Anyone who thinks that what goes on verbally for public consumption, via any number of avenues thinking they are getting all the goods, is really naïve. All the power players in the world are busy moving their pawns, scratching each other's backs, and horse trading to see who gets what part of a world they are fond of dividing. The powers that be have been invading the third world for centuries now, and creating future chaos. The Middle East is the most current playground for the power seekers (including US) and what we are doing is ensuring those populations are sent back to the stone age so they cannot harm us. Meanwhile, the local populations grabs their things and are knocking down the same doors of the powerful to escape from the endless butchery, both from the extremist and those who believe that they deserve everything they are getting for being the wrong religion. God help us all.
6
A very interesting and informative synopsis of Russia's Middle East History.
It seems a little hard to criticize Russia for its actions in Syria when you view our history since Kuwait. Setting aside the notion that we are "exceptional " and that Russia couldn't possibly be, both sides seem to be using their powers to determine what happens in the Middle East. And make no mistake, the United States and Russia are both there to achieve outcomes that will benefit themselves.
Those suffering in all this are the unfortunate people of the Middle East.
It seems a little hard to criticize Russia for its actions in Syria when you view our history since Kuwait. Setting aside the notion that we are "exceptional " and that Russia couldn't possibly be, both sides seem to be using their powers to determine what happens in the Middle East. And make no mistake, the United States and Russia are both there to achieve outcomes that will benefit themselves.
Those suffering in all this are the unfortunate people of the Middle East.
9
Mr. Putin's venture in Syria will enhance its influence in the Arabic peninsula. What he seeks in the near term is the stability of the oil price which affects Russia's income. Putin needs the money to maintain the living standard of his people and therefore keep him in power.
5
Russia supports Assad and the US. supports the supposed moderate Rebels.
US support has been a failure and it can only lead to US conflict with Russia.
Yet money has been cut from defense and I do not believe anyone in the government knows what they are doing. Perhaps it is time to get out.
US support has been a failure and it can only lead to US conflict with Russia.
Yet money has been cut from defense and I do not believe anyone in the government knows what they are doing. Perhaps it is time to get out.
3
The author overthinks things.
ISIS is a menace to the world and nobody is willing to do anything meaningful to stop them. So Russia has. It's that simple except maybe to the extent that Putin is filling a vacuum -- fighting ruthless murderers -- that should never have existed, and may gain some well deserved political clout from the world if he succeeds.
ISIS is a menace to the world and nobody is willing to do anything meaningful to stop them. So Russia has. It's that simple except maybe to the extent that Putin is filling a vacuum -- fighting ruthless murderers -- that should never have existed, and may gain some well deserved political clout from the world if he succeeds.
11
Ever the apologists for BHO, the Times basically endorses, our unprepared response to Russia, "They'll be sorry." The Times undergirds this ridiculous thesis with an historical understanding of what motivates Russia.
In reality, Putin, a smart but ruthless dictator, sees a chance to ally with Iran and own a huge chunk of our globe. Note how he waited until right after the Iran "deal."
Putin made the move because he knows Obama is weak and indecisive and, with Iran's new riches and power, there's a lot of up side and no down side.
Another blatant Obama failure and NY Times cover up. Note how little the Times has written of the recent revelations that Obama has been cooking the intelligence reports to make our military efforts look more successful than they are.
In reality, Putin, a smart but ruthless dictator, sees a chance to ally with Iran and own a huge chunk of our globe. Note how he waited until right after the Iran "deal."
Putin made the move because he knows Obama is weak and indecisive and, with Iran's new riches and power, there's a lot of up side and no down side.
Another blatant Obama failure and NY Times cover up. Note how little the Times has written of the recent revelations that Obama has been cooking the intelligence reports to make our military efforts look more successful than they are.
5
Thank you for this excellent and informative article exploring Russian motives for entanglement in the region. The whole situation is terribly sad.
It is clear that many of the comments are written by Russians posing as Americans, having taken on names that don't ring true and writing with a Slavic cadence and emotion that is totally incongruous with the way real Americans write. Americans can easily spot this and it is really very tedious to see every time there is an article about Russia. We all know about Russian trolling in western media so please just stop this juvenile behavior and write as Russians from Moscow with something thoughtful to say.
It is clear that many of the comments are written by Russians posing as Americans, having taken on names that don't ring true and writing with a Slavic cadence and emotion that is totally incongruous with the way real Americans write. Americans can easily spot this and it is really very tedious to see every time there is an article about Russia. We all know about Russian trolling in western media so please just stop this juvenile behavior and write as Russians from Moscow with something thoughtful to say.
24
While both the West and the East are guilty of imperialism, it is crucial to view the Middle East turmoil as the "holy war" it fundamentally is. This ethnic struggle between the Shiite (Persians/Iranians) and Arabs precedes the Crusades. It is important that Mr. Montefiore brings up the motivation of Russia to be the "defender of Orthodox Christianity" and its long history of confrontation with the Ottoman Empire (not only Russia and the U.S. can claim the title of imperialists). Russia has been in conflict with Muslim imperialism since 1453 before the New World was even discovered. Putin correctly points out that Russia is not Western, but Eastern and the Middle East is their turf war dating back centuries. ISIS is a call for the return of Arab imperialism in the region. We would be wise to leave this battle to the seasoned pros in Russia who have fought Arab aggression before the U.S. was even conceived. Let the Czar and the Caliph continue this ancient struggle of imperialism.
33
This is an excellent article! The perspective is fascinating and helps to understand the Kremlin's choice to risk military conflict with the US in order to dive in to a horrible civil war in Syria despite broad disapproval of the Russian population.
I do have a have a hard time understanding why many commenters seem offended that the article does not castigate the US for its adventures in the middle east. Of course the US also has imperial ambitions. He alludes to those when he talks about America's "retreat from the region" and how Moscow can not "replace America." But America's imperial ambition isn't new and has been discussed in many sources over the decades.
I do have a have a hard time understanding why many commenters seem offended that the article does not castigate the US for its adventures in the middle east. Of course the US also has imperial ambitions. He alludes to those when he talks about America's "retreat from the region" and how Moscow can not "replace America." But America's imperial ambition isn't new and has been discussed in many sources over the decades.
1
Interesting: We're told here that it's President Putin's czarist genes that are driving him to fill the vacuum left by the West's retreat from the results of its "interventions" in the Middle East and North Africa. However, in doing so, we're assured, he will only find a quagmire in Syria.
Just a few days ago, the Times had another column analyzing Putin's motives, and the author attributed them to the trauma he (must have) suffered watching crowds storming buildings in East Berlin, where he was stationed as a KGB officer when the Wall came down. She said that from then on he was obsessed with maintaining the power of the state against anarchic chaos, and is helping the Syrian government in order to preserve the state.
I've read all these detailed, well-written columns, and I've concluded that the Times doesn't like President Putin very much, and has lined up an impressive arsenal of highly educated professionals to kill him with claptrap.
Just a few days ago, the Times had another column analyzing Putin's motives, and the author attributed them to the trauma he (must have) suffered watching crowds storming buildings in East Berlin, where he was stationed as a KGB officer when the Wall came down. She said that from then on he was obsessed with maintaining the power of the state against anarchic chaos, and is helping the Syrian government in order to preserve the state.
I've read all these detailed, well-written columns, and I've concluded that the Times doesn't like President Putin very much, and has lined up an impressive arsenal of highly educated professionals to kill him with claptrap.
14
As Mr. Spock would say, "Fascinating".
Admittedly, I know as much about that history as Sarah Palin likely does, but basically came to the same conclusion as the author before the tutorial.
It's important for Putin's survival to show off, so let him have at it.
We just saw the results of 500 million dollars and two years of training the so called "good rebels".
Bupkus on toast.
Anything Putin accomplishes cannot possibly make our situation any worse, although neo-cons are no doubt apoplectic at the possibility of Putin trying to consolidate power by facilitating Iran to hold sway in Syria and potentially Iraq if Isis can be contained.
Not a great outcome, to be sure, but better than ISIS running wild in the streets all over the Middle East.
Admittedly, I know as much about that history as Sarah Palin likely does, but basically came to the same conclusion as the author before the tutorial.
It's important for Putin's survival to show off, so let him have at it.
We just saw the results of 500 million dollars and two years of training the so called "good rebels".
Bupkus on toast.
Anything Putin accomplishes cannot possibly make our situation any worse, although neo-cons are no doubt apoplectic at the possibility of Putin trying to consolidate power by facilitating Iran to hold sway in Syria and potentially Iraq if Isis can be contained.
Not a great outcome, to be sure, but better than ISIS running wild in the streets all over the Middle East.
6
the region is not ready for american style democracy but does find russian style dictatorship workable. for this reason, russia will do better than the usa.
it was very foolish to remove saddam and give russian-backed iran dominance in the region. similarly, other dictators should be groomed to support the usa instead of the russians in the realization that democracy doesn't fit a region divided by tribal warfare and a barbaric religious fundamentalism.
it was very foolish to remove saddam and give russian-backed iran dominance in the region. similarly, other dictators should be groomed to support the usa instead of the russians in the realization that democracy doesn't fit a region divided by tribal warfare and a barbaric religious fundamentalism.
9
Mr. Montefiore writes well, but he writes fiction.
He, like Dostoyevsky goes into the inner thoughts of his character, Putin in this case and comes out with his interpretation of his subject´s secret motivations.
Problem is Mr. Montefiore is not Dostoyevsky. And he isn't John Le Carre either . And by attributing to Putin the personalities of Catherine the Great and Prince Potemkin he sounds more like Stephen King than a political analyst that is what he trying to be.
He, like Dostoyevsky goes into the inner thoughts of his character, Putin in this case and comes out with his interpretation of his subject´s secret motivations.
Problem is Mr. Montefiore is not Dostoyevsky. And he isn't John Le Carre either . And by attributing to Putin the personalities of Catherine the Great and Prince Potemkin he sounds more like Stephen King than a political analyst that is what he trying to be.
6
I would have started with Sykes-Picot (and, correctly: Sazonov) and went from there. This column certainly makes for an interesting summary of occurences, the scope breathtaking - all these well and little known historical facts and factoids on a single page. However, the argument that someone (Putin) might do something because he channels somebody else (Catherine) certainly won't add clarity or depth to the situation we encounter today. Also history, dear historians, does not repeat itself.
2
History is a fickle friend, or is it just a coin toss on who's history is history? We all look for signs of history, but does one writing prove or validate? When Alexander the Great massacred the Sacred Band of Thebes they were just 300 homosexual soldiers that had disobeyed orders proving them bad soldiers- yet the were eulogized as a sacred group of soldiers by Alexander and his father probably because they were after all Greeks.
The homosexual community remembers Alexander as a gay hero but from what I've read he was a "Victim" of Pedastry or a government approved "Kind of" child molestation. Kids were taught to indulge in homosexual behavior to form bonds of love- but Alexander took wives and his "Assigned" homosexual lover mysteriously disappeared or more likely was killed by Alexander. Quite obviously Alexander was not gay and the absolute proof was Greece ending pedastry completely. But people twist history to suit their own opinions or desires. Alexander didn't try to rebuild the homosexual army that he destroyed so in all probability he was not a homosexual. The point in using this story is to recognize that history gets glossed and rigged so who can say what really happened. Another example i like to use is SIMPLE or Surplus Intelligent Male Population Life Elimination - a theory that all wars fought by men throughout history were fought mostly by males because women almost always gave birth to more male babies. War balances the sex ratio.
The homosexual community remembers Alexander as a gay hero but from what I've read he was a "Victim" of Pedastry or a government approved "Kind of" child molestation. Kids were taught to indulge in homosexual behavior to form bonds of love- but Alexander took wives and his "Assigned" homosexual lover mysteriously disappeared or more likely was killed by Alexander. Quite obviously Alexander was not gay and the absolute proof was Greece ending pedastry completely. But people twist history to suit their own opinions or desires. Alexander didn't try to rebuild the homosexual army that he destroyed so in all probability he was not a homosexual. The point in using this story is to recognize that history gets glossed and rigged so who can say what really happened. Another example i like to use is SIMPLE or Surplus Intelligent Male Population Life Elimination - a theory that all wars fought by men throughout history were fought mostly by males because women almost always gave birth to more male babies. War balances the sex ratio.
This article is pure, distilled, antirussian propaganda.
How can the author speak of "imperialistic adventure" on the part of Putin, when we have had "continuous Western Imperial Debacle" for at least 70 years?
How can the author speak of "imperialistic adventure" on the part of Putin, when we have had "continuous Western Imperial Debacle" for at least 70 years?
10
It used to be that we confronted the Russians because they were spreading communism, Marxism, philosophies that we thought were putrid. What's the point of opposing them now, especially when they're trying to stabilize a situation that W's administration singlehandedly caused?
It's hard to belive that they can mess it up even more.
It's hard to belive that they can mess it up even more.
7
Nice history lesson, but not sure it's all that relevant. Russia should have learned from Afghanistan that military action in that part of the world is nearly futile. If not from that, then from the US lack of success in Iraq and Afghanistan. If Putin wants this tar baby let him have it.
3
An interesting lesson in history.
While this is a great trip into the past and none very much worth reading, one thing is wrong:
Russia then and Russia now are two entirely different countries.
80 years of Communist rule have destroyed much of what was then and while Putin certainly is being influenced by he church, he also is of a very different school of thinking.
Russia then and Russia now are two entirely different countries.
80 years of Communist rule have destroyed much of what was then and while Putin certainly is being influenced by he church, he also is of a very different school of thinking.
1
Imperial powers, Russia being just one of them, have caused mayhem throughout history to those conquered...but also to themselves in the process. How could an Empire have a clean conscience, after exploiting and destroying others, and other's wealth gained through hard work and a culture of accomplishment? And Putin's Russia now, unwilling to repent from its awful imprisonment of neighboring nations during its dark hours (the Soviet Union), making free will and liberty of those folks a chimera. So, not having learned anything from the past, and trying to distract russians from lack of freedom at home, Putin is embarking in a misadventure similar to the one in Afghanistan, but now keeping alive a thuggish clown and puppet (Assad) so Russia may gain some fleeting relevance as a world power. Stupidity, it seems, has no limits. The price tag? Incalculable. But we know this: Putin is part of the problem, delaying a solution to a distant future, perhaps precipitating the complete exodus of its Syrian people.
