with another Muslim country?
It's such a great way to show them we really care.

Nothing says "we care" better than a series of missile attacks or a "unbelievably small" pack of drones, eh?

It's just another aspect of Amateur Hour from the White House.

Sorry, but the above is way off, and I'm not going to waste our time explaining to those who cite excessive hyperbole who really haven't studied the region or been there to see for themselves.

 

[LuisDantas]

I can't figure out what "being nice guys" would even mean in such a context, but there are fairly good reasons for Putin's and Assad's recent decisions that are at least conceivable.

An article that I like about those is at

The U.S.-Russian chemical weapons deal is a win-win-win for everyone except the Syrians. - Slate Magazine

 

[metis]

I can't figure out what "being nice guys" would even mean in such a context, but there are fairly good reasons for Putin's and Assad's recent decisions that are at least conceivable.

An article that I like about those is at

The U.S.-Russian chemical weapons deal is a win-win-win for everyone except the Syrians. - Slate Magazine

Thanks for the article, and let me quote two paragraphs from it:

However, when Kerry said that dismantling the weapons might halt the juggernaut of U.S. military action, Putin saw an opening. He took the narrowest slice of Obama’s rhetoric literally: that the coming airstrikes were strictly about Assad’s chemical weapons. OK, then, Putin replied: I’ll help to remove those chemical weapons, and you call off the airstrikes. End of story...

At the same time, Obama can cite his threat to use force as the reason Putin suddenly swung into action (this might even be true, to some extent). He can thus take at least joint credit for ridding Syria of chemical weapons and upholding international law. And he is saved from having to make good on letting Congress vote on whether to authorize the use of force—a vote that he seemed all but certain to lose. A win-win-win for Obama.

Here's where the author hits the nail on the head in all likelihood, imo, although I'm not willing to bet the house on it since we never can be absolutely certain what takes place behind the scenes.

 

[mystic64]

Quite a lot is indeed in the eyes of the beholder, it seems.

To me that is what is wonderful about discussions, different beholders see different things in different ways. And if everybody agreed, then things would be boring at least from a discussion stand point. And whether one is right or wrong, it is kind of fun to speculate what the gods of international and national politics are going to do and then see what actually happens.

 

[mystic64]

Thanks for the article, and let me quote two paragraphs from it:

However, when Kerry said that dismantling the weapons might halt the juggernaut of U.S. military action, Putin saw an opening. He took the narrowest slice of Obama’s rhetoric literally: that the coming airstrikes were strictly about Assad’s chemical weapons. OK, then, Putin replied: I’ll help to remove those chemical weapons, and you call off the airstrikes. End of story...

At the same time, Obama can cite his threat to use force as the reason Putin suddenly swung into action (this might even be true, to some extent). He can thus take at least joint credit for ridding Syria of chemical weapons and upholding international law. And he is saved from having to make good on letting Congress vote on whether to authorize the use of force—a vote that he seemed all but certain to lose. A win-win-win for Obama.

Here's where the author hits the nail on the head in all likelihood, imo, although I'm not willing to bet the house on it since we never can be absolutely certain what takes place behind the scenes.

Ah yes, "What is going on behind the scenes?" Russia has a military base on land that Syria controls and if the rebels win that base is going to be one of the first things to go.

 

[metis]

Ah yes, "What is going on behind the scenes?" Russia has a military base on land that Syria controls and if the rebels win that base is going to be one of the first things to go.

Yep, and Hezbollah is also likely to be affected negatively as Syria under Assad has been a conduit for weapons coming from Iran.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Putin has shown himself to be the most effective player on the Syria chemical weapons front.
He has out flanked the West, and strengthened his position in the Middle East and China.

The West can no longer use these weapons as a reason for supporting the rebels in Syria, as Putin has put doubt in the mind of much of the world as to who used them. The total lack of proof has played into his hands.

America was made to look ineffectual, and weak and was not even sure it could get house support.

