Why did Putin write the editorial for the NY Times??

[kentuck]

Was it because he thought he had Obama on the ropes and that his letter to the Times would be the propaganda knockout punch? I doubt it.

He sounded angry. He wanted to criticize America and her "exceptionalism" and how we were bullying the world. They "were with us or against us", he said. Just for the record, Obama has never said that.

But why would he be angry? Could it be because his longtime puppet in the region was about to get "punished" and he could no longer do anything about it? When Kerry made his comment about Syria turning over its chemical weapons to "international control", Putin didn't have to agree. But he did. He jumped on it like a chicken on a Junebug? And Assad was right behind him.

Putin wanted to criticize America because he had been put into an uncomfortable spot. It was the only way he could think of to save his long-time ally, Syria, from being struck by American missiles and it was unknown what might happen then? If the sarin gas and the other chemical weapons were to get in the hands of the rebels fighting Assad, they could very well end up in the hands of the terrorists in Russia.

So, Putin's few words of praise for America were only meant to cover up his real anger for America, and especially Barack Obama. They have not been on good speaking terms since the defection of Edward Snowden. This action by Assad took away all the perceived moral high ground that Putin wanted to brag about after Edward Snowden exposed the very embarrassing NSA scandal. Then, Assad could not control his chemical weapons and Putin was put on the spot.

That was why he wrote to the NY Times. He just had to get it off his chest.

[Cleita]

1. Maybe he wanted more Americans to read it than would

read Russian press like Pravda.

[pinboy3niner]

2. To increase the growing opposition here to U.S. military intervention

To appeal to those who are merely skeptical, to move them into the opposition camp.

[kentuck]

4. The majority may have been against a missile strike...

But I think a majority may be with the President in going to UN and attempting to get rid of the chemical weapons thru negotiations? If that is the case, then Mr Putin might have miscalculated?

[pinboy3niner]

7. I think it was calculated to reduce the possibility of a U.S. strike

Which is something the U.S. is still holding over Syria, despite the new developments. Opposition at home can effectively squelch that possibility.

[leveymg]

3. Nothing was about to happen. The votes weren't there to go to war. Putin is just doing what Obama

does, or used to do - communicating effectively to the American people and the world.

He was also right about 95% of what he wrote.

[PSPS]

13. I agree. His challenging the idea of "American Exceptionalism" was something we all should do.

[leveymg]

14. The reference was a gratuitous and half-hearted add-in by Obama's speechwriters, and it backfired.

I think the President would be much more effective if he didn't always try too hard to appease the Right-wing. It dilutes his message and makes him seem insincere and vacillating.

[LittleBlue]

5. He wants a reaction

He is giving the impression that he is acting and Obama is reacting. This op-ed was another attempt to be perceived that way.

Acting is viewed as strength, reacting is a sign of weakness. It's good PR anyway, since the world agrees with most of what he wrote.

[MADem]

6. He's a propagandist of the first order, and he got you good.

Once a KGB thug, always a KGB thug.

Putin needs to put his money where his big fat mouth is on the question of Syria, but instead he's trying to play "change the subject."

Only someone unschooled in the techniques of distraction would buy into his bullshit.

Here's one take on the shit he's shoveling:

.....But what rankles many analysts about this paragraph is that it ignores Putin's own role in enabling the already quite awful violence, as well as the extremism it's inspired. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad's regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It's a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point.

...As above, these are strong arguments against outside involvement in Syria's civil war, made more than a little hypocritically, given that Putin himself has been actively involved in shaping the conflict and steering it away from peace. Still, the concern about Syria breeding extremist violence is likely an earnest one for Putin, who surely knows that some Chechens have been fighting in Syria and could very plausibly cause trouble back home in Russia.

...Russia has certainly espoused dialogue and a compromise plan, but it has acted instead to stop that from happening, refusing to wield its considerable power to bring this about. There is no one in the world better positioned than Vladimir Putin to force Assad to the negotiating table. Instead, Putin has shown every indication that he wishes for Assad to defeat the rebels totally and outright, as his father Hafez al-Assad did in 1982 when he crushed an uprising in Hama.

...Putin is couching his support for Assad as simple fealty to international law. It's true that, according to the United Nations charter, almost any U.S. strikes on Syria would be illegal under international law. Still, it's hard to believe that Putin is motivated by international law, given the lengths he's gone to prevent the United Nations from protecting other forms of international law when it comes to Syria. Russia has blocked the United Nations from simply condemning Assad's attacks on civilians or the use of chemical weapons in Syria, much less taking action to punish or stop those crimes......Still, you'll be shocked to learn that Putin does not hold himself to the same standard he's setting here for Obama. Putin's Russia launched a war against Georgia just five short years ago. He would argue that the war was justified, but it certainly wasn't approved by the United Nations Security Council.

More here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/12/vladimir-putins-new-york-times-op-ed-annotated-and-fact-checked/


Putin is a superb con artist, but anyone who has watched him down the years KNOWS this. How anyone who has paid any attention to the guy can buy off on the horse shit he's flinging is completely beyond me. For those who don't know his reputation, I urge them to learn--start with this little fact check, and go from there.

[Dawson Leery]

8. To us it is obvious what that bastard is doing.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. The question for me is: Why did they print it?

Seemed like a shitty thing to do. Seemed like playing one side against the other. Seemed... pointless.

And the Senate is about to use it's precious time to define "journalist".

What a hoot.

[MADem]

12. Because some shit at Ketchum conned them into it. They were thinking they are covering the story,

not being used as a propaganda bullhorn. I'm betting they are being disabused as time passes.

PRAVDA, WEST--"RT" of New York!

[daleo]

16. They are a newspaper

I remember when that was all the reason a newspaper was expected to have in a free country.

[The Straight Story]

10. He needed something to do while reloading as he rode shirtless on his bear hunting dinosaurs

[Marr]

11. Because he doesn't want the US to enter the war in Syria.

The Russian government is no doubt aware of how unpopular the idea is here in the states, and he took the opportunity to reinforce that sentiment.

[Rex]

15. Maybe he was meeting up with some old friends and enemies.

Who knows why Czar Pootie Poot does what he does?


Like here, what is he doing here? Emerging from the deep, where Neptune never sleeps?