
Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia - electic
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html
======
akiselev
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not."

The irony of Putin saying this cannot be understated. This entire editorial is
dripping with it.

For those of you buying into his rhetoric, remember that Putin is the head of
a "virtual mafia state" [1] and a government of thugs who are too busy
stealing the wealth generated by Russia's natural resources to pursue the
eternal dream of Russia as a global hegemon on par with the United States. The
Russian state has assassinated journalists [2] and jailed political opponents
with impunity while the bureaucracy (now intertwined with organized crime)
steals money at an alarming rate [3]. They don't even bother to hide it
anymore (Egregious example: Magnitsky [4] and Litvinenko [5]).

I hate the idea of the US getting involved with a civil war on the other side
of the world and Putin is right in his logic, but as an immigrant from Russia
I can't help but feel I'm reading the same propaganda but with a translator.
If at this point, Putin sounds reasonable and is starting to look like the
better of two devils, we're in deep shit.

[1] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-
cable...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-cables-
russia-mafia-kleptocracy)

[2] There's a whole damn wikipedia article dedicated to this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_R...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia)

[3] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-
def...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/russia-fifth-of-defense-
b_n_866050.html)

[4]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Magnitsky)

[5]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lugovoy)

Edit: To clarify, yes this is emotional and ad hominem. But come on, how many
of you thought bombing Syria was a good idea to begin with? How many were
entirely unaware of the US government's terrible record of following
international law? This article is only on the front page of HN because of its
author and it bears remembering how Putin's actions have spoken far louder
than his words.

~~~
rosser
While you're factually correct in every respect, most of your comment is an
_ad hominem_ attack. Putin's arguments should be considered on their merits,
regardless of his, his government's, or his country's character and history.

~~~
nhebb
I would argue that for heads of state, ad hominem attacks are perfectly valid.
Even if Putin's logic is correct, it's reasonable to question his motives
based on his character and past actions.

~~~
jtc331
Sure, it's valid to question his motives. But that doesn't change the fact
that he's making a perfectly reasonable argument. And when we're deciding
whether or not to go to war, the reasonable and valid argument should win--
regardless of who's making it.

~~~
anigbrowl
I don't think his claims that the rebels are the source of the gas attack are
'perfectly reasonable,' and if you don't sign on to his breezy certitude on
this point the rest of his argument falls apart.

~~~
gdy
Why not?

~~~
tptacek
* There is overwhelming evidence that the Syrian military has stockpiles of nerve agents and ballistic delivery systems for them. BTW: thanks, Russia.

* The FSA on the other hand is conducting raids to get rifle ammunition.

* There's the obvious issue that the (apparent) sarin attack targeted a neighborhood that was effectively allied with the FSA and that just happened to be a current critical objective for the Syrian military.

* The attack was relatively ambitious, far more than the minimum required to establish chemical weapons signatures or gin up outrage.

* For that matter, sarin is (unlike VX) non-persistent, making an attack at this scale (a) more technically challenging and (b) more deliberately intended to kill; for instance.

* There's the matter of US intelligence that (a) monitored known Syrian sarin stockpiles, which had noted no loss of custody to the FSA, and (b) Syrian military officials planning the actual attack we're discussing.