 

[esmith]

Even though Congress was against striking Assad's forces, that sword still hung over Assad's head, and Putin was obviously aware of this. For both Putin and Assad to agree to these inspections wouldn't likely happen because they suddenly got religion, but more on the basis that we were ready for a strike and that possibility still loomed over them. And we should remember that there was criticism of Obama coming from those like McCain who said Obama should have attacked right away.

There simply is no logical reason to believe that Putin and Assad did this because they decided to be nice guys. There simply is no "void" there.

How could you say that there was still a threat of a military strike when all indications was that Congress would not approve of a military strike at this time. Do you think that Obama would have gone ahead with a strike when the Congress and the nation said no. As soon as Obama backed down from his initial stance of... I don't need Congressional approval, Putin and Assad knew there was not going to be an attack. At this time no one knows why Putin put forth the present chemical weapons plan.

 

[metis]

How could you say that there was still a threat of a military strike when all indications was that Congress would not approve of a military strike at this time. Do you think that Obama would have gone ahead with a strike when the Congress and the nation said no. As soon as Obama backed down from his initial stance of... I don't need Congressional approval, Putin and Assad knew there was not going to be an attack. At this time no one knows why Putin put forth the present chemical weapons plan.

Obama had not taken it off the table, plus it was becoming quite clear that he was going to catch hell no matter which way he went. Again, it is a lapse of logic to believe that Putin and Assad would do this without pressure, and the only pressure was from the possibility of U.S. military action.

 

[esmith]

Obama had not taken it off the table, plus it was becoming quite clear that he was going to catch hell no matter which way he went. Again, it is a lapse of logic to believe that Putin and Assad would do this without pressure, and the only pressure was from the possibility of U.S. military action.

What pressure? The following article gives you an insight to Obama's total missteps in handling this issue and Putin and Assad know it.

Obama allies cite missteps in bid for Syria military strike | Fox News

 

[metis]

What pressure? The following article gives you an insight to Obama's total missteps in handling this issue and Putin and Assad know it.

Obama allies cite missteps in bid for Syria military strike | Fox News

I've explained it already, and let me remind you that you have not presented one single idea of what pressured Putin and Assad to do what Assad especially wouldn't want to do.

BTW, if it's from Fox "News", I simply don't waste my time even opening it, so if you want me to check something out, try something else. I actually would be embarrassed to actually quote or use Fox as a source as they are that unreliable.

 

[esmith]

I've explained it already, and let me remind you that you have not presented one single idea of what pressured Putin and Assad to do what Assad especially wouldn't want to do.

BTW, if it's from Fox "News", I simply don't waste my time even opening it, so if you want me to check something out, try something else. I actually would be embarrassed to actually quote or use Fox as a source as they are that unreliable.

Why are you afraid of reading something that you may not like to hear. I really feel sorry for those like you that dismiss a story because of your misguided prejudice. Since you didn't bother to read the article that quoted various members of Congress I will give you a couple of quotes from the article.

"I can't understand the White House these days," said Rep. Jim Moran, (D-Va.), an early and enthusiastic endorser of a strike against Syria over last month's chemical weapons attack. Rather than unexpectedly asking for Congress' blessing on Aug. 31, Moran said, Obama might have quietly called House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi to say, "'I'm thinking of sending this vote to the Congress. How do you think it might turn out?"' "She would have said, `You've got to be kidding,"' Moran said. "She knows where the votes stand."

Rep. Elijah Cummings, (D-Md.), said calls and emails from his Baltimore district were running about 99-1 against military intervention in Syria. Many House colleagues, he said, report feedback nearly as one-sided.
Cummings said he told Obama at a recent meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus that "once he asked for Congress to give its consent, he also asked for the public's consent." Americans aren't willing to grant it, Cummings said. And it's asking too much of re-election-seeking lawmakers to defy such overwhelming emotions back home, he said.
"My constituents love the president," Cummings added. "They are just tired of war."
He said he also told Obama, "You've got to understand, you and future presidents will be held to a higher standard whenever the issue of using military force is concerned." The main reason, Cummings said, is the nation's unwillingness to forgive or forget President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq on eventually discredited claims about weapons of mass destruction and the likelihood of easy U.S. success.

