Putin says 'dumbfounded' over NATO operation in Libya

[jakeXT]

Source: RIA NOVOSTI

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin continued on Wednesday to criticize NATO military operations in Libya, saying that he was "dumb-founded" over how easy decisions are made to use force against countries.

When asked by a Swedish journalist, Putin, who is currently on a visit in Stockholm, said "this happens despite human rights and humanity concerns which the civilized world is believed to advocate," apparently referring to reports about NATO planes bombing civilian objects in Libya.

"Don't you think that there is a serious controversy between words and practice of international relations?" he said, adding that this "misbalance" should be eliminated.

...

Comparing the situation in Libya to what happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Putin told the journalist a story about his friend, a KGB officer serving there at that time. When Putin asked him about his success, the officer told him that he was measuring it by the number of airstrikes that he did not approve, explaining that Soviet airstrikes were killing civilians along with rebels.

Read more: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110427/163739739.html

---

Putin Says NATO Strikes Destroying Libya, Violate Mandate

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Western military efforts to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi are destroying the nation’s infrastructure and violate a United Nations mandate to protect civilians.

“Who decided they had the right to execute a man, regardless of who he is?” Putin told reporters in Copenhagen today during a joint briefing with his Danish counterpart Lars Loekke Rasmussen.

After more than two months of fighting between Qaddafi’s forces and rebels seeking to end his 42-year rule, Libya has ground to a military impasse, with the government controlling much of the west and the insurgents holding the east. A NATO airstrike yesterday destroyed part of Qaddafi’s Bab al-Aziziya compound in the capital Tripoli. NATO said in an e-mailed statement that it hit a “communications headquarters” in Tripoli, without giving details.

Putin on March 21 likened the UN resolution and resulting offensive to a “medieval call for a crusade.” He criticized the U.S. for regularly resorting to force in pursuit of its interests, in Libya and previously in Iraq and Serbia.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-26/putin-says-nato-strikes-destroying-libya-violate-mandate-1-.html

[FirstLight]

1. I have to say I agree with the man

and even if there are those who will bash the afganistan/russia conflict in the 80s and other times he used force himself.
I think our country has gone way overboard thinking we have to tell everyone how to live. While I also don't agree with Quaddafi (sp?) and think he's nutso...how is bombing going to help this freak let go of his power? It just makes crazies like that dig in more...and in ten years we'll be a non-country because we will have spent everything on this bullshit...endless war, holy war, crusade...

maybe putin could be a gorbachev and step in and try to get civility brought back into play?

[trud]

3. k&r n/t

[orangeapple]

7. pooty-poot is no gorby

and he's happy to use this instance of Western nations bombing a third world country to sow mistrust and improve Russia's standing in the world.

But I agree with you, we shouldn't be involved in this mess.

[PATRICK]

2. This has been a sloppy policy

all along regardless of its justification. It has been a piecemeal escalation revealing its real goals in an ineffective way dictated by Ghaddafi's aggressive resistance. The one step behind doesn't propose to get any better at the real cost of civilian lives.

Either you honestly put boots on the ground(preferably the French who seem the most enthusiastic for the honor) and make war on Ghaddafi or continue a bloody pretense of lawful limited intervention. Ghaddafi has clearly thrown the dice and now the sanctions and airstrikes look as horrifically misguided as well as dishonest. That gives their "enemy" both a reasonable hope, an affirmation of the need to keep on the offense, and murk to hide within the international community as the civilians losses
can almost be blamed on their confused rescuers.

What does this bode for after the war from the dictator or from the mess of Euro and US interests anyway? If NATO was proposed as an intervention to pre-empt the French then it was not only in error but worsened the issues it was meant to head off. If the French were not ready we certainly were not either, nor the British or Italians for auld ang syne histories in the oil region. Together they seemed joined in a very destructive unreadiness grinding down the people of Libya in between.

A fine mess that could not be resisted? If you are going to come to the aid of a people the pretense of overwhelming force stretching out one finger cautiously is a straw arrogance. Ghaddafi with his lean means has something he can fight successfully and the people of Libya, devoid of a professional military are caught in a stupid crossfire, friendly and unfriendly.

[neoralme]

4. I absolutely agree with Putin. The NATO decision to go into Libya

is one of the dumbest ever made.

[pampango]

6. It was, of course, a United Nations' decision, not one made by NATO.

The UN has intervened in over a dozen countries. Libya is not the first and probably won't be the last.

[neoralme]

8. Yeah. All started under Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter. I keep

hoping NATO would separate from being the military arm of the UN, so my erroneous attribution may have been a mental thing.

[orangeapple]

9. do you think that makes it ok

for the President to not get the authorization from Congress to initiate the use of force?

China, Russia and India have come out saying they supported a no fly zone to protect civilians, not a bombing of Libya, or assassination of Quadafi, or 'regime change'.

[Xithras]

10. The UN shouldn't have the power to make war.

No unelected, unaccountable body should have the right to send people to war and end human lives. Ever.

[dipsydoodle]

5. k & r

.