Posted on

Putin the Pundit

Vladimir Putin’s latest pro-Syria propaganda gambit is an op-ed piece for the New York Times so riddled with lies, distortions, deceptions and ignorance that it could easily have come from the Soviet Politburo.

Over on the powerful and influential American Thinker blog, LR publisher and founder Kim Zigfeld deconstructs the article point by point and exposes the fundamental fraud it is trying to perpetrate on American readers.  (Zigfeld’s piece has been translated into Russian by INOSMI).

Zigfeld is actually just one of a whole legion of Russia watchers who have condemned Putin’s article as transparent nonsense.  The publication of this article is a rare gaff by Putin, a mistake so ridiculous that we’re sure somebody’s head is going to have to roll in the Kremlin.

The manner in which Russia continues to stand up for the Syrian dictatorship, fueling it with weapons and providing intense diplomatic cover, is appalling. That dictatorship is engaged in a brutal campaign of genocide against its own people. But because Syria is one of Russia’s last remaining beachheads in the Middle East, Russia stubbornly clings to its nasty little ally, heedless of the harm to its international reputation.

Not one major nation has joined Russia in claiming that the Syrian rebels, not the government, were responsible for the use of poison gas against civilians.  Similarly, in 2008 not one major nation approved Russia’s annexation of Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgia.  One after another, Russia has watched Kremlin-friendly regimes in places like Egypt and Libya topple and collapse despite Russian support, because Russian support cannot hope to overcome the clear will of the overwhelming majority of citizens of a nation.

Putin’s horrifically failed foreign policy is leading Russia down the same road trodden by the USSR, a road that leads only to national collapse.

10 responses to “Putin the Pundit

  1. Ed Thompson ⋅

    Well, they reached an agreement on dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons program. I’d say that’s a victory for diplomacy, compared to the US option of going it alone, in TOTAL violation of international law, despite being completely unpopular at home and abroad…

    • larussophobe ⋅

      Two things are perfectly clear: (1) The ONLY reason this “agreement” was reached was the U.S. threat to bomb; (2) Russia’s track record on such agreements makes it clear it won’t last and ultimately Syria will experience military attack and regime change.

      If “international law” prohibits a US attack on Syria, then it also prohibited Russia’s attacks on Chechnya and Georgia. Where was your outrage then? Should Russia be prosecuted for its violations of international law in those cases?

      • Ed Thompson ⋅

        1) I think you’re putting the cart before the horse a little… The only reason the agreement was reached was because what was an “offhand” remark by Kerry was turned into a viable diplomatic initiative by Russia. That and the fact that even the UK voted against strikes. And the fact that Obama was likely to face a humiliating defeat in Congress, and this initiative gave him a way to save face and not look like an even bigger warmonger than Bush…
        2) The agreement will be backed by a UN Security Council resolution (still being drafted), the violation of which will provide a perfect excuse for bombing.

        Under “international law”, the only legal use of force is under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. You might want to brush up on your history a little, or even the Wikipedia article on the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

        …which began with a Georgian offensive on Russian peacekeepers, in an attempt to reclaim the separatist territory. The peacekeepers had been there since the early 1990s.

        And unlike most US engagements, Russia withdrew from all positions in Georgia days after the conflict ended… rather than charging on Tbilisi and demanding regime change.
        As for Russia’s war crimes, self-defence is recognised by the UN Charter. South Ossetia has a significant proportion of Russian citizens (more than 80%), so it has a right to defend them.

        Chechnya was an issue of separatism. Like if Texas decided it no longer wants to stay in the US federation, arms itself and goes rogue… Under “international law”, every sovereign state has a right to quell armed rebellion on its territory. Have a look at how Grozny (the capital) looks now, after 10 years of rebuilding with Russian money…

        And perhaps compare it to Baghdad after 10 years of US occupation😉

        • larussophobe ⋅

          Wasn’t putting the cart before the horse, Was seeing into the future, as usual.

          https://dyingrussia.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/another-incredible-new-low-for-russia/

        • Ed Thompson ⋅

          All the report confirmed was that sarin gas was used, not by whom. That was not in their mandate. Russia has been saying that the sarin gas was of home-made quality, similar but more concentrated to the stuff used in the March attack in Khan al-Assal.
          And there have been reports recently of rebels associated with al Nusra (or rather al Qaeda) trying to get sarin from Iraq into Syria via Turkey:
          http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/turkey-finds-sarin-gas-in-homes-of-suspected-syrian-islamists-may-report/5347523

          But because you have blinkers welded on, you couldn’t even entertain such a possibility.

