Did the US go to Russia for help or did Russia come to the US for help?

[kentuck]

I hear some people say that Obama went crawling to Putin for help with the Syria crisis? Is that what you believe?

As I recall, a reporter asked Kerry a question about what Syria could do and he responded that they could turn over their chemical weapons to international control.

Then, Putin got involved. He said he could accept international control. Then Assad made a statement that the idea was fine with him, after consulting with Putin.

So, I do not think it is fair to say that Obama or Kerry went crawling to Putin to save their asses?

[bowens43]

1. It's more like Putin puilled Obama's ass out of the fire, on his own as an act of charity

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. I cannot fathom what it takes to deny Obama any credit whatsoever...

Putin..."the new savior of the world".

You think Putin gives a rats ass about Chemical Weapons use in the Middle East? Seriously?

[kentuck]

6. Loose chemical weapons have better odds of reaching Russia than America.

So Putin has an interest in keeping them under control and Assad is not in a secure enough position to keep them safe. Putin needs Obama but moreso, he needs the UN to secure these dangerous chemical weapons. There are a lot of Muslims in Russia and they are susceptible to terrorism like everyone else.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. I understand he has an interest....

but I am also sure that without Obama's resoluteness...he never would have reined in Assad. To deny that Obama and Biden have been working on this for quite some time in order to praise Putin? GMAB

[kentuck]

12. I think Putin understands that Assad could not be helped if America bombed his country.

Putin is improvising, in my opinion. He wants control of these chemical weapons as much as America does. His country is more vulnerable. If he can save Assad in the process, it is a win for him. But, I just wanted to correct the story going around that Obama crawled up to Putin to save his ass. I don't see it that way.

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. I don't see THAT happening at all..either

sounds like what rightwingers would say..."Obama goes around the world apologizing" ...how is that much different than "crawling to Putin to be rescued"/

[jaysunb]

3. Does it matter ??? n/t

[MineralMan]

4. We're not going to find that out.

The two heads of state got together and worked something out. That's how it works. The mechanics of it, and the details of how it happened will not be public information. They had a conversation, and others in their administrations discussed it, too. A decision was made. They shook hands.

And there it is. Speculation about the details is of no value at all.

[kentuck]

7. If they can resolve this situation, I say....

Give them both the Nobel Peace Prize.

[MineralMan]

9. I'll just be grateful that a solution was found.

How they came up with it is not really that important to me, frankly.

[disidoro01]

5. Doesn't matter

to me. We've pushed off military intervention for a while. I hope it doesn't circle back around. But a lot of the "we gotta kill someone, it's the democratic way" crowd are sure pissed and really tearing into anybody who is glad we are not bombing civilians.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. Which Democrats are those pray tell?

[disidoro01]

13. You for one

Isn't that why you responded? To defend killing in democracy's name. Because I am anti-war I side with Paul or because I am glad Putin became involved to give everyone pause, I am a homophobe?
You are cloaked in a thin veener of Democracy and you use that to bang on those who don't march in lockstep with the President when he wants to wage war. I also don't like us droning innocent people in other countries.
The president and Kerry were wrong from the beginning on this and frankly our mideast policy is all wrong. I don't care who is president, it is wrong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. Apparently you have misunderstood elation for being pissed...

"we gotta kill someone, it's the democratic way" crowd are sure pissed"

The last thing anyone could describe what I feel about the turn of events is pissed...I have been admittedly GLOATING! I even used that word to describe it.

If it took saber rattling to remove more chemical weapons from the world so be it....that's how diplomacy works sometimes...read some history.

Or do you think that Assad would have given up his Chemical arsenal if we just asked him "pretty please"?