The argument that this is a false-flag operation by the FSA is not very
credible.

~~~
gdy
In addtion to other replies to your comment: * So does the US and Saudi
Arabia. * Terrorists in Syria are supplied by Saudis and Qatar. * If you are
conducting a false-flag operation you would attack your own forces or your
allies', no? Also there's been rumours
([http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-
sau...](http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-
supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/)) that terrorists simply
mishandled the chemicals. As for the place being "current critical objective",
it doesn't make sense for Assad to achieve a tactical victory and bring the
strategic defeat (because that's what it will be if America intervenes). *
It's not the first attack, the previous smaller attacks had only brought UN
inspectors. * It's not a problem if you have the outside help (BTW: thanks,
Saudi Arabia) and have absolutly no problem with killing (that's who the
terrorists are) * The same intelligence that presented the world the reason to
attack Iraq? If they have the proof, why haven't it been submitted to the UN?

Having said all that, I must add that there is not enough proof for either
point of view and it's exactly the reason why UNSC shouldn't authorize a
military operation agains Syria.

As a side note, who benefits the most from the use of chemical weapons and
what seemed to be emminent US attack? Looks like it's syrian terrorists, Saudi
Arabia, Qatar and the US.

And here is an interesting thought experiment for you: if tomorrow it turns
out that it was the terrorist's false-flag op, will the US intervene and wipe
out the terrorists in Syria? Because, you know, they crossed the red line by
using chemical weapons that are banned throughout the world?

------
muerdeme
Putin (or his representatives) knows his audience. This piece eschews the
normal alpha bravado that I would expect from Putin in favor of a coherent
argument in favor of restraint. I found myself not merely nodding along, but
inspired, and I hope that we can at least agree with him on this.

 _It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign
countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s
long-term interest? I doubt it. 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.”_

~~~
light3
What are the chances Putin didn't write the article?

~~~
ihsw
There are some grammatical and capitalization errors, and numerous comma
splices (stringing similar sentence fragments together in an effort to form a
coherent statement). There was also usage of very short sentences in repeated
succession.

Those are mostly stylistic issues but they're indicative of non-native grasp
of the English language.

Furthermore it's clearly written by someone with enough capability to express
themselves eloquently and succinctly, but as mentioned it's clearly non-
native.

~~~
sytelus
That's very interesting. Any resources/research that you know about on how to
identify non-native writing?

~~~
idProQuo
Not the same person, but I've found that learning other languages (and making
mistakes in other languages) makes you attuned to what kinds of mistakes
happen when speakers of that language learn English.

Just off the top of my head, Russian doesn't have articles. A Russian learning
English is more likely to confuse definite and indefinite articles than a
speaker of a Romance language.

I've been learning Thai and teaching English in Thailand. Thai has no
articles, no tenses (in the way we think about them) and a simpler syntax with
many prepositions and other "small words" omitted. When they start learning
English, they often omit too many words and don't conjugate anything, so a
sentence like "I don't have any pencils." becomes "No have pencil".

------
welder
Great closing paragraph:

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing
trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his 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_. There are big countries and small countries,
rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding
their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but
when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us
equal.

And yes, it's hypocritical and carefully crafted.

~~~
coffeemug
Unfortunately you have to know a bit of Russian to pick up on this, but if you
watch/read Russian media for a while it becomes obvious how this paragraph is
a comical bit of hypocrisy.

The Russians in general and Putin in particular talk _all the time_ about how
the Russian soul is exceptional, how Russia is somehow different from western
democracies and has its own unique (and largely mystical) economic and
political path, how you can't understand it with intellect and can only
believe in it (which is a classic bit of Russian poetry internalized by pretty
much everyone), and how the Russians are somehow more "spiritual" than
everyone else.

Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western
audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union
this reads like something from the Onion.

EDIT: here is a specific example to illustrate my point. In a recent
interview, here is how Putin characterized the difference between the American
and Russian "soul". He brought up a quote by the main heroine from Gone with
the Wind where she said "I can't imagine what it would be like to be hungry
all the time". Putin then pointed out that something like this is a primary
concern of an American soul (implying base concerns for physical comforts),
while this wouldn't be a concern for the Russian soul, which allegedly is
concerned with much more important spiritual matters.

This isn't an isolated example -- this happens _all the time_. Going on NYT
and criticizing american exceptionalism seems incredibly hypocritical to me.

EDIT2: I also feel compelled to point out either the sleaziness or sloppy
thinking (you decide which one) of taking a single character from a work of
fiction and extrapolating it to a conclusion about an entire people (of course
in service of "proving" that Americans are far baser people than the
Russians).

~~~
Demiurge
>you can't understand it with intellect and can only believe in it (which is a
classic bit of Russian poetry internalized by pretty much everyone)

It's not poetry, it's a self critical fable. It's so obvious too, "you can't
understand it" because it's not logical. This is in line with everyone being
proud of how Russian roads are the worst in the world. This particular
attitude of being exceptional, regardless if it's exceptionally corrupt or
drunk, is perpendicular to the concept of exceptionalism by the virtue of
being chosen by God as special people. The concept of American self-
righteousness does not exist in Russia the way it does in US.

>Putin has the knack for coming off as fairly reasonable to the western
audience, but to someone who was born and raised in the former Soviet Union
this reads like something from the Onion.

I'm curious, were you born and raised in the former Soviet Union?

