Putin: U.S. Must Take Military Action Off The Table
Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing some diplomatic hardball in connection with the proposal his Foreign Minister put forward yesterday:
Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that for the proposed Russian agreement that Syria turn over its chemical weapons to work, the United States must take military action off the table.
“Certainly, this is all reasonable, it will function and will work out, only if the US and those who support it on this issue pledge to renounce the use of force, because it is difficult to make any country – Syria or any other country in the world – to unilaterally disarm if there is military action against it under consideration,” Putin said, according to RT.com.
Putin also confirmed that he and President Barack Obama discussed the possibility of such a solution on the sidelines of the G-20 Summit last week, saying they agreed to have Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart get in touch to move the idea forward
The White House on Tuesday said it would work with the United Nations to try to move forward on a path to the solution proposed by the Russians, which Syria has agreed to, but it is urging skepticism as to whether Syria will actually follow through.
It’s unclear where the diplomatic game will head now. Secretary Kerry is supposed to be meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Thursday in Geneva, though, so it would appear that it is indeed moving forward. More importantly, though, this would seem to blunt the momentum in Washington for military action. Considering that the President was likely to lose that vote, that’s actually a win for him.
New administration policy toward Russia just announced.
The Administration’s position will be that the military option is off the table-for now. The Russians and Syrians will be given a chance to show that they are serious about Syria giving up its chemical weapons.
Mean while, even the dumbest Congresscritter in Dumbfvckistan is going to understand that the best play will be to vote for an AUMF that’s predicated on the Russians and Syrians following through on their promises. The right wing is still yammering that this is some kind of defeat for Obama, but it’s becoming clearer that this actually looks like a win. Now, its still not rainbows and sparkle ponies- it just means that Assad is going to continue to win by conventional means in continuing bloody fashion. It’s just a harder road for him. But he doesn’t get to gas his way to victory. in the MIddle East, that counts as progress.
@ Donald Sensing
Don’t quit your day job…
@stonetools:
Exactly, this is a sad little dance for them. Of course we all know just how pleased they would have been had President Obama unilaterally authorized a strike against Syrian chemical weapons facilities and bypassed Congress altogether.
@Donald Sensing:
Please stop blogwhoring.
As I was flipping channels last night (and after just stating on the other thread that I don’t watch cable news) I caught a few minutes of Piers Morgan … Paul Wolfowitz and Joe Lieberman were on, talking about how there are so many more reasons that we should be pursuing military action in Syria than just chemical weapons.
… yea, when it comes to whether or not we should take military action in that part of the world, I totally trust those guys.
@stonetools:
The opposition can’t seem to decide if they want the rebels to win or lose. When Obama seems to side with the rebels, the Republicans decide that they’re all Al Qaeda and it’s part of Obama’s America-hating master plan to turn the world over to fundamentalist muslims. When Obama seems satisfied to leave Assad in place (presumably because the post-Assad options don’t look attractive), then it’s because Obama loves middle eastern dictators not to mention the deaths of innocent children. And either course is naturally just more confirmation of his plan to weaken America.