5
And what has all this geo-political gamesmanship gotten anyone on either/any "side?" Other, of course, than vast expenditures in lives and treasure.
It must be that "something erotic" Count Valuev spoke of which drives this lust for power over others. I guess humankind ... I mean, mankind, can't get enough of showing off how big their ... weapons are.
It must be that "something erotic" Count Valuev spoke of which drives this lust for power over others. I guess humankind ... I mean, mankind, can't get enough of showing off how big their ... weapons are.
1
Why is it that only They have imperial adventures?
10
Well, quite a history. Toxic mix of religion, intervention and projection of power.
All ending in defeat and quagmire at great cost in both blood and treasure.
The Citizens of the World should now be focused on one thing only: The desperate plight of the refugees. What can civilized nations do to alleviate the horror and pain of people fleeing persecution and death. That is the moral imperative of the day and a solution must be found.
All ending in defeat and quagmire at great cost in both blood and treasure.
The Citizens of the World should now be focused on one thing only: The desperate plight of the refugees. What can civilized nations do to alleviate the horror and pain of people fleeing persecution and death. That is the moral imperative of the day and a solution must be found.
3
Excellent perspective. Little known fact that Israeli pilots frequently heard Russian being spoken over Arab airspace during various aerial dogfights. In one instance, four Soviet pilots flying Egyptian MiGs were shot down over the Sinai. The Russians downplayed the incident, but it probably played a role in the USSR giving up on Egypt for other Arab allies.
3
We would have more leverage and gravitas re Russia had President Obama not scrapped the missile defense system in Eastern Europe at Putin's insistence.
1
America has had impotent leadership for almost seven years. Obama promised to end America's involvement in the wars but no one knew he meant ending total involvement in the Middle East. After the mistake of Iraq he left unfinished business for the sake of ideology. Concurrently he duplicated Bush's legal mistake by illegally ousting Mubarak and Qaddafi. Now the entire crescent is in danger of falling into the hands of the Islamic State; along with much of eastern Africa and part of the Arabian peninsula. Putin has no intention of destroying any Islamist's. He's just looking for influence and he is getting it unchecked. His strategy may be to bargain for the loosening of sanctions and default possession of Crimea. But I would bet Russia is here to stay militarily in the Middle East. Especially if Hillary somehow is elected president.
1
The longstanding misery of the Middle East is based on its being the birthplace of three religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- that prefer warfaring to peacemaking. Oil has offered a recent complication, but when it passes, the religions will remain to make life miserable there. Russia, the USA and other empires will continue to exploit this unfortunate truth.
8
So the "Great Game" over the Middle East and West Asia continues, with grave consequences for millions more people doomed to become cannon fodder for the great powers' ambitions. So it was, so it remains - plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
5
Russia would make a good member of NATO.
2
Nah. It would just become impotent and frustrated.
Never mind all the US imperialist adventures, historical and current, I guess. But then we're always the good guys.
13
Mr Montefiore's interpretation of history is entirely understandable. That may be part of our problem. There's nothing new here, no new insights, nothing to cause us to pause and wonder. It could have been written 40 years ago when many of our State Department officials were school kids. Interpretations of history like Mr Montefiorie's are easy for them to digest because such interpretations were the template on which these officials learned. Therefore, they may be too persuasive. What's needed are new insights and new ways to interpret history in the face of contemporary events rather than using moldy textbook paradigms to frame our current foreign policies.
7
The author is using the behavior of the czars, along with a pedantic history lesson, to justify a return to the Cold War.
The United States has zero moral ground to comment on Russian foreign policy. We currently ring the Middle East with hundreds of military bases, and have sent the SEALS to 135 countries for covert operations, including assassinations.
Our State Department knows about as much about the Middle East as Dick Cheney did. Now, we are subjected to watching a Neocon finger wag Putin.
No thank you. It's time leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners, and if Putin bites off the Eastern chunk of Ukraine, who cares? That's not worth the life of a single soldier, and more than it was in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
The United States has zero moral ground to comment on Russian foreign policy. We currently ring the Middle East with hundreds of military bases, and have sent the SEALS to 135 countries for covert operations, including assassinations.
Our State Department knows about as much about the Middle East as Dick Cheney did. Now, we are subjected to watching a Neocon finger wag Putin.
No thank you. It's time leave the Middle East to the Middle Easterners, and if Putin bites off the Eastern chunk of Ukraine, who cares? That's not worth the life of a single soldier, and more than it was in Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
16
Things have changed since Catherine's time. Perhaps, despite Russia's long history in the Middle East, a more apt comparison would be the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, from 1979 to 1989. Ground down by Mujahideen resistance, Soviet troops finally decamped and marched home en masse.
Can the Russians expect any greater success in Syria? Should they succeed in routing Assad's enemies, they will face a much more capable and entrenched Islamic State, seeking to fill the power vacuum.
Maybe, as Tom Friedman and others have suggested, the U.S. should simply pull back, wait until Putin is up to his neck in swamp water, and then offer to throw him a rope if he agrees to support a political solution in Syria.
Can the Russians expect any greater success in Syria? Should they succeed in routing Assad's enemies, they will face a much more capable and entrenched Islamic State, seeking to fill the power vacuum.
Maybe, as Tom Friedman and others have suggested, the U.S. should simply pull back, wait until Putin is up to his neck in swamp water, and then offer to throw him a rope if he agrees to support a political solution in Syria.
12
You should do a similar background check on Britain. Neither country has done the region any favors.
16
Not only a check on Britain, but Germany, France and finnally the U.S.A. since 1948.
3
So, if you're a Russian, you fiddle about in the Middle East. That's what you do.
1
Putin is not a good guy - but he is currently a successful bad guy, running rings around the hapless community organizer in the US White House.
The Russian military is certainly looking more capable than we had been led to believe. Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and now Syria provide evidence. All the US's carping about Russian policy is just that.
May God (!) help us during the final year of Obama's reign.
The Russian military is certainly looking more capable than we had been led to believe. Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and now Syria provide evidence. All the US's carping about Russian policy is just that.
May God (!) help us during the final year of Obama's reign.
7
Does that include the four missiles that landed in Iran instead of Syria? Also,as the author of the piece indicates-Russia is in a quagmire and will regret their involvement.
Re "Russian military is certainly looking more capable ... Crimea, Eastern Ukraine, and now Syria provide evidence" In addition to low oil prices, ownership of these decrepit lands only exacerbates Russia's financial woes. You aspire to own the Baltic and Mediterranean Avenues of the world's Monopoly board?
Thank you Obama for not needing to prove your manhood!
Thank you Obama for not needing to prove your manhood!
Baloney! Let them take the fight, shed the blood, waste the treasure, and
earn the hatred of inflamed local populations. I think we've done more than our share and have reaped only a bitter harvest.
earn the hatred of inflamed local populations. I think we've done more than our share and have reaped only a bitter harvest.
The mystery of the Isis Toyota trucks continues to elude us. We now know 4 trucks ended up in the hands of Al Nusra Front compliments of the US Syrian backed rebels. Anybody want to take a guess at how Isis "acquired" their fleet?
7
Probably grabbed them from the showrooms of Syria and Iraq I imagine.
I think there's an additional aspect and that is of Russia's historical insecurity. Devastated and essentially enslaved by Mongols/Tartars in its early history, Russia still has yet to shake off that ingrained feeling of oppression. Though the largest country in the world, Russia is always protecting its far-flung flanks. And of course, a good czar/dictator knows how to use that fear. Putin knows his history and his people.
6
I enjoyed reading Mr. Montefiore tantalizing tale of Russian adventures past and present. The problem I see with his approach in this assessment of Russia is that it looks down on pretty much everything Russia has done in the past and adds a SMERSH veneer (real and fictionalized) to color the drama. It's smacks of being high minded and forgetting a few basic recent historical realities: Russia suffered the brunt of the casualties during WW II, Lend-Lease though vital was not the only factor in Russia stopping the Germans in their tracts. We came in later and would like to claim all the glory. Our misadventures time and time again (today) demonstrates our myopia when it comes to dealing with another "foreign" power. God forbid we should have someone else wrestling with us for hegemony worldwide (yes folks: Pax Americana.) Time for us to look at ourselves and maybe consider we aren't all we think we are. It's akin to a good boxing match-respect your opponent and keep those gloves up to protect yourself.
28
Russia will never defeat the Islamic idea of unification.
1
Thank you for this and all your brilliant writings! It is very sad for me as a Russian to see how the great nation has been degraded in recent 15 years to
a scarecrow with head twisted back in search of role model ancient emperors and warmongering dictators while even communist China is trying to catch up with the modern word. Hopefully European powers and America will not come back to appeasement and diplomacy of carving the maps by force that belongs to past epochs and paved the way to world wars. Could you remind and warn them with your authoritative voice in the next op-ed?
a scarecrow with head twisted back in search of role model ancient emperors and warmongering dictators while even communist China is trying to catch up with the modern word. Hopefully European powers and America will not come back to appeasement and diplomacy of carving the maps by force that belongs to past epochs and paved the way to world wars. Could you remind and warn them with your authoritative voice in the next op-ed?
3
This history lesson and it's predictive patterns only further highlights that the Obama administration seems to know nothing about this history therefore their surprise when Russia intervened is genuine and reflects a stunningly deep foreign policy incompetency. It seems so strange that we look at current events as only being driven by the US and anyone else who enters the stage is an enemy. That's a classic case of narcissism.
Our foreign policy, if we have one, is a mess.
Our foreign policy, if we have one, is a mess.
9
First, the "Chechen problem" is of his own creation. It was his way of gaining the presidency by creating a false crisis to fight against. It is pretty clear by what evidence did come out before he clamped down and killed all those who were talking about it, that Putin himself was responsible for the apartment bombings that were blamed on the Chechen's and used as justification to bomb Grozny and begin the second Chechen war. Thus the belligerence and anger of Chechen's towards Russia.
I agree these moves in Syria have something to do with holding onto The Crimea but also a distraction to change the focus because he is doing or is planning on doing something more in Ukraine than just sowing disorder and fear to keep it unstable. Hence the Caspian Sea missile launch.
It would do us all good to regard Putin's Russia as a clear and present danger to all of the world.
I agree these moves in Syria have something to do with holding onto The Crimea but also a distraction to change the focus because he is doing or is planning on doing something more in Ukraine than just sowing disorder and fear to keep it unstable. Hence the Caspian Sea missile launch.
It would do us all good to regard Putin's Russia as a clear and present danger to all of the world.
4
I am astounded by the apparent arrogance and one-sided viewpoint of the majority of the writers in the Times. Why is it Putin's imperial adventure? Why not begin the arthicle with "After the US imperial failure, Putin is about to also fail in Syria"?
Have these writers not recognized that our policy has failed? Why is it wrong for someone else to try to improve the situation? At least Obama has learned a lesson and chose to shut off the spigot for the training of "rebels" who stood for nothing other than the overthrow of Assad.
While I appreciate the historical perspective of the author, at least the Russians have one. What is ours in the Middle East other than supporting Israel since its independence and propping up satraps since WW2?
Have these writers not recognized that our policy has failed? Why is it wrong for someone else to try to improve the situation? At least Obama has learned a lesson and chose to shut off the spigot for the training of "rebels" who stood for nothing other than the overthrow of Assad.
While I appreciate the historical perspective of the author, at least the Russians have one. What is ours in the Middle East other than supporting Israel since its independence and propping up satraps since WW2?
47
Read Stephen Kinzer’s book, “Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq,” for a comparable history of the United States.
1
Putin has obviously taken advantage of Obama's Weakness, so the NYT continues to fail to admit that Obama is a terrible President. They bought into the Obama narrative from the start, being so deeply involved that they cannot get out of hole because of its huge depth. You can be assured that Putin will proceed to integrate Russia into as many Middle East countries as he can. This never would have happened under President Bush and his Cabinet, advisors, compared to the obvious JV team that Obams has. Even his Joint Chiefs are a bunch of pitiful "yes men " who are more worried about their own careers than they are of the Anerican , who they took an oath to protect. SNAPSHOT TAKEN
So, if Putin does it, it's an imperial adventure; if we do it, it's spreading democracy?
42
I am mystified as to the involvement the US "should" have in the Middle East. As Colin Powell said, "You break it, you own it." Well We took an incredibly unstable area and blew it up. American forces only postpone the domestic fight amongst the people of the area. I think history will say that Russia won the Afghan War by getting us to take it over. Putin's glory in the Middle East will be short lived. As well, Putin's actions show that Russia is the US' problem and we should preserve our resources for that threat.
5
Who amongst our current aspirants to the office of the Presidency of the United Sates of America is up to the task of assessing the risks of engagement with Putin who is brazenly and recklessly acting as a marauder whom no one dares to confront and limit without the prospect of wholesale slaughter of mankind in an unrestrained war of nuclear attrition? What are the strategies and options that are realistically and pragmatically likely to be most effective? Is there ANYONE amongst this crop of "pretenders to the throne" that we can trust will do this job and do it effectively?
4
The short answer is NO. Such a task is way above their "pay grade."
Thanks for the historical context. However, what European great power has not had Middle East ambitions pray tell? What is the context for the U.S. equivalent of Russia's "imperialism"? Just so you know, the rest of the world views the U.S. as a global empire too.
11
It is always good to see that someone has a bit of a grasp of history and the role of nations in international affairs. History of the world is a subject rarely taught in American schools, leading to a general lack of understanding by most of the background for some actions. Russia has had aspirations for bases in the Mediterranean for a long time and while Putin may indeed wish to support the loosing efforts of Al Assad, they will have gained their base on the Syrian coast.
