Putin Seizes Leadership Over American Foreign Policy

[mebanedeac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/charlescrawford/100235250/syria-chemical-weapons-and-the-worst-day-in-western-diplomatic-history/

Monday 9 September, 2013, was the worst day for US and wider Western diplomacy since records began.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/category/us-politics/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324094704579066774128762480.html?mod=wsj_review_&_outlook

A weak and inconstant U.S. President has been maneuvered by America's enemies into claiming that a defeat for his Syria policy is really a triumph.

The Iranians will take it as a signal that they can similarly trap Mr. Obama in a diplomatic morass that claims to have stopped their nuclear program. Israel will conclude the same and will now have to decide if it must risk a solo strike on Tehran. America's friends and foes around the world will recalculate the risks ahead in the 40 dangerous months left of this unserious Presidency.

 

[RJKarl]

So the fact that Putin and Obama started talking about this at the G20 and then it was discussed at lower levels since then is irrelevant.

Of course we should listen to the Murdoch Street Journal who is tied directly to Faux News, whose main profit has come from incessant and insane attacks on Obama since before he was elected. Yep, that makes sense.

BTW, I wonder if OBL, al Alaki and Qadaffi think Obama is "unserious".

 

[sailordeac]

And he is doing reasonably well, except for that gratuitous reference to God at the end.

 

[RacerDeac]

Of course we should listen to the Murdoch Street Journal who is tied directly to Faux News

Way to pick out 1 of 4 (among many many other that are out there from various sources saying essentially the same thing) links to make your stand.

Nevermind this:
http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/

They find some interesting answers: most of the media does have a liberal bias (throwing out the editorial page, the Wall Street Journal is the most liberal of all, even beating the New York Times!). Fox News is one of the few outlets that is right of center.

 

[Liquid Karma]

So the fact that Putin and Obama started talking about this at the G20 and then it was discussed at lower levels since then is irrelevant.

Of course we should listen to the Murdoch Street Journal who is tied directly to Faux News, whose main profit has come from incessant and insane attacks on Obama since before he was elected. Yep, that makes sense.

BTW, I wonder if OBL, al Alaki and Qadaffi think Obama is "unserious".

LMAO at how you are trying to spin this as some master stroke of Obama diplomacy.

 

[WFFaithful]

Too much love for the UN:

"The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization."

And hate for America:

"I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. 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."

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Too much love for the UN:

"The United Nations' founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization."

And hate for America:

"I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. 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."

Except that he is right on both counts. The UN is impotent if countries ignore it and do their own thing. And our collective perception of ourselves as "exceptional" is why our country is currently in the tailspin that it is in.

 

[WFFaithful]

Except that he is right on both counts. The UN is impotent if countries ignore it and do their own thing. And our collective perception of ourselves as "exceptional" is why our country is currently in the tailspin that it is in.

I agree, but those messages don't sit well with a significant portion of our population.

 

[bigdoublezero]

The fallout from this is like, 95% political. Domestic politics at that. It's not going to change the way diplomacy gets done.

 

[WakeandBake]

How has he seized control? It only took one op/Ed? We're pussies then.

 

[mebanedeac]

When there is a vacuum of leadership, seizing control is not that difficult if you have the will and guts.

 

[meandmyuncleDeac]

This is ridiculous. Putin comes up with a very reasonable plan. If successful, Syria will surrender it's bad weapons and we don't get ourselves into another war. I see it as a "w" for the world, and fuck whatever anyone thinks about "Putin seizing leadership"!!!

 

[RJKarl]

When there is a vacuum of leadership, seizing control is not that difficult if you have the will and guts.

Do you actually think Putin would have ever considered this if he didn't think Obama was going to bomb Syria?

 

[mebanedeac]

Yep. Putin is looking out for the world and he is scared too death of Obama. That's it. So, ultimately Obama is the leader because his strength of leadership intimated Putin into devising a plan for world peace. Obama has Putin on a string. Masterful, absolutely masterful.

 

[Strickland33]

LMAO at how you are trying to spin this as some master stroke of Obama diplomacy.

This. Obama and Kerry may avoid having to send in the troops, but this was unmistakably a HUGE foreign policy gaffe no matter how you spin it. The question that I have is how the administration is able to work in an international context moving forward. How they work with the Russians on this is more important, IMO, than how we got played by the Russians.

 

[ONW]

Except that he is right on both counts. The UN is impotent if countries ignore it and do their own thing. And our collective perception of ourselves as "exceptional" is why our country is currently in the tailspin that it is in.

Damn it. I hate agreeing with 2&2.

 

[RJKarl]

So before Obama was planning to take it Congress and then implied he'd do it without Congress, Putin said nothing about this. Assad denied having any chemical weapons at all.

If you think Putin would have dome this without believing Obama would attack Syria with or without Congress, I've got a bridge for sale.

Sometimes you have to give Obama some credit.

 

[RacerDeac]

Do you actually think Putin would have ever considered this if he didn't think Obama was going to bomb Syria?

Do you think Obama would have suggested it if not for a sarcastic remark by Kerry? If this is the "best" viable solution, why wasn't Obama pushing for it all along rather than looking for any chance he could find to blow some shit up? I would be happy to give Obama some credit if he had, you know, actually pursued this as an option rather than going straight into ATTACK ATTACK!! mode.

We would have bombed Syria long ago if Britain hadn't said no. We would have bombed Syria long ago if Congress didn't hate Obama. We lucked into this because no one would let the chickenhawk pull the trigger, Kerry made a gaffe and Putin saw an opening to take care of his BFF by taking Kerry up on his sarcastic offer. I still don't really believe Syria is going to give up all of their chemical weapons, but they sure as hell bought themselves months and months of time to figure out how to keep them and make this all go away.

 

[RJKarl]

This. Obama and Kerry may avoid having to send in the troops, but this was unmistakably a HUGE foreign policy gaffe no matter how you spin it. The question that I have is how the administration is able to work in an international context moving forward. How they work with the Russians on this is more important, IMO, than how we got played by the Russians.

Then how do you explain that they were working this plan at the G20 meeting?

How do you explain that after Putin and Obama discussed it, our SOS and their Foreign Minister met to discuss disarming Syria?

Was this handled perfectly? No

Did Putin have to eat some crow? Yep

Did Obama look bad for a while? Yep

Is this the best possible result we could get? Yep

 

[Strickland33]

I agree with all of that stuff, actually, but Russia really stepped to the plate and bottom-lined this move. Kerry is a boob. There's really no way around that, and didn't have the stones to get behind what actually was the best response to this situation even though Obama had backed himself into a corner. There's really no explanation required. In this case, the facts really speak for themselves.

If anything, then we should be happy that Obama has the humility to do what Bush Jr. didn't: use his brain and do the "right" thing, hubris aside. I'm critical of our president, but I really do give him credit for that.