Putin signs order to send Russian troops to Sudan

chron.com ^ | Feb. 3, 2005, 7:30AM | Associated Press

[Destro]

Feb. 3, 2005, 7:30AM

Putin signs order to send Russian troops to Sudan

Associated Press

MOSCOW - Putin has signed a resolution that would have Russian troops join a proposed U.N. peacekeeping operation in Sudan, the Kremlin said today.

The resolution calls for Russia to send Interior Ministry units. The ministry has both police- and military-type units, and there was no immediate specification on what types of forces would be sent.

Sudan's government and rebels in the south signed a peace deal on Jan. 9 to end the African nation's long-running civil war, setting up a national power-sharing administration with an autonomous south.

The top U.N. envoy to Sudan said late last year that if a peace agreement were reached, he envisioned the adoption by the U.N. Security Council of a resolution in the third week of January authorizing a wide-ranging U.N. peacekeeping mission with 9,000 to 10,000 troops. That resolution was delayed.

[Destro]

U.S. lawmakers to Annan: End Darfur violence or resign

Oops. Bluff called?

[thoughtomator]

Whose side are they on?

[ocr1]

Beat me to the question.

[Destro]

Their own?

[cyborg]

Now how does it look that Russia is sending troops to Sudan and not the US? Wake up Dubya!

[thoughtomator]

Actually, it looks like they are enforcing our policy, that is, if they're actually there to stop the genocide.

[Destro]

Two top U.S. lawmakers (Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia) demanded UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to take an immediate action to end violence in the Sudanese western region of Darfur or resign. Russia is on Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas and Representative Frank Wolf of Virginia's side?

[thoughtomator]

Unlikely. "Their own" is a much more believable answer.

[cyborg]

I just think it's weird that Russian troops are going to enforce a US policy.

[brooklin]

We don't have to send troops everywhere. Although, if the troops that are in Bosnia,(for just 1 year), were to go...

[Destro]

Go to the link above and I see where I called the two lawmakers to task for such a stupid challenge. Of course I was flamed - but now we see where such policy carried out would mean.

[thoughtomator]

It's not yet been established that this is the case... we are just assuming that they are not there to a) help conduct the genocide; b) prevent anyone else from stopping the genocide; and/or c) setting up shop to make some money off the situation.

Russia isn't exactly known for its humanitarian interventions.

[Destro]

I was poking fun at our "estimed" statesmen.

[cyborg]

You're right we don't. However if we are going to use the excuse of 'saving people from genocide' Sudan certainly qualifies.

[cyborg]

true

[Destro]

my point was that the lawmakers statements calling on Annan to take more action actually mean a stronger UN role if the threat/bluff is met by Annan - so what can we say if the UN gets more involved? We would have been responsible. More UN involvement is a good or bad thing - but the lawmaker's statements were not well thought out.

Now what? Will we be "shamed" into sending troops as well?

[darkmatter]

This doesnt make us look bad at all. Its not our problem. We are a little busy at the moment. Let some of these nations pick up the slack.

[cyborg]

I agree with you. Most certainly we'll be shamed into sending troops when we should have been LEADING the effort.

[Destro]

Some people don't get my points some do - It's a miracle I don't get more groef on here.

[Shermy]

Putin wants to make Russia appear to be a world player.

Might also be motivated by his regular threats that Russia can strike anywhere after one and another terrorist incident at home. As if he can strike the Persian Gulf or is willing to call Iran on its game while Russia makes dough selling them nuke tech.