Displacing them will be hard.
Displacing them will be hard.
6
The book Sleep Walkers has one definition, Great Powers.
USA and Russia are still great powers. World on the basics run by Great powers influence.
There are more great powers other than two, but Middle eastern involvement dominated by these two after WWII.
What I found problematic is even we have UN charter, small nations are frequently violated by Great Powers with almost shameless impunity.
In terms of modern democracy and sovereign rights, I cannot put IRAQ and Ukraine demise in any logical explanation. These nations literally torn apart by great powers without any remorse.
Yes the general reaction to this, world has always been like this, But we are changed , people changed at least some part of the world and looking the behavior of Great powers , things is not morally justifiable.
USA and Russia are still great powers. World on the basics run by Great powers influence.
There are more great powers other than two, but Middle eastern involvement dominated by these two after WWII.
What I found problematic is even we have UN charter, small nations are frequently violated by Great Powers with almost shameless impunity.
In terms of modern democracy and sovereign rights, I cannot put IRAQ and Ukraine demise in any logical explanation. These nations literally torn apart by great powers without any remorse.
Yes the general reaction to this, world has always been like this, But we are changed , people changed at least some part of the world and looking the behavior of Great powers , things is not morally justifiable.
3
Sadly, most Americans don't have the foggiest idea about geopolitics. It is a subject that is left to the specialists which rarely offer up explanations that don't put most Americans to sleep. Simon Montefiore offers a welcomed glimpse into the behavior of Vladimir Putin.
7
Sounds more like fantasyland that I doubt even convinces Mx Montefiore.
1
True, and it leaves us open to the likes of Kissinger or Bolton.
Yes, yes, yes...all well and good. But Why Now? What made Putin think the time was right to make his move?
Could it be that in the eyes of Putin, America is divided, weak and pretty much internationally ineffectual...and since China doesn't have a dog in the Syrian fight...making now an favorable time for Russia to make her move, recapture some much wanted international prestige and reclaim (at relatively low cost) some historical lands and old positions of influence?
A strong democracy is a democracy governed by consensus. America's inability to reach consensus has weakened her in the World, emboldening her adversaries and lessening her influence among allies, this is indisputable.
Time and time again this inability to reach a consensus has been the efforts of one faction and one faction alone. Obviously, the far-right ideologues (by whatever sobriquet) have no interest in democratic governing by consensus, insisting as they are on autocratic rule by demand.
The Up-side: As long as America holds elections, the far-right's goal can be thwarted, democratic governance by consensus restored, international influence recaptured and Russian expansion checked. Do let us start Nov 8th, 2016.
Could it be that in the eyes of Putin, America is divided, weak and pretty much internationally ineffectual...and since China doesn't have a dog in the Syrian fight...making now an favorable time for Russia to make her move, recapture some much wanted international prestige and reclaim (at relatively low cost) some historical lands and old positions of influence?
A strong democracy is a democracy governed by consensus. America's inability to reach consensus has weakened her in the World, emboldening her adversaries and lessening her influence among allies, this is indisputable.
Time and time again this inability to reach a consensus has been the efforts of one faction and one faction alone. Obviously, the far-right ideologues (by whatever sobriquet) have no interest in democratic governing by consensus, insisting as they are on autocratic rule by demand.
The Up-side: As long as America holds elections, the far-right's goal can be thwarted, democratic governance by consensus restored, international influence recaptured and Russian expansion checked. Do let us start Nov 8th, 2016.
5
It could also be partly due to Putin's own weakness at home despite his near-dictatorial powers. From all accounts, his economy appears to be in shambles and he may have bit off more than he can chew in taking Crimea and attempting to take Donetsk.
Vladimir Putin's putative Czar Peter the Great Russian imperial resurrection in the Middle East by Syrian intervention is putrid conservative Republican Fox News fictional farce that distorts the past and misrepresents the present.
The French and British Empires carefully carved up and created the current ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil war in the Middle East out of the carcass of the Ottoman Turk Empire. Russia lost World War I to the Bolshevik Revolution.
With 143 million people in a nation with a shrinking and aging Russian Orthodox majority, Vladimir Putin is playing tough close to home in the face of native and neighboring states that are non-ethnic Russian and Muslim.
Unlike the American Empire which is engaged in covert and overt regime change war throughout the Middle East while propping up and arming American dictator allies who oppress their citizens.
Since the Syrian Civil War began 4 years ago 250,000 have been killed, a million wounded, 3 million displaced and 4 million refugees. The number of foreign fighters supporting ISIS/ISIL doubled from 15,000 to 30,000 while taking more territory for the self-proclaimed caliphate. Russia can not claim any role in the current "success" of the American led coalition. Russia has sided with the Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians along with the Sunni Muslim Kurds in the fight against the Sunni Muslim Arab ISIS/ISIL and al Qaeda and their affiliates. Assad did not attack America on nor after 9/11.
The French and British Empires carefully carved up and created the current ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil war in the Middle East out of the carcass of the Ottoman Turk Empire. Russia lost World War I to the Bolshevik Revolution.
With 143 million people in a nation with a shrinking and aging Russian Orthodox majority, Vladimir Putin is playing tough close to home in the face of native and neighboring states that are non-ethnic Russian and Muslim.
Unlike the American Empire which is engaged in covert and overt regime change war throughout the Middle East while propping up and arming American dictator allies who oppress their citizens.
Since the Syrian Civil War began 4 years ago 250,000 have been killed, a million wounded, 3 million displaced and 4 million refugees. The number of foreign fighters supporting ISIS/ISIL doubled from 15,000 to 30,000 while taking more territory for the self-proclaimed caliphate. Russia can not claim any role in the current "success" of the American led coalition. Russia has sided with the Shia Muslim Arabs and Persians along with the Sunni Muslim Kurds in the fight against the Sunni Muslim Arab ISIS/ISIL and al Qaeda and their affiliates. Assad did not attack America on nor after 9/11.
20
Sir, please let me get this straight.
So, military adventures in the Middle East are a sign of despot imperialism?
So, military adventures in the Middle East are a sign of despot imperialism?
44
I find this article totally beside the point and obscurantist. The current issue is fueled by current interests: a foothold in the Middle East and all those billions of military hardware contracts. It isn't much deeper or much more complicated than that. Neither Russia nor Assad can afford the aftermath of the latter's demise.
7
Ahh, the world of today just started yesterday. History does not matter. I thought Canadian education system was better than that.
Your use of the word obscurantist is obscurantist.
The whole point of the piece is to provide historical perspective about the current situation.
It is the exact opposite of obscure
The whole point of the piece is to provide historical perspective about the current situation.
It is the exact opposite of obscure
1
Russian interests also dovetail with the world's interest in destroying the Bouse of Saud's grotesque mutant love child IS. Just because Russia is doing something, doesn't mean it's wrong.
26
When somebody does something self-evidently stupid, asking "why" is rarely informative.
Putin has done a very stupid thing, seen in any longer perspective for Russia. The Russians cannot afford to keep Assad in power for long. They may delay his demise by a year or two, at frightful cost to all involved -- but Assad is the leader of a minority in Syria ... a minority whose young men are fleeing to avoid fighting for him. And a Russian-backed Assad is an even-worse pariah in the region, mobilizing all the Sunnis and many Shia to remove him.
Assad is the next Najibullah. That did not end well ... particularly for Najibullah.
Putin has done a very stupid thing, seen in any longer perspective for Russia. The Russians cannot afford to keep Assad in power for long. They may delay his demise by a year or two, at frightful cost to all involved -- but Assad is the leader of a minority in Syria ... a minority whose young men are fleeing to avoid fighting for him. And a Russian-backed Assad is an even-worse pariah in the region, mobilizing all the Sunnis and many Shia to remove him.
Assad is the next Najibullah. That did not end well ... particularly for Najibullah.
7
You are right. We still do not know why we were in Vietnam, Afghanistan Iraq
It is hard to see what he has to trade anyone in Syria, its unlikely he will get control of the country and even if he controlled a significant part who wants it.
1
Really and when the U.S. goes to the Middle East it's because we just want to help its people right? Everyone is an imperialist except us. China in Africa oh no increasing its sphere of influence by using money! Russia in the Middle East they're reimagining imperialist glory and former Soviet influence! The U.S. on the other hand is just trying to spread democracy, equality, peace and love.
35
And now you know what purpose the Op-Ed page serves for the State Department
4
These historical precedents have some bearing on the present, but within limits. One major changed circumstance is the nature of the contemporary Middle East -- extremes of wealth and poverty, lack of domestic economies, except for Israel, a new form of religious absolutism coupled with modern techniques of organization and warfare. A second changed circumstance is the limitations of the two large democratic blocs -- the EU and the US -- undermined by their internal squabbling. Democratic politics is crucial, but required democrats to be reasonable. Putin can suppress internal Russian squabbling, and he sees that only the Assad regime has a reasonable short-term ability to control Syrian disintegration and resist ISIS. Until the US and the EU can tame their own dissenters, Putin and Assad will hold the only keys that can turn off the destruction of Syrian and the successes of ISIS.
7
We had our own strongman in America - Ronald Reagan - and he aroused in this country the same fervor that Putin enjoys in Russia. We just experiencing a taste of our own medicine. Besides, our disasterours wars in the Middle East make Russia (and Putin) look rational by comparison. Has anyone ever really explained why we are over there? If the argument goes that we need to fight the terrorists over there so that we don't need to fight them here, then I say I am more worried about domestic terrorists (e.g. Roseburg shooter) than anything Isis has planned.
28
Is this an advertisement for the writers next book, or just another shill trying to make current history into a diabolical plot by Russia to rule the world? The middle east will be marred in conflict for many years, and the blood will be on the hands of those who go to plunder there without any plan for the future there. I must say that a strong middle east country, with strong historical roots like Iran, with their total understanding of the region for a millenium, if allowed to influence without the screeching of American and Russian and Israeli shills is the answer. It is time for the bullies in the playground to give way to the adults in the room.
9
Reading the long complex history of great powers military intervention & list of heroic justifications is educational as well as eye opening. When history records the numerous battles fought within the Middle East in the 21st Century, it could very likely be written in favor of the Russian empire. This is the same Russia that leads the modern world in space exploration as well as other scientific & engineering advances. In a time when the US government wastes its time debating whether Planned Parenthood should be defunded & figuring out ways to slowly dismantle the federal government, Russia, China and India are launching innovative space exploration programs. While Russia displays its state of the art weaponry on the Syrian stage with the cooperation of Iran, Iraq & Lebanon, deep pocketed countries like China watch in amazement. While Russia is advancing it nuclear submarine arsenal which have the potential to destroy aircraft carriers, has perfected long range cruise missiles to strike precise pin point targets from thousands of mile away & showcases its state of the art fighter jets which are numerically superior to NATOs, they're succeeding in the war of intimidation. Now China will be more apt to shell out trillions to purchase Russian military products usurping the US as the leading arms merchant. So, if Russia along with Iran's Qud's Forces under General Suleimani are successful in ridding the region of the dangerous threat of ISIL, they will have succeeded.
6
Wow, this is an historical perspective I've never seen. Thank you.
Can anyone recommend further reading?
Can anyone recommend further reading?
1
The Story of Civilization by Will Durant
To Jennifer Andrews:
Further reading? Yes.
Read the transcript of Putin's speech https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins... to the UN. He's not always wrong, despite what our domestic PR/propaganda team would have you believe.
Historical perspective is always interesting but at least in this instance, functionally irrelevant. ISIS is the reason. This historical tour of the past is like analyzing the influences of climate and non-native species on the evolution of regional biome yet failing to factor in the asteroid that just obliterated the landscape.
Further reading? Yes.
Read the transcript of Putin's speech https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins... to the UN. He's not always wrong, despite what our domestic PR/propaganda team would have you believe.
Historical perspective is always interesting but at least in this instance, functionally irrelevant. ISIS is the reason. This historical tour of the past is like analyzing the influences of climate and non-native species on the evolution of regional biome yet failing to factor in the asteroid that just obliterated the landscape.
1
The Shadow of the Winter Palace by Edward Crankshaw contains an excellent overview of 19th century Russian imperialist ambitions.
Unlike the United States that largely conducts military operations based upon illusions and hope the Russians in the case of Syria likely have limited but achievable objectives.
That would be to create an Alewife mini-state in southern and western Syria that included their bases on the Mediterranean.
Mr. Assad would be a negotiable item in diplomatic negotiations with the western powers and likely would be persuaded by Moscow to retire at some point for a new personality.
Since the vast bulk of the American people are not supportive of a new ground war in Syria using American forces hopefully the Russians succeed in their mission.
Unfortunately, American politicians are going a phase of childlike behavior of pouting and tantrums annoyed that they can't have their way.
Well, they have had their way for the past fourteen years in the region and it has brought us to this.
That would be to create an Alewife mini-state in southern and western Syria that included their bases on the Mediterranean.
Mr. Assad would be a negotiable item in diplomatic negotiations with the western powers and likely would be persuaded by Moscow to retire at some point for a new personality.
Since the vast bulk of the American people are not supportive of a new ground war in Syria using American forces hopefully the Russians succeed in their mission.
Unfortunately, American politicians are going a phase of childlike behavior of pouting and tantrums annoyed that they can't have their way.
Well, they have had their way for the past fourteen years in the region and it has brought us to this.
14
Russian missiles, bombs and artillery will destroy what is left of Syria. Assad will preside, from his subterranean bunker, over a wasteland from which most of its former population has fled. Then we can look forward to an apocalyptic war between Hezbollah and ISIL in the hope that they will destroy each other.
2
In the Middle east, today's friend is tomorrow's enemy. Today's enemy is tomorrow's friend. And by next year, they are both your enemies.
Knock yourself out, Putin.
Knock yourself out, Putin.
23
Russia is supporting an ally who requires military intervention to defeat armed insurgents. One should ask whether the US would do the same if Israel was faced with a similar situation? There are many who view those bent on Israel's destruction as legitimate as we view those anti-Assad forces.