If Obama had any hope of overcoming the reluctance by the public and Congress to strike Syria, several lawmakers said this week, he needed a concise, compelling argument. His team failed to marshal it, they said. They cited Secretary of State John Kerry's assurance of an "unbelievably small" U.S. military strike as one example of comments that left people scratching their heads.

"In times of crisis, the more clarity the better," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.), a strong supporter of U.S. intervention in Syria. "This has been confusing. For those who are inclined to support the president, it's been pretty hard to nail down what the purpose of a military strike is."
Graham said he thinks the White House "overestimated the revulsion people would have toward a chemical attack" that the administration blamed on President Bashar Assad's government and said killed more than 1,400 Syrians, including hundreds of children. The administration, he said, didn't adequately explain why Americans should be morally outraged -- and militarily involved -- by that chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 after the United States stood by as an estimated 100,000 Syrians were killed by convention weapons during a 2 1/2-year civil war.
"Is it really about HOW people died?" Graham said.

Now that was just a small sample of the article, yet your unmitigated prejudice precludes you from hearing from sources that may or may not be covered in other media outlets. Maybe you would prefer what Chris Matthews of MSNBC had to say about Obama.

Chris Matthews: Obama put Democrats in a 'wicked position' on Syria - Washington Times

 

[metis]

Why are you afraid of reading something that you may not like to hear. I really feel sorry for those like you that dismiss a story because of your misguided prejudice...


Now that was just a small sample of the article, yet your unmitigated prejudice precludes you from hearing from sources that may or may not be covered in other media outlets.

Play it the way you want if it so pleases you, but I'm actually quite familiar with the works of Fox, so it is not "prejudice" in any way, even though I could see where a person like you could jump to that prejudicial conclusion.

It is merely a propaganda channel that I have seen far too often, and it's to "news" much the same as the National Enquirer is. If you want to use it, go for it, but I'm not going to waste my time with that level of dishonesty from that source. So many times in the past I've double-checked on their "news" only to see over and over again where they used yellow-journalism to fool the unwitting. So, the "prejudice" here comes from you.

BTW, there's no doubt that both sides of the aisle have criticized Obama at times, including with the issue of Syria, which doesn't at all surprise me. Matter of fact, criticism is generally good in a democracy, in case you haven't heard. However, as oft has been said, "you can have your own opinion, but you can't have your own facts".

BTW, you still haven't presented one single logical opinion as to why Putin and Assad changed their tune, lest I remind you again. All you did the last time I asked was an attempt to derail the discussion and not answering the question. The issue at hand had nothing to do with Obama's support or lack thereof.

 

[mystic64]

BTW, you still haven't presented one single logical opinion as to why Putin and Assad changed their tune, lest I remind you again. All you did the last time I asked was an attempt to derail the discussion and not answering the question. The issue at hand had nothing to do with Obama's support or lack thereof.

The president of the US can do whatever he wants to do for ninety days. After that congress is involved. And it is not just Obama applying threat pressure, it is also France, Great Britain, Turkey, and some Arabic countries that are also applying pressure. It is just that these other country's applying pressure doesn't mean anything if the president of the US is not willing to be involved. Which apparently he is.

And as Putin's letter to the American people said, historically speaking the US has done things independent of the UN with "cobbled together" coalitions. Putin would not have written his letter to the American people if he had not thought that Obama's threat was real, could, and would be carried out. Using sophisticated technology to remove Assad's ability to use rockets as delivery systems is not war, at least as far as anybody can do anything about it, including Putin.

Putin had to do something, he had no other choice. And if Obama agrees that Russia can keep it's military base in Syria, whether Assad is in charge or not, if the chemical weapons are removed (after all the US has one in Cuba and there is nothing anybody can do about it and the US did give Russia a lot Europe after WWII, so the US can do that) the chemical weapons might get removed pretty post haste without the US military being involved.

