Putin Says Fighting Islamic State in Syria Is Top Priority
Source: Bloomberg
By Henry Meyer, Anton Doroshev
September 15, 2015 — 5:25 AM EDT
Russian President Vladimir Putin said the fight against Islamic State should be the global community’s top priority in Syria, rather than changing the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
A broad coalition is needed to combat the threat posed by the terrorist group, which wants to spread its activities across Europe and Russia, Putin said on Tuesday at a security summit of ex-Soviet countries in Dushanbe, Tajikistan. It’s impossible to curb Islamic State without the Syrian army and Russia is backing President Assad’s government in fighting terrorism, including by providing military aid, he said.
“It’s necessary to think about the political transition in that country” and Assad is willing to “involve healthy opposition forces in the administration of the state,” Putin said. “But the focus today is definitely on the need to combine forces in the fight against terrorism.”
--clip
‘Common Sense’
Countries need to “put aside geopolitical ambitions” as well as “direct or indirect use of terrorist groups to achieve” goals that include regime change, in order to counter the threat of Islamic State, Putin said. “Elementary common sense responsibility for global and regional security demands the collective effort of the international community.”
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-15/putin-says-global-community-must-unite-to-fight-islamic-state
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
eissa
(4,238 posts)Now if only his country admitted in some of those refugees.
Putin is a horrific leader but he's right on this.
Kotya
(235 posts)They want to go to Germany, England and Sweden.
eissa
(4,238 posts)That will allow them work permits, will educate their children (many of whom have missed years of schooling because of the war), and will help them back on their feet. They're not looking to "mooch" -- they just need some assistance to once again lead a normal life.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
6chars
(3,967 posts)or is it to establish a Russian foothold in the Middle East again. He's saying the right things. I guess we can trust him from looking in his eyes. 
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)You can argue that the pros of this outweigh the cons, but it would be a substantial change.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/pentagon-confirms-russia-build-syria-n427051
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)6chars
(3,967 posts)In all likelihood, there is still a lot of blood that's going to be spilled before the mess is handled.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)I believe it when i see it.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)We're all about overthrowing Assad. How did that work out, by the way?
Ichigo Kurosaki
(167 posts)than it was taking out Qaddafi.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
Xolodno
(6,384 posts)...Chechen Islamic Fundamentalist to join ISIS, he's got them right where he wants them. Stuck in a desert with no Caucus Mountains to hide them. Plus there isn't any "Press" to cover them in case of Geneva violations, they're going to play by the same rules as ISIS.
Sort of like what the Islamic Brotherhood did in Egypt, Military couldn't quash them for decades, once they over reached in the government, it was easy to pick them off....with support.
roamer65
(36,744 posts)While he may be right, it is a statement meant to obscure Russia's ambitions in Syria.
They don't want a regime in place in Syria that will allow a gas pipeline to Europe.
This is the level of Putin derangement syndrome some people are suffering from. So let me get this straight, the current and legitimate govt of Syria says no to a pipeline and because of it, the west and Gulf states that support the pipeline attack Syria using proxy armies of terrorists and "moderate" jihadists and that for some reason is Putin trying to stop a pipeline?
I guess the rest of the world should get out of the way so that the western can bully any country they want into doing exactly that they ask of them, anything else would be people interfering with their desires.
V0ltairesGh0st
(306 posts)but i do find myself agreeing with him some times.... sorta like Rand Pual.... but not exactly.....
pampango
(24,692 posts)1: When massive peaceful protests occur, repress them as them as violently as you can get away with - snipers, arrests, torture, etc.
2. This may work to quell the protests. If so, reward your military and security services and go back to being a dictator.
3. If #1 doesn't work right away and massive peaceful protests continue, keep up the repression. (You have to come up with a strategy to keep the international community at bay. A friend on the Security Council is useful for this.) Start talking about the presence of "criminal gangs" or "terrorists" among the protestors. There may not be any yet, but it's good to get the talking point out there for future use.
4. If your military and security forces continue to prove to be ineffective in suppressing dissent, don't worry. Keep up the armed repression. Eventually frustration will build up among factions of the protesters and some will become willing to resort to violence given the apparent futility of peaceful protest. Or outside groups will begin to take advantage of these frustrations.
5. At this point you can unleash your military and security forces to the full extent and hope you don't lose the civil war you have created.
6. If your military seems to be losing the civil war you have created, appeal to appeal to the international community to help you fight the terrorists - who weren't there in step #1 but are now.
I think this is a strategy that is workable in many repressive countries when populations get fed up with living with no rights.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=378947
This is from a 3/3/12 post.