One man's freedom fighter is an man's terrorist. Make no mistake - the Assad regime is brutal and demands our condemnation. However, engaging in a tit for tat exchange with Russia in the powder keg that is the Middle East will not achieve our objectives and only possibly lead to a wider conflict wherein everyone loses.
One man's freedom fighter is an man's terrorist. Make no mistake - the Assad regime is brutal and demands our condemnation. However, engaging in a tit for tat exchange with Russia in the powder keg that is the Middle East will not achieve our objectives and only possibly lead to a wider conflict wherein everyone loses.
12
Dr. Montefiore, an authority on Russian history has written a brief review of Russian that I thought was interesting. He didn't mention the United States because he was writing about Russia.
Just as interesting is the reaction of many of the commentators, who seem outraged, OUTRAGED that Montefiore didn't condemn the perfidious and loathsome United States as being far worse in the same column.
At what point does obsession become illness?
Just as interesting is the reaction of many of the commentators, who seem outraged, OUTRAGED that Montefiore didn't condemn the perfidious and loathsome United States as being far worse in the same column.
At what point does obsession become illness?
10
When one reads an article about how black the kettle is, it's worth noting the writer's links to the pot. It's not that folks are obsessed with the pot's own blackness, we're just pointing out that any article commenting on the kettle's blackness should note that it isn't the only kitchen item blackened by the fire's smoke.
2
I agree with your comment. People who lives in USA and Russia sees the world with different eyes than the rest of the world.
What is that view is for me Is being ideological. I am a naturalized Us citizen , I raised up in Europe and I saw 70's and 80's in cold war.
When I listened some Americans and Russians , their view has stuck in cold war time like and Many commentators here when they are expressing themselves world is about cold war ideologies like.
Even the cold war ended 25 years ago, in USA and Russia prevailing thought is world has two influence spheres, and rights and wrongs lines behind them.
I can say one thing in fact mainly wrongs lines behind them. look the examples
USA :Vietnam, Iraq, Russia: Afghanistan, Ukraine
These 4 historical conflicts with these 2 super powers are wrong in any humanitarian aspect.
What is that view is for me Is being ideological. I am a naturalized Us citizen , I raised up in Europe and I saw 70's and 80's in cold war.
When I listened some Americans and Russians , their view has stuck in cold war time like and Many commentators here when they are expressing themselves world is about cold war ideologies like.
Even the cold war ended 25 years ago, in USA and Russia prevailing thought is world has two influence spheres, and rights and wrongs lines behind them.
I can say one thing in fact mainly wrongs lines behind them. look the examples
USA :Vietnam, Iraq, Russia: Afghanistan, Ukraine
These 4 historical conflicts with these 2 super powers are wrong in any humanitarian aspect.
2
Hello!
When you gave an example with Afganistan and Iraq, Vietnam and Ukraine, you forgot about a very important (to my mind) things: when USSR came to Afganistan, it has common border by land with Afganistan. And in case with Ukraine, please, try to understand - for Russia and russians Ukraine is not just a simple neighbour, - thousands years it was a part of russian history. By the way, Ukraine, in its modern border, is a result of activities of communists, including Crimea.
And what about Vietnam and Iraq? Where is USA, and where are this countries? As for me, it is difficult to explain reasons for americans attacks on them.
Please, sorry my english -)
When you gave an example with Afganistan and Iraq, Vietnam and Ukraine, you forgot about a very important (to my mind) things: when USSR came to Afganistan, it has common border by land with Afganistan. And in case with Ukraine, please, try to understand - for Russia and russians Ukraine is not just a simple neighbour, - thousands years it was a part of russian history. By the way, Ukraine, in its modern border, is a result of activities of communists, including Crimea.
And what about Vietnam and Iraq? Where is USA, and where are this countries? As for me, it is difficult to explain reasons for americans attacks on them.
Please, sorry my english -)
Good heavens, Russia has been intervening militarily in the Middle East and supporting dictators who further its national interests! Next thing you know Putin will be holding hands with Assad - literally. The US and Western European countries would never do such things.
15
Putin is the world leader now that the US has decided to train and fund terrorists in order to effect regime change where it deems necessary. The times backed the Libya debacle also which directly led to what we see in Syria today.We funded and armed AL Qaeda in Libya which is now called Al Nusra in Syria.These are the so called moderate rebels, who our own government says did 911. The idea we have already rolled Libya with Al Qaeda, and now they have all our weapons in Syria, should be enough to impeach several executive branch members for treason. None of this war activity is legal under our constitution without a formal declaration, or a specific letter of marque/reprisal from the congress. The fact we do not hold our leaders accountable for their actions is the reason this insane war on terror continues to drain our national treasure.
12
What Putin doesn't get or doesn't really care about, is the real source of muscle is the economy. No matter what military chess pieces Putin moves, he will always be checkmated by a third world economy.
3
Why is anyone surprised by yet another human-led society inflicting pain and suffering on another human society. Violence is a human operating principle and only differs in degree.
In the US we seem to enjoy killing our selves. Mass gun violence, domestic violence, and of course the grand daddy of all US deaths, the civil war.
Some, Turks? Islamists? Afrikaners? are more violent than others (Scandinavia) but no sizeable majority across the continents, countries and societies is truly interested in peaceful, sustainable, compassionate existence.
This is the violent world, we as humans, seem to desire; driven by greed, sex, guns and god. Very very sad.
In the US we seem to enjoy killing our selves. Mass gun violence, domestic violence, and of course the grand daddy of all US deaths, the civil war.
Some, Turks? Islamists? Afrikaners? are more violent than others (Scandinavia) but no sizeable majority across the continents, countries and societies is truly interested in peaceful, sustainable, compassionate existence.
This is the violent world, we as humans, seem to desire; driven by greed, sex, guns and god. Very very sad.
7
While history lessons are always interesting and often helpful, I think this grand tour of Russian adventurism needlessly over-complicates Putin's rather straightforward and understandable coming to the aid of a longtime ally, much as we might splutteringly disapprove of his doing so, along with the protection of Russia's naval base at Tartus. You know, just as we saw in Crimea when Putin felt that Russia's Black Sea Fleet was in jeopardy. That's to say... proverbially speaking.... sometimes a pipe is just a pipe.
13
"Boldness" counts for much, too, in today's GOP which, if we are to pay attention to its congressional leaders struggling mightily to prove that they can't lead, would gladly replace their own restrained President Obama with that "bold," bare-chested man of action, President Vlad, who needs a rash, ultimately self-defeating gesture to cover from his massive failures at home.
Sadly, millions more Syrians will be displaced or die as a result of Putin's empty but lethal grandiosity, but Putin has long made clear that human life is of no concern to him.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
Sadly, millions more Syrians will be displaced or die as a result of Putin's empty but lethal grandiosity, but Putin has long made clear that human life is of no concern to him.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
This author's personal interests are in Jerusalem. He wrote a "biography" of the city going back to Solomon, and he has deep emotional ties there. However, that distorts his understanding of Russia.
For Russia, it was always more about Constantinople. There were very hard political power reasons for that.
The great Russian rivers, like out Mississippi complex, run North-South emptying into the Black Sea. Constantinople sits on the Russian windpipe of water and ocean commerce and connection to the world.
It is as if a foreign hostile power controlled New Orleans, and could choke off the entire American interior at will, which was a major American concern with the Louisiana Purchase and then War of 1812. We take it for granted now, but it was very real, and got us Andrew Jackson as President for saving us from that disaster.
Jerusalem for Russian has been one of several convenient reasons to try to open that windpipe. As proof, Catherine traded its Middle East position for Crimea, the opening into the Black Sea, from which Constantinople is the exit.
Western powers, Britain, France, and more, have always helped Turkey keep Constantinople, because it locks out of the Mediterranean World a vast Russian power, and leaves them in control there instead. They did not support Turkey out of any concern for Turkey, or even any liking of Ottoman Muslims.
Russia's ambitions under Putin are the same as always, that windpipe to the larger world, an opening for Russia.
For Russia, it was always more about Constantinople. There were very hard political power reasons for that.
The great Russian rivers, like out Mississippi complex, run North-South emptying into the Black Sea. Constantinople sits on the Russian windpipe of water and ocean commerce and connection to the world.
It is as if a foreign hostile power controlled New Orleans, and could choke off the entire American interior at will, which was a major American concern with the Louisiana Purchase and then War of 1812. We take it for granted now, but it was very real, and got us Andrew Jackson as President for saving us from that disaster.
Jerusalem for Russian has been one of several convenient reasons to try to open that windpipe. As proof, Catherine traded its Middle East position for Crimea, the opening into the Black Sea, from which Constantinople is the exit.
Western powers, Britain, France, and more, have always helped Turkey keep Constantinople, because it locks out of the Mediterranean World a vast Russian power, and leaves them in control there instead. They did not support Turkey out of any concern for Turkey, or even any liking of Ottoman Muslims.
Russia's ambitions under Putin are the same as always, that windpipe to the larger world, an opening for Russia.
14
Simon Sebag Montefiore wrote an excellent biography of Stalin, with what seemed to me to be a good understanding of Russia, its culture, politics and religion.
1
@ Mark Thomason
• This author's personal interests are in Jerusalem. He wrote a "biography" of the city going back to Solomon, and he has deep emotional ties there.
HISTORICAL CERTAINTY PROVES ELUSIVE AT JERUSALEM’S HOLIEST PLACE
By Rick Gladstone
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Oct 8, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/middleeast/historical-certainty-...
• This author's personal interests are in Jerusalem. He wrote a "biography" of the city going back to Solomon, and he has deep emotional ties there.
HISTORICAL CERTAINTY PROVES ELUSIVE AT JERUSALEM’S HOLIEST PLACE
By Rick Gladstone
THE NEW YORK TIMES: Oct 8, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/middleeast/historical-certainty-...
1
Much appreciated background about a situation that seems at first glance crazy. Now that Russian bombs have landed in Iran, the lunacy has ventured full circle. Lots more circles to be made before we--as the world's people--realize that, as Quakers keep telling us, war is not the answer.
The NYT , along with the U.S. gov, relentlessly portrays Russia's support of the Assad regime as contrary to US interests, while our opposition to Assad is never explained or questioned. But can someone please, please explain to me what threat Assad ever posed to US interests compared to ISIS? No one, nothing? Wake up, we are on the wrong side of this fight because of the Israel lobby, who hate Assad for their own reasons and know that Israel can only survive in a Middle East that is constantly destabilized by its great, dumb friend, the U.S.
12
Wow. Who knew those wily Russians were backing despots and preventing democracy from taking hold in the Middle East since 18th century. That totally explains everything that's going on now. Thank you for that brilliant insight, NYT.
3
A masterful rehash of recent and pre recent history of Russia's involvement in the Middle East
Never explicit it is though inspired, pervaded and dominated by the sprit and political ambitions for Russia to stay away from the Judo -Zionist/Christian -Imperialist presumed exclusive pastures and drinking holes.
Never explicit it is though inspired, pervaded and dominated by the sprit and political ambitions for Russia to stay away from the Judo -Zionist/Christian -Imperialist presumed exclusive pastures and drinking holes.
You can call Christian imperialism but you are absolutely wrong about Zionism.
If you would like to interested in truth about Israel and all 20th century history, Zionism never did such abomination like Christian world did.( who sold Palestine to Zionists, rich Arabs no body else)
Never forget Islam's imperialism , you cannot wash clean that one.
In fact if we are going to name imperialism, it should be called correctly like this
CHRISTIAN/ISLAM IMPERIALISM.
Jews has never been in a position to become imperialistic.
A honest non ideological Muslim/Christian acknowledge this truth.
If you would like to interested in truth about Israel and all 20th century history, Zionism never did such abomination like Christian world did.( who sold Palestine to Zionists, rich Arabs no body else)
Never forget Islam's imperialism , you cannot wash clean that one.
In fact if we are going to name imperialism, it should be called correctly like this
CHRISTIAN/ISLAM IMPERIALISM.
Jews has never been in a position to become imperialistic.
A honest non ideological Muslim/Christian acknowledge this truth.
Missing in this is the observation that Russia needs access to the Eastern Mediterranean for reasons of commerce. Russia has three potential routes to oceans, through the Pacific, the North Sea, and through the Black Sea. The first is thousands of kilometers from the Russian industrial and agricultural heartland, the second involves choke points so the third is also necessary. That's got to be a big reason behind Russia's annexation of Crimea and need for a military presence in Syria. To hear Montefiore tell it, he'd have us believe that the reasons are all subjective and religious.
1
This is really ....not a journey into the past archives of ancients redoubts..
No...this is the new pursuit of hegemony by a modern Russian zealot.
and
perhaps this is a wake up call for the smug Sunni oil rich and the Shiite
oil rich who rule by tyrannical theocrats.
Let 'em at it....and do not back the zealot Netanyahu ...who loves war war war.
Let 'em at it...It is a modern day theocratic war...
......No wonder these dictators and theocrats are begging others to fund
their greed..
No...this is the new pursuit of hegemony by a modern Russian zealot.
and
perhaps this is a wake up call for the smug Sunni oil rich and the Shiite
oil rich who rule by tyrannical theocrats.
Let 'em at it....and do not back the zealot Netanyahu ...who loves war war war.
Let 'em at it...It is a modern day theocratic war...
......No wonder these dictators and theocrats are begging others to fund
their greed..
4
While the author provides historical background for Russia, which has been a strong force through centuries, rationale he portrays for Russia's Syrian backing is simplistic at best.
Russia has had a chance to show the whole world what a charade the US foreign policy has been in Middle East, rhetorically saying one thing (ISIS is bad and needs to be removed), while in reality doing completely something else (supporting similar Islamist terrorists (Al_Qaeda off shoots) clandestinely and via proxies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan).
All of the major countries intelligent sources knew that this has been taking place in Syria over the last 4.5 years. Putin was never going to give up Syria (and so does Iran), so when he sees the opening and further weakening in Assad's forces, he took charge and will get rid of any type of Islamist terrorists (US backed or proxy backed) from Syria.
