Looks like Obama forced Russia to accept the morally correct position on Syria.

[joshcryer]

Now, I've been saying all along, since this began, that Obama should "let Russia decide" and it appears that this is what has indeed happened, or at least, it looks like that's what's going to happen if everything works out. In the end this is the only correct move. Doing nothing is a horrible thing to do because it's isolationist. Doing strikes is a horrible thing to do because it doesn't help the situation. Doing diplomacy is the correct thing to do, because it lets the international community know were you stand morally without you having to do anything beyond that about it (ie, you can tell the bully he's an asshole on the playground but that doesn't mean you have to start punching him).

People are praising Russia but Russia was the one not doing anything, basically blocking the UN on anything, even resolutions to merely condemn excessive force in Syria. Instead Russia insisted on maintaining its arms deals. Instead Russia insisted on backing Assad on their production of chemical weapons.

This isn't N-dimensional chess, btw. I don't think Obama could've predicted this outcome. I think he would've had to make a move to take it to the UN after congress voted him down. Otherwise I think that he boxed himself in politically. But by being a war monger he clearly pushed Russia's hands on the matter. The reality is that anything in Syria has been held back by Russia. Syria doesn't even have significant sanctions at the moment. Arms can flow rather well.

It's good of Russia to make the gesture but their actions so far more or less equal it out in the end. It's bizarre to me that Russia is being thanked here because Russia should've done this weeks ago.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

1. Russia is not being thanked. Obama knew.

Just get used to the fact that Obama has way more information than you and is way smarter than you.

[joshcryer]

2. LBN thread has several posts "thanking Russia."

Other posts here are making snide remarks about Obama "accepting Russia's plan."

I don't think there is evidence Obama knew it was going to go down this way at all. But clearly Russia finally decided to have a moral compass and do something.

[Californeeway]

30. kind of sad watching self-styled Liberals line up

to sniff the ass of a murderous authoritarian just because by doing so they can take a cheap swipe at Obama.

the more time I spend on DU, the less I feel like a Liberal and the more I feel like a left-leaning Indie.

the far Left of this party is just so consumed with bitterness and anger and so arrogantly assured of their moral superiority over all else who disagree, all critical judgment has gone out the window. Winning the pissing contest has become paramount over giving a shit and doing the right thing.


No REAL Liberal can watch children being gassed to death and say, "Not our problem" or "costs too much." That just disgusts me to the core of my soul - if THAT is what the Left of this party stands for these days count me the fuck out. You don't wash your hands of human suffering and walk away when you have the power to do something about it. To me, this is the heart of what Liberalism used to represent before it devolved into a lazy, mindless whatever-the-opposite-of-Bush-is kind of deal.

Of course my words will be twisted into support for endless bloodshed (the spinning is shameless and asinine) but when innocent people are hurting you do what you can to help, and sometimes you make a really bold bluff to do so. Some are so lost in their holier-than-thou self-congratulations that they've forgotten what a bluff is or how it works -or want to pretend they incapable of seeing one, even though Obama has demonstrated a real skill for it in the past and this particular one is becoming pretty obvious the more that this plays out.

[pnwmom]

36. FWIW, I hope you stick around

and continue to contribute your point of view -- wherever you fit in on the spectrum.

[Californeeway]

38. I'm sticking around if only to remind people the world is complicated

and rarely lets you have the simple solution that would be emotionally and ideologically pleasing whatever your politics are.

I think a lot of people here are having a problem admitting that.

[pnwmom]

44. I agree. Important decisions are rarely black and white; the truth is usually nuanced. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

50. You nailed it. Completely. -nt

[Demit]

51. Wow. Talk about being arrogantly assured of your moral superiority.

Your post is full of it.

[Shivering Jemmy]

54. Nah it isn't.

[Cha]

3. NOOOOO.. President Obama does not

have the intelligence and knowledge that God/Buddha/Allah/whomever gave an internet warrior! rofl

[leftstreet]

4. I doubt it

What motivation would Obama and Kerry have to risk such international embarrassment if they knew this option was on the table?