 

[metis]

The president of the US can do whatever he wants to do for ninety days. After that congress is involved. And it is not just Obama applying threat pressure, it is also France, Great Britain, Turkey, and some Arabic countries that are also applying pressure. It is just that these other country's applying pressure doesn't mean anything if the president of the US is not willing to be involved. Which apparently he is.

And as Putin's letter to the American people said, historically speaking the US has done things independent of the UN with "cobbled together" coalitions. Putin would not have written his letter to the American people if he had not thought that Obama's threat was real, could, and would be carried out. Using sophisticated technology to remove Assad's ability to use rockets as delivery systems is not war, at least as far as anybody can do anything about it, including Putin.

Putin had to do something, he had no other choice. And if Obama agrees that Russia can keep it's military base in Syria, whether Assad is in charge or not, if the chemical weapons are removed (after all the US has one in Cuba and there is nothing anybody can do about it and the US did give Russia a lot Europe after WWII, so the US can do that) the chemical weapons might get removed pretty post haste without the US military being involved.

Yes, well said, and this is indeed what I hope will happen.

I detest war, but sometimes one may have to use force to prevent worse carnage. It's a rough area of the world that has no respect or mercy for cowardice. However, to rush in undoubtedly would have created some rather serious problems on different fronts, so giving peace a chance while threatening action was, I believe, the more prudent course.

 

[mystic64]

Yes, well said, and this is indeed what I hope will happen.

I detest war, but sometimes one may have to use force to prevent worse carnage. It's a rough area of the world that has no respect or mercy for cowardice. However, to rush in undoubtedly would have created some rather serious problems on different fronts, so giving peace a chance while threatening action was, I believe, the more prudent course.

Metis, I have to agree with you . And in my opinion the whole thing is scary and along with today's political and economic world being scary, we also have to deal with Mother Nature's panties being in a bind, which is at least partly our fault . Back when I started this topic it was my opinion that Putin's fate in world politics as a major player would be that he would become a non major player. But now that we all have discussed things a bit, I am inclined to think that Putin is going to come out smelling like a rose (which is ok, I do not mind). In my opinion the international community is going to let Putin keep his military base and Putin is going to come out an international hero because of the removal of the chemical weapons. And when the dust settles it is going to be interesting to see what the fate of Assad it going to be, which of course would be the discussion of another topic.

 

[metis]

Metis, I have to agree with you . And in my opinion the whole thing is scary and along with today's political and economic world being scary, we also have to deal with Mother Nature's panties being in a bind, which is at least partly our fault . Back when I started this topic it was my opinion that Putin's fate in world politics as a major player would be that he would become a non major player. But now that we all have discussed things a bit, I am inclined to think that Putin is going to come out smelling like a rose (which is ok, I do not mind). In my opinion the international community is going to let Putin keep his military base and Putin is going to come out an international hero because of the removal of the chemical weapons. And when the dust settles it is going to be interesting to see what the fate of Assad it going to be, which of course would be the discussion of another topic.

Again, well said, imo. I think Putin wants to be more of a player in the M.E. as they had lost a lot of clout with the demise of the Soviet Union. Time will tell.

 

[esmith]

Putin had to do something, he had no other choice. And if Obama agrees that Russia can keep it's military base in Syria, whether Assad is in charge or not, if the chemical weapons are removed (after all the US has one in Cuba and there is nothing anybody can do about it and the US did give Russia a lot Europe after WWII, so the US can do that) the chemical weapons might get removed pretty post haste without the US military being involved.

What makes you think that Obama has any say whether Russia can or can not keep their naval base in Syria?

 

[metis]

If the U.S. military were to weaken Assad's military whereas the rebel's win, the Russians could easily be pictured losing the base. However, there are some rather serious other possibilities if this were to happen.

 

[vibhav123]

The US had threatened strikes, accusing the Syrian regime of killing hundreds in a poison-gas attack on 21 August.

Instead, Russia, an ally of Damascus, proposed that Syria hand over its chemical arsenal. The US and Russia are due to meet later to discuss that plan.

The Syrian government, which denies that it has used chemical weapons on its own people, has agreed at least partially to the Russian proposal.