Putin also has solid coalition in Iran, Iraq and so far covertly from China against overlapping conflict of interest the US led coalition, which wanted to annex Syria from the get go with its proxy allies.
Russia has had a chance to show the whole world what a charade the US foreign policy has been in Middle East, rhetorically saying one thing (ISIS is bad and needs to be removed), while in reality doing completely something else (supporting similar Islamist terrorists (Al_Qaeda off shoots) clandestinely and via proxies (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan).
All of the major countries intelligent sources knew that this has been taking place in Syria over the last 4.5 years. Putin was never going to give up Syria (and so does Iran), so when he sees the opening and further weakening in Assad's forces, he took charge and will get rid of any type of Islamist terrorists (US backed or proxy backed) from Syria.
Putin also has solid coalition in Iran, Iraq and so far covertly from China against overlapping conflict of interest the US led coalition, which wanted to annex Syria from the get go with its proxy allies.
6
That crown on the head of Vladimir Putin offers about as salutary an image as that of a shaved skull on a skinny white guy.
But what a superb historical context-setting piece. Thank you to the Times and to Mr. Monetefiore for providing it. We may not like Mr. Putin’s many adventures, but it’s interesting to understand the historical reasons for them beyond mere tendencies to the buccaneer.
But just as Albion is never not perfidious, Russia is never not predictably practical. Surely Putin understands quagmires, as he seems to have gotten himself into one in Ukraine. It may be that Mr. Montefiore’s suspicions that he’ll happily trade his championship of Bashar al-Assad to obtain some beneficial settlement in Ukraine prove true. If I were Assad, I’d be getting the French asylum chateau in shape.
But what a superb historical context-setting piece. Thank you to the Times and to Mr. Monetefiore for providing it. We may not like Mr. Putin’s many adventures, but it’s interesting to understand the historical reasons for them beyond mere tendencies to the buccaneer.
But just as Albion is never not perfidious, Russia is never not predictably practical. Surely Putin understands quagmires, as he seems to have gotten himself into one in Ukraine. It may be that Mr. Montefiore’s suspicions that he’ll happily trade his championship of Bashar al-Assad to obtain some beneficial settlement in Ukraine prove true. If I were Assad, I’d be getting the French asylum chateau in shape.
Fascinating history however leaves out Hussein was as much engaged by America as he was a soviet puppet. Ironically Rumsfeld himself was point man for US affair with Hussein prior to breaking up with him for the war.
4
The Russians apparently learned nothing from their ten-year misadventure in Afghanistan.....just as the US apparently learned nothing from its ten-year misadventure in Viet Nam....the old teat-in-a wringer adage comes to mind....the Russians will find Syria to be a very large and nasty wringer, and one which we want no part of.
4
In regards to Russia's actions in Syria and Afghanistan Vladimir Putin should remember conflict has been going on in the region for thousands of years and will probably continue to do so until the end of time.
Numerous foreign powers have tried to use military force to "control" the area going back to Alexander the Great and all have eventually failed.
Mr Putin should heed well the words of George Satayana famous philosopher who knowingly said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I think Mr Putin needs a quick philosophy lesson or Russia will sink into a quagmire that could bring on Armagedeon.
Numerous foreign powers have tried to use military force to "control" the area going back to Alexander the Great and all have eventually failed.
Mr Putin should heed well the words of George Satayana famous philosopher who knowingly said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". I think Mr Putin needs a quick philosophy lesson or Russia will sink into a quagmire that could bring on Armagedeon.
2
Spain was once a great power. So too was France. Germany was a collection of unfriendly states within the Holy Roman Empire. Russia was a frozen waste that got its name from a Swedish tribe. America was a virgin territory inhabited by primitive tribes. Human history did not begin at Balaclava or at Kabul.
Spain is a mess. France is now a minor power. Germany rose, and was badly crushed, twice, but is rising again. Russia rose, and retreated, and now tries to rise again. America is a sleeping giant with enough armaments to char the entire world twice over. America has no existential threat in the Middle East--but it does have one at home.
The People's House is infested with flaming reactionaries. The media call them conservatives, but their aim is not to conserve anything real. They long for a past that never existed. What are they? Descendants of Sitting Bull who want their country back? (The original Tea Party goers in Boston dressed as Indians!)
If America would have influence in the world, it must first clean out its own stable. To hear people like John McCain sawing away on an old fiddle with one string (bomb, bomb, fight, fight!)is to hear the approaching death knell of greatness.
America without great spirit and without a vision for human cooperation is no more than a dinosaur, over-armed and under-protected from reality. America is better than that, better than gasping reaction to every wrinkle of petty dictatorship out of Russia.
Spain is a mess. France is now a minor power. Germany rose, and was badly crushed, twice, but is rising again. Russia rose, and retreated, and now tries to rise again. America is a sleeping giant with enough armaments to char the entire world twice over. America has no existential threat in the Middle East--but it does have one at home.
The People's House is infested with flaming reactionaries. The media call them conservatives, but their aim is not to conserve anything real. They long for a past that never existed. What are they? Descendants of Sitting Bull who want their country back? (The original Tea Party goers in Boston dressed as Indians!)
If America would have influence in the world, it must first clean out its own stable. To hear people like John McCain sawing away on an old fiddle with one string (bomb, bomb, fight, fight!)is to hear the approaching death knell of greatness.
America without great spirit and without a vision for human cooperation is no more than a dinosaur, over-armed and under-protected from reality. America is better than that, better than gasping reaction to every wrinkle of petty dictatorship out of Russia.
7
Thank you. A fascinating and critically important article. I hope our current President reads this closely.
To your point in the last paragraph--that Syria will ultimately be a quagmire for Russia--well better them than us.
Who are our friends? Not Iraq--Iran owns its politicians, Not Saudi Arabia--ISIS with oil, Not Iran--Obama's new best friend and Russia's key ally in the region, Not Pakistan--creator and benefactor of the Taliban, Not Egypt--a repressive dictatorship.
Israel is our friend and Israel has no ally in Syria.
What are we fighting for there?
We have our own oil. There is no compelling US interest in the Middle East that compels us to waste American lives and treasure.
Putin wants the ball. Give it to him.
To your point in the last paragraph--that Syria will ultimately be a quagmire for Russia--well better them than us.
Who are our friends? Not Iraq--Iran owns its politicians, Not Saudi Arabia--ISIS with oil, Not Iran--Obama's new best friend and Russia's key ally in the region, Not Pakistan--creator and benefactor of the Taliban, Not Egypt--a repressive dictatorship.
Israel is our friend and Israel has no ally in Syria.
What are we fighting for there?
We have our own oil. There is no compelling US interest in the Middle East that compels us to waste American lives and treasure.
Putin wants the ball. Give it to him.
6
Vova is bold as brass in his Syrian adventure. The illustration to Simon Sebag Montefiore's column - Vlad, the Conquerer - by Adam Maida is marvelous. The Russians have always played havoc in the Middle East. Fascinating, Montefiore's lesson of history - Catherine and Potemkin annexing the Crimea and aiming at Minorca for a base in the Mediterranean. Putin's personal leadership - Vova the Most Modern Czar - the great gonfalon-bearer of Russian glory abroad, may yet gain Russia a very big foothold in the Med. Boldness in the midst of quagmire (which is what Syria is at present) is too glamourous and foolhardy for words. But there is a tide in the affairs of men that when taken at the flood....etc. Russia's war in Syria will have consequences that are yet to be revealed. Better Russia than the U.S. in Syria's quicksand.
1
Yes the "Great Game" continues! One empire trying to control a region that just happens to be next another region that is closely connected to the other empire. The American empire so badly mucked up the region with its imperial meddling, that is has forced the Russian empire to try an stabilize the region for it's own ends. But let us not forget, as Montefiore seems to, that the Russians asked the Americans to help, but the Americans are simply to naive and arrogant to do so.
8
To talk of any happening in the Middle East without the myopic role played by the British under the Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill, is so incomplete like Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark:
World will remember as Colonial Secretary Churchill arbitrary redrawing Middle East dessert borders. The reckless arrogance is well reflected in http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/winstons-hiccup/.
Blog reflect the arrogance with which British treated the Arabs taking no account the local interests, went about drawing arbitrary lines in the desert sands. Churchill "liked to boast that in 1921 he created the British mandate of Trans-Jordan, the first incarnation of what still is the Kingdom of Jordan, “with the stroke of a pen, one Sunday afternoon in Cairo”
"according to the legend of its creation, the border owes its strange shape to nothing more significant than Churchill’s propensity for champagne, brandy and whisky. This stretch of border is still, and in retrospect rather euphemistically, referred to as Winston’s Hiccup, or Churchill’s Sneeze. ..Saudi Arabia, owed part of its external border to the inebriated scribbling of a British boozeh"!!
The tragic consequences of the thoughtless British arrogance is being tragically being played today. It is not for nothing said "You get out of life what you put in. If you go around blaming other people and playing the victim, you are going to be a victim your entire life".
World will remember as Colonial Secretary Churchill arbitrary redrawing Middle East dessert borders. The reckless arrogance is well reflected in http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/winstons-hiccup/.
Blog reflect the arrogance with which British treated the Arabs taking no account the local interests, went about drawing arbitrary lines in the desert sands. Churchill "liked to boast that in 1921 he created the British mandate of Trans-Jordan, the first incarnation of what still is the Kingdom of Jordan, “with the stroke of a pen, one Sunday afternoon in Cairo”
"according to the legend of its creation, the border owes its strange shape to nothing more significant than Churchill’s propensity for champagne, brandy and whisky. This stretch of border is still, and in retrospect rather euphemistically, referred to as Winston’s Hiccup, or Churchill’s Sneeze. ..Saudi Arabia, owed part of its external border to the inebriated scribbling of a British boozeh"!!
The tragic consequences of the thoughtless British arrogance is being tragically being played today. It is not for nothing said "You get out of life what you put in. If you go around blaming other people and playing the victim, you are going to be a victim your entire life".
2
Putin's intervention in Syria was obviously greeted with joy in ex-Sovietologist, Russian-studies circles. A growth opportunity -- crank the Prokofiev!
All we have to do now is just add a little psychological "analysis" of Mad Putin to the cultural-studies stew, and -- poof! -- we're of world-historical relevance again! Re-open Delphi -- or just get re-invited to the Sunday talk shows!
All we have to do now is just add a little psychological "analysis" of Mad Putin to the cultural-studies stew, and -- poof! -- we're of world-historical relevance again! Re-open Delphi -- or just get re-invited to the Sunday talk shows!
2
Mr. Tarnopol's comment is typical of the mindless, anti-intellectual, knee-jerk
rejection of anything that might provide an understanding of what motivates the actions and misdeeds of other nations, be they friend or foe. Perhaps Mr. Tarnopol can enlighten us on this since, apparently, Mr. Sebag-Montefiore didn't do so to his satisfaction.
rejection of anything that might provide an understanding of what motivates the actions and misdeeds of other nations, be they friend or foe. Perhaps Mr. Tarnopol can enlighten us on this since, apparently, Mr. Sebag-Montefiore didn't do so to his satisfaction.
how do I hate this article...shall I count the ways...
I could start with the nit about Czars...since both Slavs and Nyemetz dealt only with the military Emperors of the split Roman hegemon(s) they invented the words Czar and its cognate Kaisar from the Caesars, as such were called. Of course a religious/political head, called an Augustus "ruled" in both Rome and Constantinople, contemporaneous.
That said, what does Catherine the Great have to do with now? About as much as Benedict Arnold, or for that matter Richard The Lionheart. The whole mess Montefiore tries to bring in about "Mao hugs" is as ancient history with respect to our dog Saddam (as he was from the invasion of Iran at the start of the 80s). And long before Gorby Moscow had dropped Mad dog Quadaffy. Neither were allies, despite the article's allegations.
We need to get clear of doublequick mouthyak think and see this for what it is.
A war. One that allows Russia to test out our reactions to the launch of potential nuke bearing missiles...
But also a legal case--if Turkey's airspace is sovereign, why have we gotten away with ignoring the mirror image situation in Syria. What happens when Russia goes after ISIS arms depots in Turkey, in short? in shorter, forget Orlov et al fairy tales...
I could start with the nit about Czars...since both Slavs and Nyemetz dealt only with the military Emperors of the split Roman hegemon(s) they invented the words Czar and its cognate Kaisar from the Caesars, as such were called. Of course a religious/political head, called an Augustus "ruled" in both Rome and Constantinople, contemporaneous.
That said, what does Catherine the Great have to do with now? About as much as Benedict Arnold, or for that matter Richard The Lionheart. The whole mess Montefiore tries to bring in about "Mao hugs" is as ancient history with respect to our dog Saddam (as he was from the invasion of Iran at the start of the 80s). And long before Gorby Moscow had dropped Mad dog Quadaffy. Neither were allies, despite the article's allegations.
We need to get clear of doublequick mouthyak think and see this for what it is.
A war. One that allows Russia to test out our reactions to the launch of potential nuke bearing missiles...
But also a legal case--if Turkey's airspace is sovereign, why have we gotten away with ignoring the mirror image situation in Syria. What happens when Russia goes after ISIS arms depots in Turkey, in short? in shorter, forget Orlov et al fairy tales...
1
Since the US empire is stumbling, others are trying to fill the void.
5
You are absolutely OK with Imperialistic morale.
If USSR goes down USA take over, If US goes down, China take over.
What about buffering imperialism under UN charter regulations.
You remind me this
GOP fights against socialist UN charter which aimed to take all American freedom. Same as Russia's freedom , China's etc.
If USSR goes down USA take over, If US goes down, China take over.
What about buffering imperialism under UN charter regulations.
You remind me this
GOP fights against socialist UN charter which aimed to take all American freedom. Same as Russia's freedom , China's etc.