Sorry, Putin saved Obama's ass on this

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. Write Putin a thank you letter

Maybe ask to join Snowden in Putin's "Peopje's Paradise".

[leftstreet]

6. The Cold War is over n/t

[Hekate]

34. What do you think Dubya saw when he looked at Putin's "soul"?

Do you really believe that a KGB Cold Warrior believes we are all good buddies now?

[Scootaloo]

57. And here we go

So let's just make sure the scorecard is up aaaaand there. Okay, So according to you and the other swamp trolls, we - that is, the leftists and liberals you guys have been ranting about over in your mudpit, i.e., the bulk of DU who think you collectively sound like a bunch of Tusken raiders when you start talking...

1) Love Snowden. Just love him. Imagine fellating him every waking moment or so. Because we all hate Obama. No reason, we just hate Obama.
2) Not just Snowden, but also, we are all fawning admirers of Bashar Assad, and in fact envy him the power of using chemical weapons. We love that shit. because we all just hate obama.
3) Now, of course, we're also in love with Vladimir Putin, and no doubt, despite our apparent collective wish to have Edward Snowden's dick in our mouths, the next meme from the bog will be that since we love Putin, we must all hate gay people. Oh, and that's all becuase we just hate Obama. Yup.

I wonder. In between your attempts to re-write that silly rhyme from elementary school, you know, "first comes love, then comes marriage..." do you ever take a moment to stop and reflect that with each iteration of the "You love X because you hate Obama!" nonsnese, you sound more and more unhinged and deranged, and, to me at least, come off as a rather, oh, freepish person? You've even picked up their lingo, with this "ODS" stuff you've got going.

Ever though that maybe people hitting you with rhetorical sticks aren't doing it because you support Obama, but because you're an ass while you're doing it?

[Celefin]

65. +1

Well stated.
It's at least consistent though. And you're moving up the political ladder of who you are supposed to want to suck off.
Qaddafi, Assad, now Putin (Snowden was more like an inconsequential one night stand though, face it. You never really loved him). See, you've been promoted - no lowly random dictator anymore, now you've got the real stuff to cuddle! Who wouldn't get weak knees at the thought of athletic Putin.
You know you want it. Bad.

[jsr]

7. +1984.

[joshcryer]

9. There was no risk.

They always had more options than blowing shit up.

The pushing for the US plan forced Russia's hand.

[joshcryer]

8. What embarrassment?

Obama always had the option to say "I will take this to the UN before I do anything." At which point it does become Russia's problem. I have been arguing this for weeks now. I mean literally since it happened I have said "let Russia decide." You do this by pointing the finger at Russia's reticence on the issue. It's so simple it's a joke.

Putin basically took a sword for Syria because Syria wants to use chemical weapons against belligerents. Now Syria's civil war is poised to last many years. It will not be easily finished by either side.

Obama gets to look like a good guy because he's following the will of the people and "letting Russia decide." I cannot imagine how this is "embarrassing," except maybe in the twilight zone.

[leftstreet]

12. It started with the UK vote

The US looked ridiculous after that and the humiliation risk kept multiplying from there. A 'no' vote from Congress would have been a disaster for Obama and Kerry

[joshcryer]

15. Sure. Read my post again.

I said that Obama didn't plan it but once the options became available that's the route he took. He could've always taken the UN route though, even after the UK vote, even after the Congressional vote, he could've always taken it to the UN. He could've been the lone person, standing there, in front of the world stage, and condemning chemical weapons. There was no point that it would've been "embarrassing" for him.

Instead the saber rattling got Russia to decide to agree with the US on chemical weapons and call for disarmament. I'm not the only one who sees it this way.

[leftstreet]

20. I doubt Putin was worried about the saber rattling

He has much more political experience than Obama and knew where this was headed after the UK vote

Please

[joshcryer]

23. I doubt he was, too.

But the risk for Putin is far greater than the risk to the US.

Obama goes "I will not strike because the will of my people have spoken." Obama +1.

Obama goes "I will not strike because the UN will not allow me to strike." Obama +1.