~~~
coffeemug
I was born in the former Soviet Union, and I get what you're saying. But you
can't seriously say that Russian exceptionalism isn't used in service of
rationalizing the belief that the Russians are better people than the rest of
the world. Consider the popularity of Zadornov's humor -- the gist of almost
every joke is that foreigners are dumber than the Russians.

Also this might be nitpicking, but Americans don't typically believe that they
were chosen by god as special people. They typically believe that they're
special people because they themselves made it happen (which IMO is largely
true).

~~~
sologoub
Russian superiority views are a relic of the empirical past. Every empire-
forming nation has that same trait - us versus barbarians.

UK has this trait also and it is well illustrated in "Great Britain".

Russia might have been a great place to live, if it weren't for rampant
corruption. It's sad, but on a personal level, I just can't take the risk of
raising a family there or trying to do business. In US, entrepreneurship
carriers financial and psychological risks, but in Russia it carriers very
real physical harm risks, in addition to vastly greater financial risks.

~~~
spacebe4time
It isn't relic. Just like coffeemug I was born and raised in the Soviet Union.

It's not openly taught in schools but most ethnic Russians consider themselves
higher race and everyone else is intellectually inferior.

This is even taught by Russian Orthodox Church. I graduated from high school
after Soviet Union collapsed. We had this course called Christian Morality. In
the class room I learned curious thing. It turned out that Jews drank blood of
innocent Christian infants during their religious rituals. I am not kidding
you.

Russian exceptionalism is outright nationalism and borderline nazism. My own
father is openly hostile Ukrainians and Pols (other Slavic people). Why? Well,
because they are Ukrainians and Pols and are not Russian. Therefore, it makes
them half-human.

Soviet and Russian empires are long gone. But Putin and many Russians still
dream to restore it.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Christian morality" in shools is something introduced very recently which
means whatever you actually got before that is unsolicited and random. No need
to project that on the whole society. Same regarding your father - you can
find people like that everywhere.

------
InclinedPlane
Putin is a stone cold dictator, but he is very sophisticated about it. And
here you see how deftly he manipulates public sentiment and perception. Who
wouldn't want peace and cooperation?

Using tomahawk diplomacy against Syria was never a good idea. And
"unbelievably small" strikes against Assad's regime was just a stupid threat
to make. Chemical weapons are only a tiny part of the many very serious and
relevant (even to Americans) geopolitical issues at stake in the Syrian civil
war right now. A handful of bombing runs would be unlikely to improve the
situation, even in regards to preventing the use of chemical weapons.

But I can guarantee you that Putin cares not the slightest about the citizens
of Syria. His interests are with maintaining the Assad regime, as a
geopolitical ally, and extracting money from Syria through arms trade. But now
he has an opening to rub America's nose in a very public foreign policy
failure. The president doesn't want to get involved in Syria but he set a "red
line", which has been crossed repeatedly, and now he's forced into an
enormously uncomfortable spot. And while the US wriggles out of this snare
Putin will take as much geopolitical advantage out of the situation as he
possibly can. Which will be a lot. Because he is very skilled at this game and
everyone else (the US, France, even the UNSC) has already put their cards out
on the table for everyone to see.

~~~
foxhedgehog
Yes.

------
alexhomer1
"There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] 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."

Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. He stated
that the Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the
attacks, that documents show Syrian generals reviewing the results after the
attack, and that they planned to continue and expand the attack after the
initial wave of gas was used. I would tend to believe Obama because he is much
more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce
evidence to support his claims.

Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling
to tell the truth about what happened. Syria broke one of the most important
international laws that we have, which is the ban of chemical weapons. If they
aren't punished, then we are telling the world that it is OK to use chemical
weapons.

Putin claims that the United States' position with Iran will be weakened if we
intervene. The opposite is clearly true; our prior negotiations with Syria
over their acquisition of chemical weapons in many ways mirrors our ongoing
negotiations with Iran. We told Syria there was a red line and they crossed
it. If we don't intervene in Syria, we are effectively telling Iran that our
word is meaningless.

Putin's claims that an intervention will cause an escalation of the conflict
and more terrorism are simply not true. The goal would not be to upset the
balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way.

Our objective would be to prevent the Syrian army from using chemical weapons
again, and show the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Intervention
would lower the risk of chemical weapons being used in the future, help
discourage nuclear proliferation, and prevent the U.S.'s credibility in the
region from being destroyed.