The Russian’s seemingly endless pursuit to mock, taunt and troll the Obama administration ramped up today when the Kremlin released secret video of a meeting with U.S. officials – posting it for all to laugh at on YouTube.
The fact that the Russian’s are brazen enough to record and publicly release any part of a supposed confidential meeting with U.S. officials is a freighting prospect.
The meeting was held to discuss “air safety,” and to add insult to injury, Russian fighter jets took to the Syrian skies to literally push American jets out of Syrian airspace. As CNN reported, Russian planes came within 20 nautical miles of U.S. planes, forcing them to retreat. The U.S. is losing its superpower status at an alarming rate, if it’s not completely gone already.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
The fact that the Russian’s are brazen enough to record and publicly release any part of a supposed confidential meeting with U.S. officials is a freighting prospect.
The meeting was held to discuss “air safety,” and to add insult to injury, Russian fighter jets took to the Syrian skies to literally push American jets out of Syrian airspace. As CNN reported, Russian planes came within 20 nautical miles of U.S. planes, forcing them to retreat. The U.S. is losing its superpower status at an alarming rate, if it’s not completely gone already.
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
Read more: http://www.bizpacreview.com/2015/10/08/humiliating-russians-relentlessly...
1
I can think of better things than being concerned with being a superpower.
This is not the WWF.
This is not the WWF.
1
I'm sitting in a cafe with my morning coffee and just watched s microcosm of this situation. A great big dog sitting next to his master was confronted by the typical little yappy dog...all bark and bounce. The big dog watched him and smiled, and eventually the mistress of the yapper lead him away. All the noise and bluster didn't alter the imbalance....
It is all about Obama, nothing else.
Who cares what ISIS does,
who cares 11 Million Syrians become refugees,
Who cares IRAQ disintegrated,
Who cares Ukraine lost its sovereign land
Just Obama vs Putin.
Whose horses run over those lands. that is all about.
Who cares what ISIS does,
who cares 11 Million Syrians become refugees,
Who cares IRAQ disintegrated,
Who cares Ukraine lost its sovereign land
Just Obama vs Putin.
Whose horses run over those lands. that is all about.
What is the difference whether America bombs Syria or Russia Bombs?
They are bombing to secure their interest then why democracy, independence , liberation etc
big mouth. We all were developed from animal and still have that tendency.
If you watched human activities from moon. You will find it very ridiculous.
They are bombing to secure their interest then why democracy, independence , liberation etc
big mouth. We all were developed from animal and still have that tendency.
If you watched human activities from moon. You will find it very ridiculous.
4
Buoyed by Russia's success in Afghanistan against the Mujahideen, it is understandable that Mr. Putin would want to flex his military muscles (weak neighbors are really little challenge) and take on the all Muslims once again by aligning himself with the minor Muslim sect of Alawites. Sounds like a plan.
4
I fail to see how Russia's intervention in Syria has any less legitimacy than our involvement. Frankly, it is our policy in Syria that is illogical and counterproductive, while Putin's is one based on a solid understanding of his own national interests. The Baathist regime there has been a Russian and Iranian client for decades and his actions there are intended to shore up one of his rare allies in the world.
Contrast that to our own involvement. As I said earlier, the status of the Assad regime as a Russian client is of long standing and has not proven terribly threatening to us. Assad is a butcher, but those likely to replace him are even worse, so what is our interest in deposing him? As near as I can determine, it stems from moral revulsion, which, while both real and justified, is insufficient to drive policy. Again, if what is likely to replace him is al Qaeda, why on Earth would we wish to reprise our Libyan stupidity?
An enlightened approach to our own national interest entails understanding of and respect for that of other nations. And if we had gotten off our moral high horse long enough to consider that of Russia before we deposed Qaddafi in Libya, called for the same for Assad in Syria, and cheerled for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO and the EU, none of Putin's aggressions would have transpired. They have been reactions to our overreach due to totally unnecessary moral preening. Doesn't excuse him, but we are being foolish.
Contrast that to our own involvement. As I said earlier, the status of the Assad regime as a Russian client is of long standing and has not proven terribly threatening to us. Assad is a butcher, but those likely to replace him are even worse, so what is our interest in deposing him? As near as I can determine, it stems from moral revulsion, which, while both real and justified, is insufficient to drive policy. Again, if what is likely to replace him is al Qaeda, why on Earth would we wish to reprise our Libyan stupidity?
An enlightened approach to our own national interest entails understanding of and respect for that of other nations. And if we had gotten off our moral high horse long enough to consider that of Russia before we deposed Qaddafi in Libya, called for the same for Assad in Syria, and cheerled for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO and the EU, none of Putin's aggressions would have transpired. They have been reactions to our overreach due to totally unnecessary moral preening. Doesn't excuse him, but we are being foolish.
26
*sigh*...perhaps comments should be peer reviewed to clean up the misrepresentations. A. "We" did not depose Quadafi, B. It was Bush who pushed for Ukraine in NATO, and C. The revolution/Arab Spring was well along in Syria before we "called for" Assad's departure as a solution. You may feel good with spinning these to fit your personal narrative, but it really is not much help.
To podmanic:
Your position is illogical. We did not depose Qaddafi? Then who did, gremlins? The rebels would not have succeeded without our air support. I am well aware of GWB's involvement with both Georgia and Ukraine, and I think them mistakes. I did not blame them on Obama, so I fail to see your argument. GWB was president at the time, he did as I said he did and it was a mistake.
As for the Syrian revolt being underway before we got involved, such is true. And irrelevent. Once we took the needless position that Assad had to go, we got involved and that would tick off Russia. And since we have armed the "moderate" rebels and even sought to set up, arm, and train rebel forces (albeit in an incredibly incompetent fashion). What would Russia be expected to think in that situation? What would we have had the situation been reversed?
Your position is illogical. We did not depose Qaddafi? Then who did, gremlins? The rebels would not have succeeded without our air support. I am well aware of GWB's involvement with both Georgia and Ukraine, and I think them mistakes. I did not blame them on Obama, so I fail to see your argument. GWB was president at the time, he did as I said he did and it was a mistake.
As for the Syrian revolt being underway before we got involved, such is true. And irrelevent. Once we took the needless position that Assad had to go, we got involved and that would tick off Russia. And since we have armed the "moderate" rebels and even sought to set up, arm, and train rebel forces (albeit in an incredibly incompetent fashion). What would Russia be expected to think in that situation? What would we have had the situation been reversed?
Who the heck are we to take "position"that Assad must go? When will we ever learn WE ARE NOT THE POLICE MEN OF THE WORLD? We try to inject "freedom" that took us 200-years to get. Once any country gets their style of "Freedom", it is unacceptable to us. Algeria had "Fair elections", monitored by President Carter. Then we decided we did not like it, so we, (CIA), toppled the elected government. And, we have done the same in other places. We point our finger to "World criminals" in other countries while we shelter and harbor such known criminal ourselves, wanted by the World Court in the Hague, George W.Bush. And, we allow his brother to run for our next President, whose hands are dirty from getting Dubya elected by fraud. Are we serious?
1
Putin is extending Russian power and reshaping the Middle East. The US recedes, but do we have moral lectures from the Activist-in-Chief!
1
Putin is just doing what Cheney and Bush did in 2003.
or
You are still ruminating that we are the liberators of Iraq people.
or
You are still ruminating that we are the liberators of Iraq people.
Putin is not "channeling" anybody, never mind Catherine the Great. And when an article opens with an incident dating from 1772, trying to tie it to a modern leader, I know what the real issue is. It's what I term Putinism, and unfortunately, there seem to be an abundant amount of media pundits that are obsessed with the man, and are determined - one way or another - to present him with a "heart of darkness," and his motives with all kinds of twisted, archaic reasons and rationales.
Why don't we do that to Merkel? Why don't we do that to Cameron? Surely, we could find all kinds of historic reasons - aka the "real" reasons - for why they do what they do. Maybe Cameron wants to return to the days of the British Empire. That would explain his reluctance to accept Scottish independence.
The history in this article is fascinating and enlightening. Trying to make Putin out do be anything but a modern day leader with obvious motives - obvious because he has been veryis not reasonable or fair.
Why don't we do that to Merkel? Why don't we do that to Cameron? Surely, we could find all kinds of historic reasons - aka the "real" reasons - for why they do what they do. Maybe Cameron wants to return to the days of the British Empire. That would explain his reluctance to accept Scottish independence.
The history in this article is fascinating and enlightening. Trying to make Putin out do be anything but a modern day leader with obvious motives - obvious because he has been veryis not reasonable or fair.
6
Sorry about the typos. The cat jumped on the keyboard. The last paragraph should read:Trying to make Putin out to be anything but a modern day leader with obvious motives - obvious because he has been very open about it - is not reasonable nor is it fair.
1
Ukraine, Syria, and Crimea have all been about one thing... Mr. Putin's perception of his own legacy. It is becoming increasingly clear that these are small steps in the war he hopes to one day define his story as a strongman of Russia, and I fear it won't matter how many lose their lives to it.
"...Russia ... will find in Syria a quagmire."
Wishful thinking. Russia will save the day for Assad. Which is what we should have been doing (or at least not getting in Assad's way as we have been).
The Arab world has 3 choices: sectarian dictatorship (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam Hussein), theocratic dictatorship (ISIS), or chaos. It is not ready yet (possibly never will be) for "democracy." The lesser of those 3 evils for them and for the rest of the world is the first.
Wishful thinking. Russia will save the day for Assad. Which is what we should have been doing (or at least not getting in Assad's way as we have been).
The Arab world has 3 choices: sectarian dictatorship (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam Hussein), theocratic dictatorship (ISIS), or chaos. It is not ready yet (possibly never will be) for "democracy." The lesser of those 3 evils for them and for the rest of the world is the first.
4
"The Arab world has 3 choices: sectarian dictatorship (Mubarak, Gaddafi, Assad, Saddam Hussein), theocratic dictatorship (ISIS), or chaos."
No it doesn't, and to claim otherwise is to be not very subtly racist. There is another option, but it's one that the United States, Russia, and most other outside players don't want, namely the same kind of real democracy that we take for granted in the West.
There is long-standing democracy in Turkey. There is democracy in Tunisia after an effort that has just garnered the various leaders a Nobel Peace Prize. There was democracy in Egypt until a US-backed coup ousted the democratically elected government in favor of a military dictatorship that was just like the old Mubarak regime. There are democratic institutions in Iran and Pakistan that could be strengthened.
And all we would really need to do to make that happen is to stay out of the way when local activists make it happen, and refuse to support dictators who meet those pro-democracy advocates with force. The US has consistently refused to do that, which is why a lot of people in the Middle East don't like the US.
No it doesn't, and to claim otherwise is to be not very subtly racist. There is another option, but it's one that the United States, Russia, and most other outside players don't want, namely the same kind of real democracy that we take for granted in the West.
There is long-standing democracy in Turkey. There is democracy in Tunisia after an effort that has just garnered the various leaders a Nobel Peace Prize. There was democracy in Egypt until a US-backed coup ousted the democratically elected government in favor of a military dictatorship that was just like the old Mubarak regime. There are democratic institutions in Iran and Pakistan that could be strengthened.
And all we would really need to do to make that happen is to stay out of the way when local activists make it happen, and refuse to support dictators who meet those pro-democracy advocates with force. The US has consistently refused to do that, which is why a lot of people in the Middle East don't like the US.
You are exactly right. But you failed to note that Israel prefers your third alternative, and is using the U.S. to achieve that result.
1
Very well said. Thank you for being the voice of reason.
Putin might be a despot and also Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad too but there is something always unnoticed by western authors; There are nearly 20 countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Any of these countries have democracy, human or women rights. Also there is no freedom of belief or respect to private life.
The point is; the politic and social situation of all these countries are same but only the countries which don't accept US and EU companies or US Dollar to trade are being declared as "Dictatorial Regym". To be honest; the author is right to say "Russia and Putin is playing a game for Imperial Russia" but they should accept that The USA is playing this game all over the world since 1945.
The point is; the politic and social situation of all these countries are same but only the countries which don't accept US and EU companies or US Dollar to trade are being declared as "Dictatorial Regym". To be honest; the author is right to say "Russia and Putin is playing a game for Imperial Russia" but they should accept that The USA is playing this game all over the world since 1945.
1
The U.S. has military bases in more than 135 countries according to the defense dept. Furthermore, it has the habit of invading other countries as it wish, irrespective of sovereignty and international law. Russian intervention in Syria, however, was done upon a request by a legitimate government and the president was elected through general elections. Further, Russia has precise aims: incapacitating terrorists, especially the ten thousands from Russia who were recruited by Qatar and Saudi Arabia and trained in Turkey, and puts an end to endless war committed against Syria by the West. This is not an imperial adventure; subjugating people to occupation and oppression like in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, and supporting totalitarian regimes of the Arab oil rich countries are imperial adventures.
21
To call Assad a legitimate government is a curious view of government. Assad was never elected, his position was inherited without consent of the governed.
A government that whose notion of dialogue with an opposition is to shoot down protesters has only a tenuous right to call itself legitimate. One can say the same of many so called "legitimate" governments around the world but few have shown to be as murderous as Assad's relying on support from a small minority of the population. Assad may survive with Russian help but certainly not because most Syrians would like to see him remain in power.
A government that whose notion of dialogue with an opposition is to shoot down protesters has only a tenuous right to call itself legitimate. One can say the same of many so called "legitimate" governments around the world but few have shown to be as murderous as Assad's relying on support from a small minority of the population. Assad may survive with Russian help but certainly not because most Syrians would like to see him remain in power.