Obama goes "I condemn chemical weapons." Obama +1.

In all cases he can point the finger at Russia. He doesn't need congressional approval (he must send a letter but not get authorization) to attack under the UN Treaty articles 41 and 42, he doesn't get that approval unless the UN signs off on said resolution, Russia would never let the UN sign off on said resolution, Russia is to blame.

Every way I look at this Obama always had the opportunity to call Russia out on their reticence. I don't know why you don't think it is politically wise for Russia to continually arm and prop up a country not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention who produces and stockpiles the stuff. It's unsustainable.

[karynnj]

10. It wasn't on the table when the cw occurred

Remember initially Russia denied Assad used CW.

[quinnox]

11. +1000

Putin is a shrewd guy, and it is great to see a responsible leader like this act forthrightly to avoid the use of military force. I give him credit. Obama can share in the glory though.

[joshcryer]

16. Uh huh. As if they would've done squat without "the use of military force" being floated.

[quinnox]

22. I don't dispute that

That is why I said Obama can share in the glory.

[dionysus]

18. when you're that bitter, well...

[ProSense]

13. "Sorry, Putin saved Obama's ass on this" Why?

How did Putin know Kerry was going to say what he did, and why would Putin jump at the offer?

Did Kerry say it so that Putin could jump in and save "Obama's ass"?

Was Putin searching for a way to save "Obama's ass"?

Here's the reality:

This only happened because of Kerry's comment and Russia's response. If, Obama's "ass" needed saving, Putin certainly would have exploited that situation. He had absolutely no reason to give Obama an out. He could have ignored Kerry's statement and let things proceed as before if he believed, as you do, that Obama "ass" needed saving. Putin knew the deal. He was under pressure to do something other than obstruct. That is why he jumped on Kerry's offer.

Obama has already proven to the majority of people who have an official say that Assad did it. Members of Congress and the international community have condemned Assad.

Regardless of how Congress votes, members have condemned Assad. They agree with the assessment regarding Assad's use of chemicals. That's why you have members who don't support the President's approach offering their own proposals, and any way you slice it, those proposals are ultimatums.

There is also the UN, which even before today's developments, was prepared to act after its report. The statements by members of the G-20 and the EU means the international community was not going to let up. More countries comdemned Assad today.

[leftstreet]

17. No one really knows what happened

He said / he said

And it's the duty of each guy's advisers to make him look like he did the right thing


It doesn't matter. No missiles are flying and for that we're all glad!

[ProSense]

19. So you have no idea why Putin would want to save "Obama's ass"? n/t

[leftstreet]

21. LOL I didn't say he 'wanted' to

Ancillary benefit

[Llewlladdwr]

14. The Russians haven't done anything yet except get the pressure off their client.

The Syrians now have more time (and possibly Russian assistance) to hide the majority of their weapons and surrender a mere fraction to the international community.

[davidn3600]

24. Obama and Putin may have both been looking for a way out

I dont think this necessarily solves the problem though. But I think it kicks the can down the road and takes the pressure off for the time being.

The idea that Obama pushed Putin...I dont think so. Putin's main objective has always to keep Assad in power.

All I know is Putin is not a stupid man. This guy has been playing the geo-political chess game since his days in the KGB. There is no question he is well aware how to play the game.

[joshcryer]

25. Juan Cole actually predicted this outcome:

http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/strategy-missile-strikes.html

One way the incipient Washington strategy could succeed is if Russia and Iran can be enlisted in forcing the regime to stop using chemical weapons. It would not shorten the civil war, but it might avoid a US quagmire. The signs that President Obama will go back to the UN Security Council are positive, and might be a step toward this outcome.

This isn't really a win for Russia because it's in Russia's interest for the civil war to be finished sooner, lest the US's Sons of Syria group manage to make inroads.

[mick063]

26. Another round of 11th dimensional chess.

I was told that Obama is not God. That we can't expect miracles out of him. That he inherited an untenable situation, and yet.........


he pulls another miracle out of his ### again.


He completely dominated the diplomatic scene by brow beating Putin into a submissive puppy.

