WHY are you acting SURPRISED or OUTRAGED about this, obi-whatsit?

Of course President Putin will support his ally Mr. Assad. Why does this surprise you exactly?

To be clear - Putin is presumably not objecting to the striking of ISIS (it's not like he has any reason to be an ISIS supporter) - his objection will be to the violation of Syrian sovereignty. Just pointing that out.

It doesn't surprise me at all, Jamiet...

My tone is not of surprise, but one of haughty derision.

...I suppose that's my tone half the time at least, to be fair, which is why at least 9/10 of the time I'm an insufferable prick (well, in fairness, there are many reasons for that.) :p

"To be clear - Putin is presumably not objecting to the striking of ISIS (it's not like he has any reason to be an ISIS supporter) - his objection will be to the violation of Syrian sovereignty. Just pointing that out."

1. ISIS being a thorn in the West's side is enough reason for Putin to, if not side with ISIS (that'd be too far, surely) at least wish to see that conflict be prolonged, messy, and to the detriment of Western powers. I suspect Putin couldn't care less if ISIS vanished off the face of the planet tomorrow. My point is that his statement and stance is a hypocritical one, and one wholly based on posturing.

2. In terms of a "violation of Syrian sovereignty," I'd say that's no easy definition at the moment...who has true legitimacy, pray tell--

The rag-tag rebel bands,
ISIS,
Or the blood-soaked, chemical-weapon-using Assad regime that's been chastised from here to Damascus by just about everyone not named Putin?

I'd argue that in practical (if not in legal) terms, Syrian sovereignty is in flux, and that it's the duty of the West to both safeguard interests there and, more importantly, safeguard human life there.

3. Russia's stonewalled action for YEARS on acting in Syria via the Security Council...doesn't this call to wait for the SC again smack of that same stall tactic? Enough stalling.

4. Finally, again--

Putin is in absolutely no position to lecture ANYONE on "violating sovereignty."

That'd be a bit like my bashing someone for shameless name-dropping or egregiously long posts...or using too many ellipses... ;)

I wasn't defending President Putin. I was pointing out that his stance on this is 100% consistent with his reaction to, or stance on, other international incidents since his current presidency began.

That President Putin would oppose US air strikes within Syria's borders, without a UN resolution, is so obvious it's barely newsworthy.

I agree his reaction is consistent...

I'm just arguing he's consistently hypocritical, and that Russia stonewalling action in Syria (again) could be a concern.

You play here and you are surprised that someone games the system to their advantage in real life diplomacy?

Wait a second Randomizer, are you trying to tell me...

POLITICS ARE REAL!!?!

So Obi whines and whines about supposed Russian interventionism and meddling but supports attacking yet another sovereign state without any authorization whatsoever.

Is there any bounds to neocon hypocrisy?

"I'm just arguing he's consistently hypocritical"

Projection.

Russia cares consistently defends international law. The US is a bandit state who thinks they can bomb anybody they want while whining about the actions of every country that dares to have an independent foreign policy.

What's supposed? Russia has invaded Ukraine. It's annexed its land. These are facts.

"I wasn't defending President Putin."

Why aren't you? Every socialist party on this planet worth a damn recognizes that Russia is the only country standing up to NATO militarism. We need allies.

Russia consistently defends international law? It's acquired territory through a war of aggression!

Russia did not "invade" Ukraine. Crimea voted to join Russia.

Those are facts.

"t's acquired territory through a war of aggression!"

Another lie. There was no 'war' for Crimea. Crimea joined of its own accord. If Russia wanted to fight Ukraine the fighting in the east would have been over by now.

Russia invaded before the vote occurred. And the vote was illegal under international law regardless.

^real facts

You people consistently defend American attacks on every country everywhere and lie about Russia. It's repulsive.

Bullshit. There was no invasion. Crimea had Russian bases that were legal by treaty. You keep making stuff up.

If the vote in Crimea was illegal than surely the puppet governments in Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan are illegal.

It's not a lie. Russia invaded its neighbor and stole its neighbor's land. This is what happened.

It is a lie. Russia had legal authority to have forces stationed in Crimea and did not even meet the limit of soldiers it was allowed to station there. Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.

You defend Kosovo's bullshit illegal independence but attack the votes of the Crimean people. Sick.

"Bullshit. There was no invasion. Crimea had Russian bases that were legal by treaty. You keep making stuff up."


If they leave their bases, that's an invasion. Also Russian crossed into Crimea from the east.

Democratic centralism really applies to EVERYTHING, doesn't it?

"It is a lie. Russia had legal authority to have forces stationed in Crimea and did not even meet the limit of soldiers it was allowed to station there. Crimea voted overwhelmingly to join Russia.

You defend Kosovo's bullshit illegal independence but attack the votes of the Crimean people. Sick."

Sure, legal to be stationed in Crimea. But not to leave the bases and occupy the peninsula. Does America have the right to do that in Bavaria?

As for the vote, as a matter of international law it doesn't matter. Territory can only be transferred by treaty.

I've said Kosovo's UDI was illegal. A distinguishable scenario, but still illegal. Nice try though.

Yes, they should have gotten UN mandate. It's a shame that the UN SC is being undermined yet again. By the same people who will no doubt start yelling again that the UN is ineffective. *sigh*

Crimea voting to join Russia is the same as Latvia voting to join the USSR...it's all great when Soviet/Russian citizen's votes count in another country.

You have such a sharp, discerning intellect, Putin, except for being able to tell when elections are rigged. Having a vote isn't the same as having a real vote. Crimea was annexed. Putin has flouted international law. Indeed, he is endangering its fragile existence.

Even if the vote was legitimate, territory can only be transferred through treaty. Right now, Crimea is illegally occupied territory.

You give Putin too much credit, Thucy...

There's no way someone with "such a sharp, discerning intellect" as Putin can't tell when an election is rigged...

He knows--he just doesn't care, because it's (essentially) a dictator he approves of, so it's OK.

When Israel does something wrong, like their seizing territory in the West Bank, Putin will come down with the full force of his utter, utter indignation...

When Vlad Putin seizes territory, Putin33 will shrug it off and explain it away.

When Israel commits potential war crimes, Putin's indignant and oh-so-outraged...

When his namesake's responsible for an airliner being shot down, or when Assad gasses people and commits war crimes that way...pfff...crimes, what crimes?

That might seem true except that I just cannot conceive of why an American like Putin would have such a vested interest in a Russian dictator being right no matter what. What's in it for him? This performance of ignorance and neutrality on this site, if it really is true he knows better. What does he gain for all his efforts to paint himself that way? He knows no of us are convinced. So why?

Putin33 has a point for me. Helps me better understand 'the enemy'.
It's very hard to make peace if you don't understand why there is war.