What I have to say is not about Russia working with Syria, the United States, the United Nations, the world to help get rid of Syria’s massive arsenal of chemical weapons. I applaud this and I wish the effort every success for the sake humanity — at least for the sake of innocent men, women and children in Syria and surrounding areas.
What I have to say — and I admit that it has probably already been said much better by hundreds of better minds — is about a man who has the temerity to lecture Americans, in an American newspaper, about “international law,” about “preserving law and order,” about “advocating peaceful dialogue” and “civilized diplomatic and political settlement,” about letting peoples “plan for their own future.”
It is about a man who has the audacity to express concern for “civilian casualties including the elderly and children” and for the “use of brute force,” who claims to respect the “sacred” roles of the United Nations and the Security Council and all that is “enshrined in the United Nations Charter,” a man who expresses concern that “militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel.”
It is about a man who has the hubris to counsel America on democracy, on ‘exceptionalism,’ on following the law “whether we [Americans] like it or not” and, implicitly, about morality and human rights.
It is finally about a man who has the balls to piously and hypocritically invoke religious leaders, including the pope, and to say “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.” Yeah, just ask Russian gays and lesbians and other critics who have “differences” in Russia.
That man happens to be Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia, brutal dictator, former KGB honcho and one of the worst human rights abusers and United Nations/Security Council obstructionists. I could go on, but as I said, much better minds have already said it better than I can.
On “civilized diplomatic and political settlement[s],” Putin himself, in another infamous Op-ed in the New York Times in November 1999 defended his military intervention in Chechnya and Dagestan saying, “Sadly, decisive armed intervention was the only way to prevent further casualties both within and far outside the borders of Chechnya, further suffering by so many people enslaved by terrorists.”
As to his concern for “civilian casualties including the elderly and children” and his claim that “No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect,” in the same Times opinion piece, Putin argued:
American officials tell us that ordinary citizens are suffering, that our military tactics may increase that suffering. The very opposite is true. Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population…Our land and air forces strive to target only opposing armed forces. The whole reason we chose accurately targeted strikes on specifically identified terrorist bases was to avoid direct attacks on Chechen.
On the “profound wisdom” of the United Nations Charter, Victor Davis Hanson at the National Review says:
We all, like Putin, wish the Security Council veto really had ensured the stability of international relations for decades. In fact, authoritarian regimes, like Putin’s Russia and Communist China, have consistently thwarted efforts to address human-rights violations — except when the charges, mostly false, are lodged against democratic Israel.
On influential countries bypassing the United Nations and taking military action without Security Council authorization, Hanson comments, “I suppose that might include the 2008 Russian use of force over Ossetia.”
Julia Ioffe at the New Republic, who agrees that “It takes some balls for a man who started two wars to reach out to the American people on 9/11 and plead for peace,” reminds us:
“Three times the Security Council took up resolutions to condemn lesser violence by the Syrian regime,” said former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice on Monday. “Three times we negotiated for weeks over the most watered-down language imaginable. And three times, Russia and China double vetoed almost meaningless resolutions. Similarly, in the past two months, Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the use of chemical weapons that did not even ascribe blame to any party. Russia opposed two mere press statements expressing concern about their use.”
On Putin’s concern that American unilateral actions in Syria might “undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem,” Hanson at the National Review adds: “When has Putin ever considered theocratic Iran’s efforts to acquire a bomb much of a ‘nuclear problem’ — given that Russia routinely sells the regime weapons and technology useful for proliferation, and provides it with political cover?”
I might ask, where did Syria’s massive stores of chemical weapons come from? And where has Putin been on North Korea’s efforts to develop and launch nuclear weapons?
On returning to “the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement,” Dashiell Bennett and Eric Levenson at the Atlantic Wire write:
That’s a slightly different take than the one [Putin] gave last year, writing in Foreign Policy that Russia must have a strong and robust military because “Russia cannot rely on diplomatic and economic methods alone to resolve conflicts.” In that case, as in Chechnya, the language of force seemed to work just fine.
In other words, peace comes from strength when that strength belongs to Russia. Otherwise, it’s up to the United Nations Security Council…
However, the statement that, in my opinion, has offended people the most is Putin’s outrageously “righteous” invocation of the Lord’s name in his admonition that “we must not forget that God created us equal.” No, Mr. Putin, we have not forgotten. You have!
Again, I hope that the government of Russia can help persuade Syria to get rid of its chemical weapons.
But it offends me to the core that a brutal dictator, a KGB thug, a human rights violator of the first order has the balls to pontificate diplomacy, law and order, morality, human rights, humaneness and Godliness to America and Americans.
Whether the New York Times intended it or not, at least the sardonic and duplicitous words of this man are somewhat balanced with and qualified by what in my mind is the image of a bloodstained hand appearing in Putin’s Op-Ed.
Image : www.shutterstock.com