          • larussophobe ⋅

            You’re the one with blinkers on. NOT ONE COUNTRY other than Russia and Syria gives ANY credibility to that claim, which is entirely self-serving.

            • Ed Thompson ⋅

              Really?! So the fact that Turkey is prosecuting several al-Qaeda militants for trying to do just what Russia and Syria have been suggesting – smuggle sarin into Syria via Turkey – doesn’t phase you at all?! Nor does the fact that in all of the attacks, improvised home-made shells were used (not standard industrial grade shells that the Syrian Army has)?

              And of course, no one seems to answer the question, why the hell would the Syrian Army bother to use chemical weapons, intentionally drawing the ire of the whole international community, when it’s doing just fine with conventional weapons? Sure, you can accuse them of using excessive force, shelling etc (and the rebels have been accused of the same, in the latest UN report on human rights violations). But the fact is that the rebels are outgunned, and Assad has absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose from the use of chem weapons.

              But of course, you’re not interested in analyzing motives and the facts on the ground. You seem to get your jollies by demonizing Russia in a way that would have gotten you instantly hired by the Soviet propaganda ministry back in the day (if, of course, your vitriol was aimed at the Western capitalist pig-dogs instead ;))

  2. Beetlejuice ⋅

    Kim’s got the cart miles ahead of the horse, and that horse is lame.

    “The ONLY reason this “agreement” was reached was the U.S. threat to bomb”

    More than that, dear. Assad is an important client and ally of Russia; more so than Georgia being a U.S ally. Putin is not going to sit by and let Syria be bombed, unless the U.S buys him off somehow. More so is the fact that the vast majority of Americans regardless of political stance remain staunchly opposed to any U.S military action in Syria. Three countries destroyed and war torn, and all we’ve gotten is an economy in the toilet.

    “Russia’s track record on such agreements makes it clear it won’t last and ultimately Syria will experience military attack and regime change.”

    So basically, little Kim, you’re towing the line calling for a full on U.S war against Syria and an al-Qaeda dominated government. Look at the “democracies” we’ve created in Iraq: a communal bloodbath between Shiites and Sunnis with no end in sight; Afghanistan: a rotten cabal of misogynistic theocrats like the Taliban on the verge of total collapse; Libya: an al-Qaeda friendly government that has spiraled the country into endless chaos. Which suits you the best for Syria? Aside from the U.S there are only two other countries ready to attack Syria: France, Syria’s former colonial master (despite strong public opposition) and of course Israel.

    “The manner in which Russia continues to stand up for the Syrian dictatorship, fueling it with weapons and providing intense diplomatic cover, is appalling.”

    I can think of something more appalling. The U.S government once again going to war for the very same organization it’s been apparently fighting against in the “war on terror”; the same people that were responsible for 9/11.

    “Not one major nation has joined Russia in claiming that the Syrian rebels, not the government, were responsible for the use of poison gas against civilians.”

    In reality nobody has a clue who the perpetrator was of the chemical attack in Syria. Any rational person can see either side was capable of conducting such an attack, the murderous Baathist government or the jihadist rebels. If you don’t believe jihadists are capable of killing civilians, little Kim, research the historic tragedy that took place on September 11 2001.

    “Similarly, in 2008 not one major nation approved Russia’s annexation of Abkhazia and Ossetia from Georgia.”

    AND….not one major nation is calling for a Russian troop withdrawal from Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    “One after another, Russia has watched Kremlin-friendly regimes in places like Egypt and Libya topple”

    The Mubarak regime in Egypt was a staunch U.S ally, in which during the revolt Obama repeatedly called for both sides to stop fighting with a concerned expression on his face as his ally was under siege; same with Tunisia. Clearly the power and influence of the American Thinker blog doesn’t extend beyond mindless lemmings.

  3. PermReader ⋅

    Madame Russophobe is the Russophile in reality: to eliminate the terrible Putin who have created aggressive Russian empire against the will of the kind democratic Russians who are immune to the appeales of the communist opposition of Udaltsovs and ofracial nationalists – Navalnies.

Talk back to La Russophobe

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s