~~~
mcphilip
>I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin,
and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims.

>Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling
to tell the truth about what happened.

You've made quite a jump to go from one sentence arguing that Obama is more
credible than Putin to (indirectly) calling Putin a liar.

From what I've read, the following claims have been made by the Obama
administration [1]:

1) Possess satellite imagery showing rockets firing from a location controlled
by the Syrian army.

2) Transcripts of Syrian officials telling forces to ready gas masks.

3) Transcripts of Syrian officials discussing how to handle U.N. investigators
inspecting the aftermath.

If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have
an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? Maybe this is already
in the works, but I've seen no mention of it.

[1][http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusuniteds...](http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusunitedstatessyriafactcheck.html)

~~~
idProQuo
>If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not
have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence?

The thought is that Russia will find a way to veto the proposal no matter
what, because they have financial interests in Syria.

------
iamshs
This piece hits the right spot for a very wide demographic. He evokes trust
through previous collaboration during WW2, mentions cold war, pope and
increasing trust between nations and then goes on to evoke empathy from the
people using "we are one" kind of deal, and even manages to sneak in a
reference to League of Nations tangentially hinting/threatening irrelevance of
UN. I am fairly impressed. I wish I could write such an elegant Cover letter.
Opening paragraph sets the tone, and finishing one solidifies it. A good
piece, nevertheless, wherever individual opinions lie.

------
gph
I can't say I disagree with a lot of what he says.

But I doubt he honestly believes in all of this. This rationalization just
happens to coincide with his (and Russia's) interests.

I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on my
own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.

~~~
JesseObrien
>I think he'd do better to stay silent and let me come to this conclusion on
my own instead of feeling dirty for having him agree with me.

I'd prefer if he didn't, silence is a cancer. If anything has been blatantly
apparent in the last 20 or 30 years it's that the American people as a whole
simply cannot form any correct conclusion about anything that actually
matters.

Sure, they'll all ring in to vote on American Idol, but it's a tough sell to
vote yes on gay marriage.

They'll make sure they hit 'like' on hundreds of Facebook posts in a day, but
can't bring themselves to make an educated vote in an election (or even vote
at all).

Nationalize healthcare and reform social security to help millions of your own
countrymen from dying broke? Busy watching Gangnam Style.

Vote out corrupt congressman and other government officials who take massive
payouts from lobbyists? Football's on, get out of the way.

The information age has quickly turned into the distraction age, and it's
showing.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Sure, they 'll all ring in to vote on American Idol, but it's a tough sell to
vote yes on gay marriage_

And yet that has a fair degree of legal protection at the federal level and is
legal in multiple states now, whereas in Russia it is now a crime to promote
the view that homosexuality is normal.

The American people have always been politically conservative and reluctant to
abandon their residual Calvinism; if you think this is peculiar to the last 20
or 30 years you're dead wrong.

------
beloch
Putin is certainly playing to his audience and is guilty of more than a little
hypocrisy in this piece, but I tend to agree with his central argument. If the
world has any duty to those inside Syria, it is to safeguard the lives of the
innocent. How will rocket attacks accomplish this?