Simply. Amazing.


Now that I am growing rather conditioned to such super human feats, can he just stop with the secret trade deals and negotiating with grandma's income? Should not be a problem for the spin masters to convince us that he planned all along that outsourcing jobs is actually reversing and grandma will be getting a big fat raise.

[joshcryer]

27. Putin hasn't budged on Syria before now.

Explain that one. What magically changed for Russia to change their position on Syria?

[mick063]

28. Here is what changed:

Putin has gained favor with the entire world at the expense of Obama. Putin offers an alternative to Tomahawk missiles. Our President lobbied hard for Tomahawk missiles. All with a backdrop of world wide demonstrations against escalating the Syrian theatre.


This has nothing to do with Obama's influence on Russia and everything to do with Putin seeing opportunity to gain global political capital at the expense of President Obama, and he has.

[joshcryer]

32. The world would see it as acquiescence to the US.

Because the US put its warships out there and the President saber rattled for days about it.

Russia has been the one blocking any action in Syria until this point.

[mick063]

35. Ahhhh....the world according to you.

Look at this through the eyes of those that burned Uncle Sam in effigy in Brazil over the proposed Syrian strike.


A small, albeit more dramatic sample of feelings around the world. I would say that such people look at Putin's move quite favorably. I would say that such people don't look at this as acquiescence, but more as alternative world leader offering a path more compatible with their views.

Of course if we had not violated diplomatic principals by detaining a flight destined for the Southern Hemisphere, the protests would have likely been more in line with similar protests around the world. We united the Southern Hemisphere against us with that move. No....not viewed as acquiescence. Viewed as Putin to be perceived as a problem solver. Whether this is true or not is not the point when such perception is at play.

[joshcryer]

43. So you think the world backed Putin's position on chemical weapons?

Despite that 98% of the world disagrees with that position? Putin was siding against his own countries' view of chemical weapons.

Perceptions in the end are irrelevant, when you're talking politics. What's important is getting things done, and disarming another state with chemical weapons is a noble goal.

[Celefin]

52. That's a silly accusation

'The world' had very split opinions on this.
Europe was for the most part in favor of staying the hell out of Syria and equally disgusted by Assad's actions, once more the US' self-righteous ignoring of international law and the UN and itchy trigger finger (Obama's, no less), China's tacit inaction and Russia's covering of Assad and refusal to cooperate when they should have taken responsibility a long time ago.

In Europe, Putin is seen as the one who broke the stalemate by unexpectedly seizing the opportune moment to make political hay out of this by making Obama look bad. There's no love for him, never will be.

If that is the way these events actually transpired is irrelevant in this context. Putin gets to look good in Europe while all eyes are on Syria - the Olympics will bring the LGBT issue back into the news and Putin won't look good at all anymore (although he might get some support for it... Europe isn't that progressive in many places). The next human rights breach after that will cost Putin all the remaining credit and things will be back to normal. Mutual understanding that staying out of each other's business is mutually beneficial, especially in terms of natural gas which is Russia's main export to the EU and which the EU is dependent on.

The world (well, the west at least) will forget very quickly.

[joshcryer]

55. BS, the world is 98% against chemical weapons.

You are conditioning it on strikes. Of course most nations don't want an air strike by the US. They most certainly disagree with chemical weapons.

[mick063]

59. Last I checked

I have not seen a major demonstration in favor of punishing Assad.

A majority of the world is against war and associated death. Chemical weapons are a subset of that.

[joshcryer]

60. Objectively false. Russia keeps blocking UN resolutions.

The worlds countries do not agree with the dispersal of Chemical Weapons. Fact.

[mick063]

63. I believe I see where the confusion is.

When you say countries, you actually are speaking of a handful of coerced world leaders. Coerced by heavy lobbying from the US executive branch.

When I say countries, I mean people as reflected by polling data.

A representative example:

Cameron forced to back down by the British people.


I prefer my definition.

I'll give a reason why the WMD "battle cry" has lost some teeth:

Iraq.