Mr. Montefiore’s tale of Russian involvement in the Mideast needs a bit more context. Russia was not the only European who asserted a “self-assigned role.” Napoleon’s France invaded the Levant with their own crusader mentally. France would later land its own troops in its declaration of protecting the Catholic Maronites. Britain would ally itself with the Ottoman sultan while grasping strategic areas around the Persian Gulf and Red Sea. In the 1870s, a political firestorm erupted as the Liberal Gladstone decried England’s policy of protecting the Ottoman Empire while it brutalized the Balkan states. We have backed medieval monarchs and dictators in the Middle East as well. Whether its suppression of protestors in Bahrain or bombing runs over Yemen or killing and incarceration of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, our policy overlooks these peccadillos because of our projection of interests in the area. As for the ties of the Asads’ to Russia, Syria was viewed as a client of the Soviet Union decades before the arrival of Hafiz al-Asad. Both President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Eden concocted plans for regime in Damascus because of Syria’s relationship with Moscow. Russia’s involvement in Syria is not unique. It reflects a long history of non-Middle Eastern nations taking advantage of circumstances to advance their own national interests.
4
How amusing. Readers enjoy suggesting that Putin has some imperialistic vision in the middle east, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Russia views the Syria crisis as geopolitical, and they are not about to allow the US to arm rebels and take down the legitimate govt of Syria. It is widely known ,but not mentioned by any reader this morning, that the US govt has had plans in place for a decade to take out the Syria govt. Arming frontline rebvels with US made anti tank and other weapons will now put your so called free syrian army in the cross hairs of Russian air power and armor. It is coming soon, and the US should stop whining about it. For, while the US inneffectually bombs in Syria, the Russians are going to stop the assault against the govt forces first, no mattter who it is, and then take on ISIS.
5
Since Russia borders on the Middle East and has long historical ties with the region their current foreign policy is understandable. The US, however, is on the other side of the world, does not border the Middle East and has little or no historical ties with that region. US ambitions to remake and control the Middle East are not something that I, for one, find with understandable or justifiable. We certainly have accomplished nothing of value there for ourselves (or the locals) since our military intrusion some 14 years ago.
Some claim that it is justified by our partnership with Israel -- to which I only can ask, what partnership? That relationship to me seems strictly one way with us not on the receiving end. The word that comes to mind is parasite.
Some claim that it is justified by our partnership with Israel -- to which I only can ask, what partnership? That relationship to me seems strictly one way with us not on the receiving end. The word that comes to mind is parasite.
191
So, you suggest a hands-off approach? That we withdraw and leave the region to its fate?
The "region" would be far better off if we had not meddled there in there first place. So, yes, whatever we have been doing, let's stop it.
1
Unlike the Russians, who intervened just in the nick of time to prevent the total collapse of the Assad's Syrian regime to IS/Da'esh, the U.S. has not played a similar role in Israel's defense and has no permanent bases in Israel comparable to the Russian naval base in Tartous, or the air and ground bases in Latakia. In October 1973, the U.S. sent obsolescent Vietnam-era F-4 Phantom jets to Israel, but sent no U.S. ground troops troops, ships, or the U.S. Air Force to intervene there. Since the 1973 October war, Israel has not only established peace and diplomatic relations with former adversaries Egypt and Jordan, but built de-facto military alliances with them. The last time the I.D.F. Air Force tangled with its Syrian counterpart using U.S. supplied F-15's, Israel prevailed shooting down 80 Soviet supplied Syrian aircraft to zero losses. The Israelis mastered American technology, while the Syrians have yet to master Russian weapons, such as the sea launched cruise missiles which recently crashed in Iran.
Since IS/Da'esh, which has no air force, swallowed-up the eastern two-thirds of Syria, not to mention much of Iraq, Basher Assad has become totally dependent on Russian forces for the defense of his regime. But for the Russian intervention, Syria would have soon ceased to exist.
Speaking of "parasites," how many Syrian military units help patrol the Russian/Ukrainian and Chinese borders? How many Syrian Air Force units help patrol Russian skies against NATO intruders?
Since IS/Da'esh, which has no air force, swallowed-up the eastern two-thirds of Syria, not to mention much of Iraq, Basher Assad has become totally dependent on Russian forces for the defense of his regime. But for the Russian intervention, Syria would have soon ceased to exist.
Speaking of "parasites," how many Syrian military units help patrol the Russian/Ukrainian and Chinese borders? How many Syrian Air Force units help patrol Russian skies against NATO intruders?
To me this read like a rant.
Yes, Russia - a country bigger than the US - feels connected with what happens around it and sometimes wants to influence it. But what is the point in cherry picking the most dysfunctional among Russia's foreign adventures? It is like defining US foreign policy with Pig's Bay and some slaughters of Indians.
With many thousands of mixed marriages Russia's connection with Syria is much more than the support of a "mafia dictator" - as Montefiore would want us to believe.
Putin's primary motive is Syria is restoring stability in his backyard. Very likely he wouldn't be there if there hadn't been that extremely dysfunctional US foreign policy that supports extermism and has set the whole Middle East on fire. By turning from firefighter into arsonist the US has created the need for a new firefighter and Putin is taking up the challenge.
Yes, Russia - a country bigger than the US - feels connected with what happens around it and sometimes wants to influence it. But what is the point in cherry picking the most dysfunctional among Russia's foreign adventures? It is like defining US foreign policy with Pig's Bay and some slaughters of Indians.
With many thousands of mixed marriages Russia's connection with Syria is much more than the support of a "mafia dictator" - as Montefiore would want us to believe.
Putin's primary motive is Syria is restoring stability in his backyard. Very likely he wouldn't be there if there hadn't been that extremely dysfunctional US foreign policy that supports extermism and has set the whole Middle East on fire. By turning from firefighter into arsonist the US has created the need for a new firefighter and Putin is taking up the challenge.
69
Nonsense. Mr Putin has turned away from every opportunity to bring stability to his backyard.
The "point," which you seemed to miss, was that these "foreign adventures" of Russia that were highlighted in the article are DIRECTLY related to the unfolding situation, that is, Russian intervention in "Syria" in order to prop up their historical Islamo-Fascist Alawite Thug ally.
"Putin's primary motive is Syria is restoring stability in his backyard."
Why did it take four bloody years for Putin to come to the realization that Syria's civil war was causing regional instability?
Why did it take four bloody years for Putin to come to the realization that Syria's civil war was causing regional instability?
Truly fascinating - I shall look forward to Mr Sebag Montefiore's sequel concerning the global imperial adventure of the US... but I expect I shouldn't hold my breath.
Apparently, the Russian intervention is more imperialistic than (for instance) the domination of the Strait of Hormuz by US warships, the oil war against Iraq, the indiscriminate bombing of Syria and the arming of a whole range of 'free', 'democratic' anti-regime elements, the challenge to China over territorial rights in the South China Sea, the giving of carte blanche to Saudi Arabia to reduce Yemen to rubble and massacre large numbers of civilian (at the same time as cursing ISIS for doing the same thing), the establishment of US forward military bases across Africa etc., etc.
Apparently, none of this counts for a hill of beans against Putin The Terrible's adventure in Syria, though - who knew? I shall eagerly await my next lesson in relative imperialism at the knee of Mr Sebag Montefiore, so that he can correct my erroneous geopolitical and historical understanding with his newspeak....
Apparently, the Russian intervention is more imperialistic than (for instance) the domination of the Strait of Hormuz by US warships, the oil war against Iraq, the indiscriminate bombing of Syria and the arming of a whole range of 'free', 'democratic' anti-regime elements, the challenge to China over territorial rights in the South China Sea, the giving of carte blanche to Saudi Arabia to reduce Yemen to rubble and massacre large numbers of civilian (at the same time as cursing ISIS for doing the same thing), the establishment of US forward military bases across Africa etc., etc.
Apparently, none of this counts for a hill of beans against Putin The Terrible's adventure in Syria, though - who knew? I shall eagerly await my next lesson in relative imperialism at the knee of Mr Sebag Montefiore, so that he can correct my erroneous geopolitical and historical understanding with his newspeak....
115
So true! It wasn't imperialism when George W Bush stated that the US would be invading Iraq whether or not Saddam Hussein, a secular leader by the way, stepped down. Nor was imperialism, when Bush expressly said that the plan was to privatize the Iraqi economy, healthcare and education system.
2
It is because of Obamas desire to talk peace rather than fight for it that the Russians are again spreading their secular communist manifesto back in the middle east.
1
Curtis d: You win the Dean Swift prize for satire!
1
I prefer the secular communist manifesto to mad Jihadi ideology that is spreading death, slavery and destruction in Syria and Iraq
2
You're kidding, right? ISIS only exists because of the efforts of Bush and Obama to topple stable regimes, creating failed states in which such vermin thrive. Please stop doing the bidding of the Israel lobby, which desperately wants perpetual US involvement and de-stabilization of Arab states, paid for by you and me.
2
More than the imperial Russian or its church interest, it is the absolutely immoral arrogant historical blunder of European colonial powers, England and France. The self-interested imperial powers at the end of WW1 have left a legacy that the region has not been able to overcome.
The so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement was an unabashedly imperialistic document. It took no account of the wishes of the peoples affected, ignored the ethnic and confessional boundaries existing in the Arab and Kurdish world and thus provoked the conflicts which continue to plague the region 100 years later. "Even by the standards of the time, it was a shamelessly self-interested pact." commented a noted writer.
"The capriciousness with which France and Great Britain redrew the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire's former Arab provinces left behind the feeling that a conspiracy was afoot -- a feeling which grew into an obsession in the ensuing decades. Even today, the legend lives on that the mysterious buckle in the desert border between Jordan and Saudi Arabia is the result of someone bumping the elbow of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill as he was drawing the line. That, of course, is absurd -- but it isn't too far removed from the manner in which Sykes, Picot, Lloyd George and Clemenceau in fact carved up the region" as excellently observed by Bernhard Zand a German commentator.
The so-called Sykes-Picot Agreement was an unabashedly imperialistic document. It took no account of the wishes of the peoples affected, ignored the ethnic and confessional boundaries existing in the Arab and Kurdish world and thus provoked the conflicts which continue to plague the region 100 years later. "Even by the standards of the time, it was a shamelessly self-interested pact." commented a noted writer.
"The capriciousness with which France and Great Britain redrew the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire's former Arab provinces left behind the feeling that a conspiracy was afoot -- a feeling which grew into an obsession in the ensuing decades. Even today, the legend lives on that the mysterious buckle in the desert border between Jordan and Saudi Arabia is the result of someone bumping the elbow of Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill as he was drawing the line. That, of course, is absurd -- but it isn't too far removed from the manner in which Sykes, Picot, Lloyd George and Clemenceau in fact carved up the region" as excellently observed by Bernhard Zand a German commentator.
44
Sitting in Bangalore, pontificating about Syria & Russia, how about telling us how your minorities are being taken care of, and why do you not bump the buckle to promote peace, and spread the doctrine of, live and let live Krishnan?
1
Agree. This is the inevitable crumbling of that untenable treaty (the frst puncture caused by the overthrow of Hussein) and we are in the midst of the enormously difficult task of trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together.
3
There is hardly any need to shed crocodile tears on safety of minorities in India. They are quite safe.
At least Indians don't face problem like America where more have died since 1968 than on the battlefields of all the wars in American history.. Over the weekend, a cop pumping gas. 33,000 dead a year.
I am not surprised by your prejudicial view of India. It is typical of one from America where there is limitless freedom of Press, people have no real means to learn the truth.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, delivered 8 June 1978, Harvard University "There is no true moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to his readers, or to his history -- or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist usually always gets away with it. One may -- One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance".
At least Indians don't face problem like America where more have died since 1968 than on the battlefields of all the wars in American history.. Over the weekend, a cop pumping gas. 33,000 dead a year.
I am not surprised by your prejudicial view of India. It is typical of one from America where there is limitless freedom of Press, people have no real means to learn the truth.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart, delivered 8 June 1978, Harvard University "There is no true moral responsibility for deformation or disproportion. What sort of responsibility does a journalist or a newspaper have to his readers, or to his history -- or to history? If they have misled public opinion or the government by inaccurate information or wrong conclusions, do we know of any cases of public recognition and rectification of such mistakes by the same journalist or the same newspaper? It hardly ever happens because it would damage sales. A nation may be the victim of such a mistake, but the journalist usually always gets away with it. One may -- One may safely assume that he will start writing the opposite with renewed self-assurance".
The article correctly states that the "American retreat from the region grants Mr. Putin, who sees himself in an unbroken tradition of Russian personal leadership and imperial-national power from the czars to today, the opportunity to diminish American prestige and project Russia as indispensable world arbiter." Almost everyone see it this way, except the current US administration that thinks that creating a power vacuum is better than confronting the issues and dealing with them.
14
But I believe Mr. Montefiore essay is not just about classic power struggle and assertion of that power.
It is about great powers using their might with impunity. We all know that Middle east was a hornet nest but after IRAQ invasion , all bets are off. 2003 invasion of IRAQ doesn't have any legitimacy under UN charter.
2014 Ukraine invasion doesn't have any legitimacy under UN charter either.
These two nations are severely violated by great powers and no responsibility what so ever happened to their people, poverty , killings , displacement, political chaos etc.
This is not just.
People's right versus Greta powers interests and you know who wins.
That is the core problem among all other bloody problems.
It is about great powers using their might with impunity. We all know that Middle east was a hornet nest but after IRAQ invasion , all bets are off. 2003 invasion of IRAQ doesn't have any legitimacy under UN charter.
2014 Ukraine invasion doesn't have any legitimacy under UN charter either.
These two nations are severely violated by great powers and no responsibility what so ever happened to their people, poverty , killings , displacement, political chaos etc.
This is not just.
People's right versus Greta powers interests and you know who wins.
That is the core problem among all other bloody problems.
1
And who is this everyone? The majority of the American public, which polls indicated was vehemently opposed to intervention in Syria when Obama drew his red line, and which remains opposed? This comment has the ring of other testoserone-inspired remarks from the reviving neoconconservative movement. "All praise be to Putin!", they cry. "A leader in full. A president with big ones".
I say let Putin reenact the Soviet Union's misadventure in Afghanistan -- a debacle the US failed to learn from--and let Russia risk its prestige and resources on a conflict that may never be resolved.