The second U.S.-Iraq war and the subsequent occupation proved that state-of-
the-art precision air and rocket strikes are still a very blunt instrument
that cause a lot of civilian casualties when used. More innocent people died
during the U.S. occupation than under Hussein! A big reason for this was the
U.S.'s over-reliance on technology. Instead of using foot-patrols and talking
to the locals, who might have been inclined to point out that they'd seen
rebels planting IED's, U.S. SOP was to ride over the locals (and anything
else) in tanks and hummers and call in air-strikes if they felt threatened.
Forces from other nations, such as the UK, proved the effectiveness of foot-
patrols, but the U.S. still largely ignores this. Technology has transformed
the face of war, but the fundamental fact that boots on the ground are what
let you hold territory has not changed one bit. The U.S. ignored this in
Vietnam, ignored this in the first Iraq war, ignored it in the second Iraq
war, and continues to ignore it in Afghanistan. You can't cower in a fort,
blowing things up with rockets and drones and expect to actually provide
security!

What the U.S. proposes to do is to keep their soldiers safe in remote
locations while raining robotic death down on Syrian government positions
that, if they weren't already hardened, probably started preparing for air
strikes after the 2006 war with Israel (Note: Israel was attacking Hezbollah,
but did far more damage to civilian infrastructure). Will air strikes have
much of an impact on Syrian government forces? What security will Syrian
civilians gain as a result?

There are ways to provide security for Syrian civilians, but all they require
boots on the ground. A force could be sent to get in between the rebels and
government forces, but they'd get the holy hell pounded out of them from both
sides! Peace-making forces do not exist for a reason. If a cease-fire could be
negotiated, perhaps peace-keeping forces could be sent in. This carries a lot
of risk if negotiations break down. A third option is to occupy a portion of
Syria or territory bordering with Syria, establish refugee camps, and try to
provide ways for civilians to relocate safely.

It's great that the U.S. wants to do something to help Syrian civilians, but
blowing stuff up like retarded cowboys isn't the answer.

~~~
pekk
It's amazing that you managed not to mention the chemical weapons issue even
one time.

~~~
beloch
Okay, I'll bite. Let's say the U.S. actually knows where the chemical weapons
are made/stored or just scores a "lucky" hit with a cruise missile. Explosions
happen to be great for spreading stuff over large areas. What could happen if
a major stockpile of chemical agents gets hit and it happens to be near or
directly upwind of a major population center?

~~~
comex
Do you think that the entire U.S. military has not thought of that idea? While
there is the possibility of a mistake, presumably they will avoid strikes on
locations which are likely to cause such an event.

~~~
acqq
According to their own claims, U.S. military do accidentally bomb the wrong
coordinates:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_emb...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade)

The victims of such bombings are called in U.S. newspeak the "collateral
damage." That would be the language if they'd hit the chemical weapons
storages.

------
foxhedgehog
Garry Kasparov ‏@Kasparov63 I hope Putin has taken adequate protections. Now
that he is a Russian journalist his life may be in grave danger!

------
jnardiello
One general and universally true law:

To comprehend responsabilities and "who did what" you just have to look at the
situation with critic eye, ignore all the politics (and propaganda that comes
with it, the US are masters. Just calling it with a different name: PR and
Marketing) and just look for the side which is actually gaining anything from
ongoing events.

I bet that 99% of the people reading this know absolutely nothing about Syria.
And you all probably know nothing about Russia too. Everything you know is
from news (which honestly, aren't a good source for understanding a culture)
and - maybe - from a bit of literature.

That said, my very pesonal opinion is that Assad is an extremely culturate
person with very close western connections. He has a degree in medicine,
studied abroad, has chosen a wife which lived almost all her life in England,
etc.. Surely he isn't an idiot and knows perfectly that the only thing he
needs to do to stay alive and (maybe) win the war is to NOT provoke the UN and
Western countries. An outside intervention is the only actual real chance of
victory for the rebels, therefore they are very very likely the people behind
the gas attack.