You do understand that your ideology will force us into inevitable conflict with Pakistan and Iran. You do understand this. Don't you?

[Celefin]

62. Of course the world is 98% against chemical weapons.

If you got the impression I dispute this view then my wording obviously was not well chosen. Noted for future reference; no need to be rude.

I stand by my assertions, though.

[avaistheone1]

47. Agreed.

Obama and Kerry kept beating the war drums. Putin played it cool and came up with the solution.
O and K don't come out of this looking good, rushing to war with shaky information. And it will hurt the Dems in the upcoming elections. Putin looks better as he provided a resolution.

Hopefully now we won't be throwing bombs at Syria.

[snappyturtle]

58. I wonder if the rebels got the memo to hide theirs too?

[Llewlladdwr]

31. The Syrians have now had time to hide the majority of their chemical weapons?

Now it's safe to let inspectors in.

[MADem]

29. I think, more likely, that Obama said he'd put Tartus on his targeting list

if Pootie didn't put his shoulder to the wheel and help instead of shit-stir.

If Pootie said "What if your Congress votes no?" I wouldn't be surprised if Obama said "I'd still hit Tartus, and too fucking bad for you."

Pootie doesn't want to lose his only deep-water port in the Med. Where will he put his carrier and his subs? He's spent a fortune fixing that thing up, and he's got a Gitmo-like deal with Syria for use of the place.

He has more to lose than we do.

[joshcryer]

33. Yup, there's that, too.

I don't think he made it that explicit. But he might've said "well, I can't guarantee Tartus will be safe, I mean, if we detect rebels or Syrian military going in there with chemical weapons to hide them, well, we'll have to strike, sorry."

I'm amused by people looking at this from an "image" perspective, btw, there's way more at stake than Obama and Putin's respective "image."

[flamingdem]

37. bingo nt

[Celefin]

64. You seriously think Obama threatened Putin with a strike on a Russian military port?

Accepting the risks of that venture would border on insanity.

Obama most certainly isn't insane.
He's pretty level headed and not about to launch cruise missiles on Russian naval facilities.
If you seriously expect him to do such a thing you certainly don't expect him to be a democrat.
He wouldn't risk the equivalent of a cuban missile crisis, leave that to McCain.

Really, wtf?

[MADem]

66. Tartus is a Syrian port.

It's one that Russia is in the process of developing for their own purposes, but it's not a "Russian military port."

It's no more a Russian military port than Aden is an American military port.

Really, wtf, indeed. Sometimes a threat is as good as a promise.

[telclaven]

67. The majic unicorns are farting rainbows all about

No way President Obama even hints at threatening a Russian military installation. I knew the whole air strikes thing was words in the wind when I found out that many Syrian SAM sites continue to have Russian technicians and trainers.

Under no circumstances do American forces draw Russian blood. It's Cold War rules redux. America and Russia simply can NOT conduct direct action against each other without severe (instant sunshine in a can) repercussions.

Senator McCain isn't that stupid. Mitt Romney isn't that stupid. Hell, Sara Palin wouldn't be that stupid. World War 3 does not get started over a pissing match in Syria.

[MADem]

71. Again, Tartus is a SYRIAN civilian port, and the Russians "rent" a small corner of it.

A well placed couple of cruise missiles could easily turn that breakwater wall that runs along the civilian piers all the way to the little "Russian corner" into gravel; and make a complete mess of all the dredging work the Russians have done in order to enable their "It's NOT an Aircraft Carrier, Turkey!" to visit the port.

You're just not thinking like a target analyst. No Russian assets (and certainly no Russian "blood"--Christ, could you be more dramatic?) need be harmed to completely fuck them over vis a vis use of that facility--and the Russians know it. Which is probably one reason--among many more, no doubt-- why they suddenly, eagerly, cooperatively agreed to HELP resolve this situation.

See, they know that, if al-Assad bites the bullet, they've got thousands of Russians in Syria that will need to be evacuated (or the opposition forces will murder them horribly or hold them for extreme ransom) . The fastest way to get them out is through Tartus via a massive NEO (that's not NEO as in neo-con, it's Non-combatant Evacuation Operation), even more so if there are no airfields available to them--which would be entirely likely if al-Assad fell.

