The knee-jerk dismissal (by some) of Putin's remarks is so drearily typical of the 'Ugly American'

[markpkessinger]

164. I need to clarify something . . .

. . . I guess I wasn't really as clear in my OP as I should have been. I am NOT talking here about Putin's claims concerning who is or is not responsible for the attacks. On that score, as Assad's ally/sponsor, I would pretty much expect he would say it was the rebels regardless of what the evidence showed. Many have jumped on the OP, apparently thinking I buy Putin's claims. But in the context of Putin's essay, there is one -- ONE -- very short paragraph, out of 18 paragraphs in total (or 58 out of a 1,068 words in total), dealing with the issue of which side was the perpetrator. Clearly, simply declaring Assad's government innocent of the attack was not the primary objective in writing the essay.

So what does Putin discuss in the other 17 paragraphs? He discusses:

• the history and mission of the U.N., and the potential damage to that mission if a large, powerful country like the United States goes around the U.N. and undertakes action unilaterally;
  
  
• some possible or likely unintended negative consequences that could result from a military strike against Syria (all of which possible or likely unintended consequences have been raised by numerous pundits and politicians here in the U.S., not to mention here on DU);
  
  
• the nature of of the conflict in Syria, and the various parties involved; (actually, these two paragraphs are worth quoting here:
  
  

  Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
  
  Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

  
  
  
• a (rather disingenuous) claim that Russia is "not protecting the Syrian government, but international law"; but then he goes on to point out, quite accurately, that under international law, unilateral force is only permitted in self-defense or with the approval of the U.N. Security Council;
  
  
• the fact that U.S. military intervention in the internal affairs of other countries has become a pattern with the U.S., and reminds us of how futile those efforts typically have been (neither of which point can be reasonably denied or refuted);
  
  
• the importance of remaining committed to a diplomatic approach working towards a political, not military, solution; (again, pretty hard to argue with)
  
  
• and finally, his comment in response to President Obama's appeal in his speech to 'American Exceptionalism'. Putin's words on this point are spot on, even though he may not be the person we think should be telling us:
  
  

  And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Finally, to those who would suggest that Putin's own misdeeds and unsavory character mean that we should disregard anything and everything he says (or writes): if that were followed as a general rule of thumb in our dealings with leaders of other countries, it would render the entire art of diplomacy (except when dealing with trusted allies) a complete and utter impossibility.