One very last thought:

Let's talk about Fallujah, as a general example. Iraq War 2003 [1] where the
US Army used White phosphorus on unarmed civilians to "regain" the control of
the city after a few tens of insurgents killed 4 US contractors. Bitch please.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah)

~~~
dandelany
Tl;dr you are all ignorant morons so let me tell you what's going on?
Honestly, what did your second paragraph accomplish other than to alienate
your audience? I think there's a good chance you're right, but I'm too
distracted by the irony of a self-exceptionalist panning a Russian
exceptionalist panning American exceptionalism to take you seriously.

------
PhasmaFelis
How much evidence do we in fact have that the rebels gassed their own people
in a false-flag operation? I had heard it was a possibility, Putin seems to
think it's all but certain, but I haven't studied the issue in depth.

~~~
fludlight
It's a pretty common tactic. IIRC, the Nazis allegedly shelled one of their
towns and used it as an excuse to invade Poland. The Soviets were rumored to
have done the same with Finland.

~~~
JamisonM
It may be many things but a common tactic it is not. There might be famous
examples in history but their fame is indicative of just how uncommonly it is
used.

~~~
ethanazir
Which American city will the CIA nuke to push us all into war?

~~~
tedunangst
According to _Jericho_ , there are 24 cities targeted.

------
Shivetya
People need to understand Putin's motives here.

First and foremost is Putin needs to keep Syria in place to prevent Europe
from having access to another natural gas pipeline that he or his allies do
not have influence over. Qatar wants to sell natural gas to Europe, they want
to build a pile line to do it. Well they need/want to go through Syria to get
there.

Second, Syria is home to a Russian naval base, their only one in the region.

Third, Syria buys a lot of weapons from Russia, they buy quite a bit of other
materials as well.

Fourth, outside of Syria Russia's only real ally in the area is Iran but they
are a bit more off the leash than Syria is.

Top it off with one of the weakest in international affairs US administrations
and you give Putin the means to control the worlds opinion. Lets be honest,
the amount of dithering on how to act by this Administration is really
depressing. It almost seems they were convinced the Middle East would love
them and do want they //the Administration // wanted just because they weren't
GW Bush. Yet, we have Benghazi, we have the indecision regarding Egypt, Iran
is off and running catching drones or faking it all the while mocking the US,
and now Syria has shown this Administration is clueless. Its almost as if
there are a dozen cooks all trying to do stuff and they either don't make a
decision or one does something forcing the others.

TL;DR

Putin's concerns are economic (natural gas), military (base/arms sales), and
prestige. With a weak US Presidency he saw an opportunity and took it. Sadly
he is/might pull it off

~~~
foobarqux
The US concerns are exactly the same only in opposition.

------
gexla
This article seems a bit naive.

... and I just saw that it's written by Putin. Wow.

Does he think we are stupid?

Nobody could give a rats ass about Syria other than those who are part of the
Iran vs just about everyone else game of regional influence.

International law is like the Pirate's code. It's is more what you'd call
"guidelines" than actual rules. It's convenient to use it to validate kicking
some ass. And it's ignored when you need to kick ass regardless of the
circumstances.

Yes, Putin, this new turn of events is great for making Russia look like a big
power, but the only reason the U.S. is even looking at this is because we
really, really don't want to bother with Syria. In fact, we kind of like that
Assad is weakened by the civil war but still strong enough to stay in power.
That means he is well occupied, but we still know who it is that we are
dealing with.

Unfortunately, Obama screwed up with that red line thing. He didn't have to
say that. He could have made his case regardless if he really wanted to. But
chemical weapons are certainly a problem. We don't want those things coming
back at us. And even if the Assad regime were to go down, we would probably
need boots on the ground to secure those stocks. So, giving the chemical
weapons over to international control is a slice of pie handed to us on a
silver platter.

We doubt that you can really pull this off, Putin, but we thank you for
trying. At best, this would help ease one of our biggest worries, and at worst
it allows us to kick the can down the road a bit farther.

Thanks!

------
graeme
There are many comments here about Putin's character and policies.

That shouldn't be relevant to judging the quality of Putin's argument. I think
it's a very reasonable one.

~~~
foxhedgehog
I also thought that "Industrial Society and Its Future" made some good points.

------
andrewljohnson
A lot of this is rhetoric that we expect from Realpolitik, but overall, I
think Putin burnishes his and Russia's reputation with this sort of dialog.

I also wonder how common place it is for major heads of state to write essays
in the Times.