No McCain-ing, no Romney-ing, no Palin-ing, no WWIII-ing...just simple, least effort, most bang-for-buck target analysis. Knock down a SEAWALL, incapacitate a port.

Weakest link.

Simplicity is elegance. And no Syrians--or Russians--are harmed in the operation, either--unless they're fishing at two in the morning, or whatever...!

In any event, that's been averted...for now. But like Judy Tenuta sez.... "It could happen..."

And Pootie knows it, so it's in his interests to be helpful. And that's not "stupid" at all.

[sibelian]

39. Actually, for once I agree with you.

Russia SHOULD have taken responsibility for this ages ago.

[joshcryer]

41. At minimum they should've allowed arms sanctions.

So if the US was caught arming rebels (at the time it wasn't an option but it is increasingly so) then the US looks really bad. The other actors, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, they would've probably still tried to arm but other actors could've intervened (Iraq, Iran). Russia had arms deals that needed to be met though and they couldn't pass off on the profits.

Interestingly in Libya the UK and France (as well as Russia I think) were about to do some big deals with Gaddafi, but the sanctions prevented that from materializing. Now in a really twisted bit of fate, no doubt beneficial to the United States, Sisi from Egypt is allying with Libya, so US arms will probably be seen in Libya in due course.

(I'm not happy about that mind you, it's just how things look to be going.)

[dtom67]

40. I disagree....

I think it is more likely that Kerry's comment was rhetorical and completely diisingenuous. The russians jumped on the statement to prove to the world that this is not about chemical weapons. The syrians will offer to give up the weapons, but we are still going to push for the attack. I believe we WILL attack within th next few months. Some excuse
Will be found.
We will soon see....

[joshcryer]

42. karynnj's comments led me to the wiki cables with regards to Kerry.

I think ultimately Kerry fell on his sword as an anti-war guy to get something, anything, done. I think his ultimate goal, while not explicitly expressed, was disarmament, which he'd been working on for years. If anything I think Kerry played Obama's hand here, and I think Obama played the tough guy with his finger hovering over a button.

I hope you are wrong about an attack and that a diplomatic solution is found.

[dtom67]

46. i hope I'm wrong, too....

That money would be better spent here at home...

[avaistheone1]

48. Following today's news reports I think you are right.

Beyond the chemical weapons it seems like Obama is looking for yet another reason to attack Syria. The latest pretext is to get rid on Iran's nukes.

[DevonRex]

45. Russia didn't decide. Russia was forced. Assad was forced.

The fucking UN had to be forced.

Obama made the same proposal at the G20 that Kerry made today. Kerry just let everyone know about it. The US also made military moves today which could easily be interpreted as advance preparations for a coming strike. Russia will have seen that just after Kerry's superb performance in London. What? Did you really believe Putin had such a drastic change of "heart" over what Kerry said alone? This Is Vlad we're talking about.

[Turborama]

49. Agreed, shame so many DUers are so reluctant to admit this

It should be obvious to anyone who's been properly paying attention, and is exactly what I have been saying since the news broke about this.

[joshcryer]

53. The UN had its hands tied thanks to Russia.

So let's not bash the UN so much. Russia has been blocking anything and everything regarding Syria.

[telclaven]

68. Sorry, but I don't believe in 11 dimensional chess

Secretary Kerry ran off at the mouth. President Putin saw an opportunity to tweak the US's nose, maintain patron-client status with Syria, and keep Assad in power. It's just that simple.

[DevonRex]

69. So, you don't "believe in" the Cuban Missile Crisis." Interesting.

Do you "believe in" the moon landing? Just curious.

[telclaven]

70. ....

That is an odd conclusion.

Both are factual history. Saying Obama forced Putin's hand has no factual basis except the wish fulfillment of his adherents.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. You are a very witty fellow. My smoothie is all over the table.

[joshcryer]

61. Sorry about that, hope you can slurp it up.