Posted on 09/23/2014 8:43:56 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
MOSCOW — As the United States launches airstrikes against the Islamic State in Syria, Russia is condemning the move, and hedging support for the attacks so long as they proceed without the Syrian government’s consent.
The Kremlin has no trouble with the intended target — like the United States, Russia wants the Islamic State destroyed and thinks it must be defeated in Syria and Iraq.
But as Syria’s unofficial patron and interlocutor in international discussions about how to confront the Islamic State, Russia is insistent that U.S. measures to target militants in Syria lack authority without buy-in from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — a point Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon Tuesday.
President Obama is not directly coordinating strikes that are underway against the Islamic State with Assad, although the Syrian army is fighting the group, too.
In the past, competing allegiances in the Syrian conflict have not blocked all cooperation. Last year, Obama and Putin brokered an agreement to transfer Syria’s chemical weapons to international control, narrowly avoiding U.S. airstrikes. But the near-complete erosion of trust between the two countries since then — and pervasive suspicion about the United States’ motives — complicates the chances of a similar breakthrough.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Sit on it!!!
The WASHINGTON POST is providing political cover for the Administration.
The war on ISIS is just an excuse to go after Assad in Syria. You know what McCain and Obama have been trying to do for the last 3 years.
Think Libya 2.0
Moreover, if you think it’s worth going to World War III for Saudi Arabia over a gas pipeline, then I think that’s insane.
Furthermore,
Russia will not give up Syria. Did you know the following.
1. Russia has a naval installation in Syria, which is strategically important and Russia’s last foreign military base outside the former Soviet Union.
2. Russia still has a bit of a Cold War mentality, as well as a touch of national insecurity, which makes it care very much about maintaining one of its last military alliances.
3. Russia also hates the idea of “international intervention” against countries like Syria because it sees this as Cold War-style Western imperialism and ultimately a threat to Russia.
4. Syria buys a lot of Russian military exports, and Russia needs the money.
I agree with you. I think the Bear could push the button over this.
Iran’s president said it was illegal and not authorized by UN or Syria @mitchellreports
The Bear??? We started it by launching Cruise Missiles for Saudi Arabia. Remember Obama bowls to the Saudi king.
What ANY U.S. President should tell Putin:
“The U.S. will not consider foreign policy or anti-terror advice from a country with Russia’s recent track record.”
Putin and the Russian Federation are DEFINITELY on the high moral ground here.
You make geopolitical moves when there is no organized resistance to your progress.
Syria will turn out to be even more a US ground war than Viet Nam or Iraq ever were.
And all because we would not enlist our natural allies on the ground there, in this instance, the Kurds.
Kurdistan is, and should be recognized as, the most powerful mediatory faction in the region. Not because they are just, or merciful, or striving for peace. Because they are the people the most brutal of Sunni or Shi’ite Muslims are afraid of.
There is likely a lot more going on behind the scenes than we know about, folks.
The Syrians announced that we informed them the airstrikes were coming, via their UN ambassador. There are no reports yet of any Assad Regime positions that have been hit.
We are likely tip-toeing the line within Syria to keep Assad and Russia out of it.
Once again. I agree with you. (”the bear” is Russia)
Let’s talk about Ukraine, Mr. Poopin.
~What ANY U.S. President should tell Putin:
“The U.S. will not consider foreign policy or anti-terror advice from a country with Russia’s recent track record.”~
I know that it is your patriotism talking and you probably can’t see a thing wrong with foreign policy but for the last couple decades, between Yugoslavia, and Libya, Russia is certainly a piker in terms of illegal aggression.
Maybe you mean any Swedish or Luxembourg President?
Maybe I meant exactly what I said?
I don’t give a damn what you think about America’s foreign policy at any point in history.
My suggested response to Putin is appropriate.
I know you are and I didn’t even try to change your mind because it is plain futile.
I guess you don’t even realize how misleading and manipulative the headline of the article in the thread.
“Russia is insistent that U.S. measures to target militants in Syria lack authority without buy-in from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — a point Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon Tuesday.”
What part of the headline is “misleading and manipulative” given this content?
The part when they say ‘against ISIS’. Legally, it is a strike against a sovereign state and this exact administration did anything it could to weaken efforts of said state (and destroying this state is a major ISIS objective) in this department. Obama himself promised ISIS weapons, US ambassador to Libya died running these weapon and John McCain went there to check things on the ground. Now they are bombing the very country which is under ISIS attack and it’s main opponent. If it is not an extreme form of hypocrisy bordering with schizophrenia what is it?
Note: this topic was posted 9/23/2014. Thanks SeekAndFind.
..................
Related threads
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.