~~~
foxhedgehog
I believe you mean, "how commonplace it is for major heads of state to
commission PR firms to advance their interests in US media."

~~~
bvssatish
WTF,

\- If they express view point it's, "advance their interest"

\- If they don't, they are arrogant or indecisive

What you are saying is,

\- If your view is not same as my opinion, I will find an excuse to insult
you.

~~~
skylan_q
This double standard is what makes America an exceptional nation. ;)

------
dill_day
If there's "every reason to believe" it's the opposition forces and not the
Syrian government in control of and using chemical weapons, what good does it
do for the Syrian government to "place its chemical arsenal under
international control"? How can these two statements be reconciled?

Putin says:

 _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._

Then later:

 _A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days.
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._

~~~
cdash
Maybe to satisfy the stupid Americans? I am not sure what you are getting at,
offering up your chemical weapons when some country that can crush you is
about to attack you because they suspect that you used them even if they don't
provide any proof is not admitting guilt.

Its almost like you think people who plea guilty in court are actually always
truly guilty.

------
raquo
I agree with what he says here but I wonder what his true motivation is. You
can see that he wants a strong and stable power in Syria. Easier to deal with
and less risk than all these rebels, who in all likelihood will turn out to be
either pro-US or fundamentalists, neither of which is good for Russia.

~~~
foxhedgehog
He also happens to have a naval base there.

~~~
handsomeransoms
It's also their only naval base in the Middle East:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartu...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_naval_facility_in_Tartus)

------
cousin_it
As a Russian person currently living in Europe and sympathizing with the
Russian opposition, this was my first reaction to the article:

Wow, if Putin communicated with Russian voters in the same manner, he would
totally have me as a voter!

------
pcrooks
Very, very circular argument Mr Putin. He strongly defends the UN security
council as being the custodian of international law. Yet, he seems to say that
he is using his veto to disallow action - because action without full consent
would be in contravention of that law.

On the other hand - I do agree with many of his other views expressed here. It
certainly is a tough situation, and I have no idea how I would react if I had
the power to do so.

------
eloff
Article without paywall:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-
cau...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-
russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all)

------
contingencies
That's an extremely well written piece. Clearly Putin has good speechwriters,
and the Russian literary tradition is famous! Do you think a US speechwriter
could produce such a thing _in a foreign language_? I doubt it.

~~~
Sagat
Putin is badass enough not to need speechwriters.

~~~
contingencies
Oh yeah? So you're saying Putin is like Kim Jong Il: he doesn't give speeches
very often, but when he does, it's always to a standing ovation.

~~~
zmoreira
Why would you doubt that Putin is intelligent and articulate? He is Russian so
me must be a some crude vodka drinking bear hunter?

------
drill_sarge
I am not really a fan of Putin but I agree to the point that the USA are more
and more seen as warmongers in the public. Our politicians may never admit/say
this, but a lot of people only see the aggression which the US govt is
bringing towards their so called enemies. Even a lot of people like the USA
and their way of life but almost everyone doesn't like their government.

------
snowwrestler
The block in the UN is Russia. If Putin wanted action in Syria to carry the UN
imprimatur, he could make that happen tomorrow.

~~~
jnardiello
China. You are forgetting about China.

~~~
anigbrowl
China has no dog in this fight, and getting them onside just involves
reminding them how they feel about the Japanese use of chemical weapons in the
battle of Changde.

------
dariusm5
Here's a good read regarding the Syria conflict and how Russia and other world
powers are involved:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_do...](http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts)

~~~
mitchelllc
what all of them want are just two things: power and money

------
ethanazir
"The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not."
... unless you are a rogue regime that wants to use chemical weapons?

~~~
foxhedgehog
Or if we work for the KGB, of course.

------
frank_boyd
The CIA certainly should learn a thing or two about caution:

They're starting another proxy war right now:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-
be...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-
weapons-delivery-to-syrian-
rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html)

------
sologoub
Well, the biggest surprise in the article for me is Putin invoking God. Never
figured him for a religious man.

~~~
jlgreco
Only he and perhaps a few close family members can know if he _actually_ is,
but his claimed religion is Russian Orthodox. I don't really see much reason
to doubt it.