[disidoro01]

20. Well

You were sabre rattling to bomb them because they had the audacity to kill with chemicals instead of peace bombs. This administration was not sabre rattling, they wanted war (Military intervention) and there isn't anything to indicate otherwise
Keep in mind, the weapons have not been removed.
The resolutions are already being drawn up to fail. Kerry dismissing the month deadline for the plan and wanting a week. The UN resolution that no one in their right mind would sign. Bear in mind and I know you will struggle with this, we have not signed off on the land mine ban. We have the largest nuclear arsenal in the world and we also us WP and depleted uranium. Do we have the right to do these things without threat of intervention from other countries? Because the majority of the world is against all of these things.
If no, our argument is over and we agree, we are over reaching and this is not just about CW. If yes, why? Sovereignty? We are badder than other countries, let them try? Exceptionalism?

[VanillaRhapsody]

21. Yeah...have you seeen how torturous it is to use chemical weapons?

Do you even know how dangerous it is to even be the one to deploy it? Do you know that the people who man those bombs with chem weapons have to wear hazmat and have to be decontaminated just for that? But now we have Assad agreeing to give up those chemical weapons...do you think he would have done that if we just asked him "pretty please". Seriously????

Walk softly and carry a big stick is not just a quaint saying....


Here's what it looks like:

[disidoro01]

24. Do you

Understand dead is dead? Why is this chemical weapon issue ours to deal with? Where is our moral authority on this?
I think your chemical weapon precaution assertions are conjecture. But really it doesn't matter. Nuclear bombs are dangerous too i hear and handling precautions must be taken as well.

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. No dead is NOT dead...

there are ways to die...and there are ways to die. My grandfather died in his sleep. Are you saying that his death is the same as any other death? He looked peaceful and asleep in his coffin for a reason.

If you really think so...you should really read up on HOW chemical kill you....

Death is not all the same there is a reason we ban the use of those weapons.

[disidoro01]

30. BS

Why don't we sign on to the landmine ban? Stop using WP and depleted uranium. I absolutely state those deaths are no better than CW.
WE only push bans when WE are not inconvenienced, we don't give a damn about how people die.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. and I aboslutely state you are wrong....and the the law is on my side...

and another Hater of America pops his head up!

"we don't give a damn how people die" is horseshit! You opinion of my country is disgusting...and I will ignore your hatred. Pedal your horseshit elsewhere...I am not buying.

[disidoro01]

32. The law is not on your side

can you please explain that. My claim stands, we support land mine use while much of the world has signed the ban. We are in company with China, Iran and Russia among others on this. Land mines cause thousands of deaths per year yet you conveniently ignore that to push what was a limited effect as one of the greatest tragedies out there.
It is the same with WP and Depleted Uranium.
I hate that america supports killing of so many innocent people and then turns around and points fingers at other nations. We should be better than that.
I also shake my head at simpletons like you who refuse to address this countries behaviors while pushing some false narrative of the US as global policeman/do-gooder.

[gordianot]

8. Not so long ago Obama was criticized for being too chummy with Putin.

Obama's opponent in the 2012 election (you may remember his name) labeled Russia to considerable shock, almost out of no where as America's number #1 enemy. My suspicion is there is a lot of theatrical posturing if for no other reason than to keep Obama's domestic critics guessing. The scowls at the G20 summit appeared just a little over the top. Wonder if the Whitehouse has video conferencing set up? Who really thinks they have to talk face to face and suffer the inane speculation of what passes for news media?

They probably do not really like each other but from time to time do business.

[LittleBlue]

15. It was more like Obama was caught in a fire with no means of escape

Putin threw him a lifeline and Obama has firmly grasped it.

[kentuck]

16. I guess it is a matter of perspective?

I think Putin was the one caught in the fire. He knew the US was ready to send in the cruise missiles and there was nothing he could do about it and he wasn't sure that Assad could survive it, with the rebels controlling half of Damascus already. Obama's acceptance of Putin's offer pulled Putin's bacon out of the fire, even if it saved Obama from sending in the cruise missiles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. More nuanced they pulled each other out of the fire

Keeping Assad is actually something both sides might want in spite of public posturing.

The replacements will make us wish for the dictator we knew.

[blm]

18. Lavrov and Kerry have been working on Syria solutions all summer.

I think Russia jumped quickly here to use the opportunity for potential conflict to leverage Syria into the diplomatic solution that US-Russia wanted in the first place.
Lavrov and Kerry have been on the same page for longer than most realize.