~~~
sologoub
His is a former KGB officer, an organization hardly known for religious
tolerance. Most Russians claim Orthodoxy, including me, but Putin is the last
person I would associate with any sort of piety.

~~~
jlgreco
I'm aware of those things, and obviously he knows that everyone else knows
that too. If he says he is religious, I don't think mere conjecture is enough
to assume that he isn't.

The _actual reality_ of what he thinks can be known only to himself, the best
we can go on (for him, and indeed anybody else. Hell, even the pope...) is
what he claims.

~~~
sologoub
That is your opinion, I have mine.

------
codex
The prism by which this editorial should be viewed is the age old question:
what does Putin stand to gain here? And Obama?

~~~
ihsw
Obama and Putin are two figures standing at the front of a _very_ long list of
other players pushing behind them.

* Qatar wants to establish a pipeline between them and Turkey for natural gas, but Syria is between them.

* Turkey would partner with Qatar for transiting natural gas to Europe.

* Russia has a strangle-hold on the natural gas market in Europe, so Syria would prefer Qatar not send natural gas to Europe.

* Russia's only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria.

I won't go into the complex incestuous intertwining of geopolitical
relationships, but the above points are pretty much what broke the camels
back.

------
dcc1
Why get involved?

Let them kill each other in the Middle East and show the world what "the
religion of peace" is all about.

------
Grovara123
We are all equal... Except for the gay.

~~~
Sagat
Russia's stance on gays does not invalidate the argument. Syria is an
unrelated topic.

~~~
EugeneOZ
It's not Russian's stance. I'm russian and I hate all this homofobia in our
government. It's shame for us to have that law and it's why I'm anti-patriot
of my wild wild country. Please don't treat "Putin" or "russian government" as
"whole Russia". More than half of russians hates their president and
government. Not dislike, but literally hate. Our government is our shame.

------
joshfraser
Pretend Putin wasn't the author. Do you disagree with any of this?

------
cremnob
This is actually a great piece of propaganda that serves Russia's strategic
interests. Judging by the comments here and on the NYT, it seems to be
working.

Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he
didn't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in South
Ossetia in 2008.

~~~
tanzam75
> _Putin says war should only happen by consensus from the UN, I wonder why he
> didn 't abide by this principle when Russia intervened against Georgia in
> South Ossetia in 2008._

Actually, Putin stated that the UN Charter allows military action either _in
self-defense, or_ by a decision of the Security Council. Which is accurate.

The Georgians attacked the South Ossetian capital, killing a number of Russian
peacekeepers stationed there. Big mistake, because it supplied the "self-
defense" component that Russia needed to justify their intervention.

The EU commission later found that the Russian response to Georgian
provocations was a legitimate use of force. However, they also noted that
Russia should have stopped at the border.

------
skylan_q
_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._

This will go over just as well as the malaise speech. It's a nice attempt at
trying to make a great nation humble, but that's not going to happen. :(

------
venomsnake
My take on the whole situation. It was a mess and Obama made it worse by
playing with Putin. While the back patting in Washington punditry is in full
swing how the US threats have worked the reality is Obama is making things
worse.

He called a vote and a debate for the Congress and now called it off. So on
top of the whole mess now there are hurt feelings and egos. What comes now are
talks. Which take time and can you know - fail. So in 3 months when Bashar
tells Yuck Fou with the silent support of China and Russia, Obama will stand
all alone, the chemical attack faded from the memory, the president not dared
to respond to the red line and with no friends whatsoever.

If going to Congress was a gambit this is Russian roulette. With semi-
automatic pistol.

------
enupten
This a very well laid out essay; kudos to whoever actually wrote it.

------
andyl
How is this relevant to HN?

~~~
rdl
This is of global importance on the order of war being declared between two
mid-tier countries. It's probably not worthy of 50 articles about this article
on HN, but a single direct link to the primary source seems more than
warranted.