August 10, before chem attacks:
http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-lavrov-kerry-geneva/25071543.html

Today:
http://rt.com/news/lavrov-kerry-geneva-syria-761/

[DevonRex]

22. Jesus, that's silly nonsense. Can you imagine either of them

crawling or begging? Really.

For the adults in the room, this is how the game of chicken is played.

There is a public threat of force.
In the back channels there is a private offer that will forestall the use of the threatened force.
If the offer is rejected without acceptable counter, the threat escalates.
Military preparations become visible.
Back channels are still open and a counter offer is made.
A deal is struck.

***The entire purpose of the threat is to bring the parties to the table to achieve a specific goal (get control of Assad's CW). Once there, the deal will almost always have to allow the losing party (Assad) to save face.

In this case, Russia had blocked UN action.
The US had to be the threat.
Russia, as Assad's ally, had to be his negotiating partner.
The UN will be the international group taking control of the CW.

If you look at this backwards, like a puzzle, you'll see that because Russia is Syria's ally, only the United States could fill the roll of the threat. Putin and Obama both knew this long ago. It is very basic balance-of-power stuff, the easiest game theory you'll ever come across.

As long as Putin, slimy weasel that he is, doesn't fuck it up. Apologies to weasels.

[DearAbby]

23. Putin has put quite a bit of effort to become involved

fine, Assad becomes Putin's problem child...a scolding letter is a small price to pay. Obama gets what he wants, weapons out of the reach of both Assad and the Rebels, and Putin has to do the work. Of course we will assist in any way possible via the UN. We are no longer the world's police.

[wandy]

26. You may have pointed to a greater good that can come of this...........

"We are no longer the world's police."
Or at least we may get a little help now and then.

[Boom Sound 416]

25. Their is no "help" in the equation

[Agnosticsherbet]

27. Russia under Putin has sold Syria the conventional weapons used to kill more than 100,000 people.

They continue to support and arm the Syrian government.
(Note: Syria manufactures its own Chemical Weapons)

Syria was a Russian client state under the U.S.S.R., and is now the only remaining client state in the region with an important port the Russian military uses.

The U.S. attempted to pass sanctions on Syria that were vetoed by Russia in the Security council. Russia maintains that Syria is just fighting mean, wicked, awful terrorists.

It was in Russia's interest to maintain their client in the middle east, a client they would lose if a new, non-Assad government took over. Russia, which is home to a very large Muslim population, casts a dim view on religious states ad does not want to exacerbate their own problems with an unhappy Muslim population that has used terrorism to attempt to gain independence.

There is zero fact in the notion that Obama or Kerry went crawling to Putin to save their bacon. Up until yesterday, Putin used the UN to block any attempt to get a peaceful solution in Syria. When Russia invaded Georgia, they did not seek UN approval, and didn't care what the rest of the world thought about their invasion.

(Russia has its on Military Industrial Complex that is making lots of money and helping Russia become, once again, a super power.)

Putin has also moved Russian Naval vessels to the region in the event of a confrontation.

To sum up:

Putin is not a peace loving kind hearted Russian Grandfather that just wants to user in the Age of Aquarius in Syria and around the world with the help of the UN. He is head of a country that is using this to humble in some way the US, so he can finally call the full resurgence of an expansive Russian Imperial Power as existed under the former Soviet Union.

[Uncle Joe]

29. I don't believe it makes any difference,

so long as both sides work out a satisfactory diplomatic outcome "hard work."

They can both claim victory for all I care.

If Obama and/or Kerry went to Putin for help that's ok, if Putin came to them to save Assad, that's ok.

One thing I've read on D.U. as of late is that one side or the other Obama or Putin is a hypocrite, but to my knowledge hypocrisy in and of itself doesn't prevent one from speaking the truth on some issues.

There are no perfect people or nations, the best we can do is work out satisfactory, peaceful solutions despite our imperfections.

Thanks for the thread, kentuck.

[joshcryer]

33. Russia was out of options

they had no choice