I say let Putin reenact the Soviet Union's misadventure in Afghanistan -- a debacle the US failed to learn from--and let Russia risk its prestige and resources on a conflict that may never be resolved.
1
How would you deal with it?
Speaking of "Putin's Imperial Adventure" in the Middle East without acknowledging the far larger and more bloody U.S./NATO imperial adventure is historically perverse and propagandistic. The Western military and economic footprint in the region has long been enormous, while the Russian impact has always been aspirational, at most. Who does Mr. Montefiore think he's fooling? It is truly astonishing to watch yet another attempt to relegate the ongoing American debacle in this region--most notably, the destruction of Iraq and Libya--to the Orwellian "memory hole."
117
I don't see this article as justifying Western imperial actions in the Middle East, but rather giving a primer on the background to current Russian involvement.
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that the most vocal critics of 'western imperialism' are either silent on, or even defenders of, aggressive Russian militarism, whether against it's neighbor Ukraine and now in Syria.
Meanwhile, I find it interesting that the most vocal critics of 'western imperialism' are either silent on, or even defenders of, aggressive Russian militarism, whether against it's neighbor Ukraine and now in Syria.
1
I agree , labeling Putin/Russia as imperialistic but US endeavors are just helping people but nothing else is ideological level propaganda but nothing else.
2003 IRAQ= 2014 UKRAINE in terms of great powers actions.
Plain simple IMPERIALISM.
2003 IRAQ= 2014 UKRAINE in terms of great powers actions.
Plain simple IMPERIALISM.
>
Putin will be as sorry as we are for getting involved in the Islamic world.
Putin will be as sorry as we are for getting involved in the Islamic world.
36
14% of the Russian population is Islam.
1
Agreed
1
Eyes open. So a certain % of this country is Muslim. You failed to make your point, but thanks for playing.
The care and feeding of yet another albatross around the Russian neck will further weaken Russia and the dysfunctional Russian economy. Putin helped break Syria, let him own it. The U.S. has its own flock of albatoss' to tend.
13
Some of the history here is not quite correct. The causes of the Crimean War were rather more complex than the author avers. In World War I the Russians in fact did not come close to taking Baghdad -- a few Russian cavalry crossed into Mesopotamia from Persia, but they had neither the numbers nor the logistical support to take Baghdad or even relieve a British force that the Turks were besieging in Kut. The 1916 agreement between the three Entente powers concerned the division of Turkey-in-Asia; a separate agreement negotiated in 1915 assigned Constantinople (Istanbul) and the Straits to Russia. It would've been nice if the Times had fact-checked the the author's piece.
Past Russian interest in the Middle East doesn't really relate to Putin's current intervention. There's no real evidence that Putin intervened in Syria in order to obtain Western concessions over Crimea and Ukraine. Russia is propping up Assad because it wants to maintain its only Mediterranean naval base, and because there are about 2.500 Chechen fighters with ISIS and Al-Nusra. The threat of Sunni jihadism is far more immediate for Russia than it is for America.
Syria may turn into a quagmire for Russia, but on the other hand the ruthlessness that Russians have displayed in the past may be a key to clearing western Syria of Assad's enemies.
In any case, it would've been nice if this op-ed had got its facts right before venturing into speculation.
Past Russian interest in the Middle East doesn't really relate to Putin's current intervention. There's no real evidence that Putin intervened in Syria in order to obtain Western concessions over Crimea and Ukraine. Russia is propping up Assad because it wants to maintain its only Mediterranean naval base, and because there are about 2.500 Chechen fighters with ISIS and Al-Nusra. The threat of Sunni jihadism is far more immediate for Russia than it is for America.
Syria may turn into a quagmire for Russia, but on the other hand the ruthlessness that Russians have displayed in the past may be a key to clearing western Syria of Assad's enemies.
In any case, it would've been nice if this op-ed had got its facts right before venturing into speculation.
63
You tell 'em Jon. Thank you, Sir.
4
i totally agree to your view point... Putin's Intervention in Syria is not directly related to the past imperialistic acts that were done by the Czars Rather as time changes every other thing moulds up itself according to the changing circumstances. Putin is actually backing Syrian President because of his own motives tied up to the Mediterranean naval base in Syria... Syrians are actually against their president due to the sectarian war between Shia and Sunni that founds its basis during the time of Czars... One more important point Russia always looks up for the weaker points of US and this intervention may bring up a new cold war between Russian and USA...
1
Funny how Russia's intervention in the Middle East is an imperialist endeavor, but ours are presumably entirely altruistic.
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
Amazing how that works, isn't it?
176
As long as is someone else bombing the Syrian people you are OK with that?
1
The US seeks to control the Middle East by sending Sunni Militant Islamists to war against the Shiites. The slaughter and destruction that results is seen as unfortunate collateral damage of our great mission. But the blowback of refugees from the conflagration threatens to destabilize the European Union. Anyone who values human life should be grateful for the Russian intervention, and the Europeans, if they have any sense of their self-interest, should quit NATO and align themselves with the rest of Eurasia.
2
What did you call George W's misadventure when he went in Iraq, Libya,Afghanistan, etc? Were you too scared to offend him and cowed down muttering obscenities, eh?
12
While dropping his original UN plan of involving international cooperation to seek diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis and instead opting for unilateral military action, of course with an involvement of his Shiite allies Putin might have reasoned out all the consequences, still he would do well to remember the history of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan in the seventies and the way the then USSR had to quit its Afghan occupation badly bruised soon to disintegrate into pieces. Similar forays by the US and West too ended up miserably. In short, it's easier to go on imperial quest but difficult to come back unscathed.
19
The absurdity of Mr. Montefiore's one-dimensional history lesson matches the absurdity of the sectarian war in the middle east. "Moscow lacks the resources to replace America and will find in Syria a quagmire. . . ." At least he gets that right. What's often overlooked in Syria is that Assad's Army consists mostly of Sunni conscripts who, if they had defected at the outset of the civil war, would have ended it. But they didn't defect in large numbers because the West, with its embargo of Syria, helped destroy the Syrian economy, making the Sunni conscripts and their families dependent on Assad for support. When Assad's regime does fall, however, the revenge killings in Syria, not only of the Shia (Alawites) but also the Sunnis who remained loyal to Assad, will make the chaos that followed the removal of Saddam Hussein look like a cakewalk. And make no mistake: as between Sunni extremists (such as ISIS) and heretics (Shia-Alawites), Sunnis, including moderates, will choose the extremists. That's why anyone who intervenes in Syria, whether Russia or the U.S., will be trapped in a quagmire. Better Russia than the U.S.
89
HAIL TO THE THIEF Here i thought foolishly that title only referred to the changes made in the official song in the US during the reign of Dubya. As dictators go he was pretty weak and ineffectual.
Now Putin wants to try its hand at reviving history by bringing the Russian presence back to the Mideast. In Syria he will not only find a quagmire, but he will also learn soon enough that the options left will be to bomb a totally empty land whose refugees are being cared for elsewhere, or bombing unoccupied buildings.
Doesn't look much like a grand victory to me, nor the establishment of a Russian presence to develop a sphere of influence in the Mideast. What I do see is that, whether on purpose or by accident, Puitin "running merciless, dynastic-Mafia regimes behind the facade of socialistic parties, central planning and Stalinesque cults of personality."
Welcome to the quagmire Vladimir. Please bring your own supplies of vodka and store the securely, because most in your newly-found empire are not permitted to drink alcohol. In fact, since the Russians will be infidels contaminating the country, the stores of vodka will be targets for terrorists to strike. Those explosions will light the place up--wonder and awe--or whatever--just like a Baked Alaska. Oops--he only sticks up his head so Palin can see it from her kitchen window there. Too bad he won't be able to do that between Moscow and Syria.
Now Putin wants to try its hand at reviving history by bringing the Russian presence back to the Mideast. In Syria he will not only find a quagmire, but he will also learn soon enough that the options left will be to bomb a totally empty land whose refugees are being cared for elsewhere, or bombing unoccupied buildings.
Doesn't look much like a grand victory to me, nor the establishment of a Russian presence to develop a sphere of influence in the Mideast. What I do see is that, whether on purpose or by accident, Puitin "running merciless, dynastic-Mafia regimes behind the facade of socialistic parties, central planning and Stalinesque cults of personality."
Welcome to the quagmire Vladimir. Please bring your own supplies of vodka and store the securely, because most in your newly-found empire are not permitted to drink alcohol. In fact, since the Russians will be infidels contaminating the country, the stores of vodka will be targets for terrorists to strike. Those explosions will light the place up--wonder and awe--or whatever--just like a Baked Alaska. Oops--he only sticks up his head so Palin can see it from her kitchen window there. Too bad he won't be able to do that between Moscow and Syria.
6
So, Mr. Seven Goals on his birthday is wasting resources building a new Potemkin Village around Bashar al Assad.
In the long run it will be a effective as four of his cruise missiles bombing the Iranian desert.
On the other hand, one of our own hereditary rulers snuggled up to Bashar al Assad. As part of his criminal extraordinary rendition program, which was kidnapping followed by torture, George W. Bush subcontracted said torture to, among others, Bashar al Assad of Syria.
In the long run it will be a effective as four of his cruise missiles bombing the Iranian desert.
On the other hand, one of our own hereditary rulers snuggled up to Bashar al Assad. As part of his criminal extraordinary rendition program, which was kidnapping followed by torture, George W. Bush subcontracted said torture to, among others, Bashar al Assad of Syria.
45
And, if you look hard enough, you will find full color pictures of our "esteemed" secretary of state and Vietnam war hero having a very pleasant dinner with Assad and their respective wives. I guess only Republicans kiss up to dictators? I guess anti-war John Kerry must have forgot to duck then.
2
No, but wingnut regressive republicans don't understand that, as secretary of STATE, that's what John Kerry HAD to do. AND it was BEFORE the civil war there erupted. Lest you conveniently forget that too.
5
Could we have some real, balanced perspective here please.
"General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991. They wnat to take down seven middle-east countries in five years".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861&am...
"General Wesley Clark tells of how Middle East destabilization was planned as far back as 1991. They wnat to take down seven middle-east countries in five years".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84924572&x-yt-ts=1422411861&am...
31
WOW!!! I watched this video. I closely follow our politics and strategies, but have never heard this speech. EVERYBODY SHOULD PLAY THIS! It's extraordinary. Now what can be done about it?
Simon Sebag Montefiore writes marvelous coffee table history books, he's terrible handsome, terribly rich, extremely bright, but he seems to have no understanding that we, the good old USA planned and started these events. He, above all, should take 5 minutes and watch this video of General Clark.
Simon Sebag Montefiore writes marvelous coffee table history books, he's terrible handsome, terribly rich, extremely bright, but he seems to have no understanding that we, the good old USA planned and started these events. He, above all, should take 5 minutes and watch this video of General Clark.
16
Good, Let Russia be a defender of Christianity in the Middle East. Leave the US out of it. Neither country will succeed in empire building in that part of the world.
The British, Russian (in Afghanistan), American and Russian (recently) will all fail. But in the meantime, we should withdraw entirely. We should not accept refugees until places like Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and Europe are saturated. We have our own issues and should concentrate on fixing them. Let China and Russia carve out their own sphere of influence. They are large nuclear powers and the three of us should work together with a fair amount acceptance.
The British, Russian (in Afghanistan), American and Russian (recently) will all fail. But in the meantime, we should withdraw entirely. We should not accept refugees until places like Saudi Arabia and other Arab states and Europe are saturated. We have our own issues and should concentrate on fixing them. Let China and Russia carve out their own sphere of influence. They are large nuclear powers and the three of us should work together with a fair amount acceptance.
9
Bottom line of the article:" and boldness counts for much in this wild world".
In the case of Russia-US, re Syria, the boldness is all on one side. Or phrased differently: "he who dares wins" not he who waits.
In the case of Russia-US, re Syria, the boldness is all on one side. Or phrased differently: "he who dares wins" not he who waits.
2
Wins what?
10
Obama is not against wars, just dumb ones, as he said of Iraq. Ditto Syria.
J
J
5
Obama is unilaterally waging war in Syria, with US forces. What he lacks is constitutional authorization for his dumb war.
2
Formerly USSR friends tell me that Russians see a special role in the world: the salvation for mankind. Certainly they fulfilled that heroically during WWII. Russian men perhaps dysfunctional in many ways hence a propensity to consume vodka in staggering amounts remains the best fighter. No matter how hopeless the situation: -50 degrees outside an enemy w/ more/better weapons & tech, they'll just drink a few vodka shots & then head out to face them with grit & determination.
I think Russian experience with religion, ideology & war gives them a different view of the threat of jihadist Islam. They don't see Islam as a religion of peace but as a political ideology w/ a religious component that has been a potent force for cohesion persistently arrayed against them for nearly a millennium.
All that said the edict of the Princess Bride runs true: "Never start a land war in Asia." The cost of the Afghanistan invasion + drop in the oil prices combined to destroy the Soviet Union, probably prematurely.
The MidEast today resembles civil war Spain and even more Germany during the 30 years war. One power after the other poking their noses into it. Sweden drove events for a long while but in the end did not have a big enough resource base. That looks like Russia now.
Like the Cold War, the interest to contain political Islam is global & multigenerational. (perhaps 150years?) We need to work out a cohesive alliance among all. Perhaps its those terms that are being hammered out now.
I think Russian experience with religion, ideology & war gives them a different view of the threat of jihadist Islam. They don't see Islam as a religion of peace but as a political ideology w/ a religious component that has been a potent force for cohesion persistently arrayed against them for nearly a millennium.
All that said the edict of the Princess Bride runs true: "Never start a land war in Asia." The cost of the Afghanistan invasion + drop in the oil prices combined to destroy the Soviet Union, probably prematurely.
The MidEast today resembles civil war Spain and even more Germany during the 30 years war. One power after the other poking their noses into it. Sweden drove events for a long while but in the end did not have a big enough resource base. That looks like Russia now.
Like the Cold War, the interest to contain political Islam is global & multigenerational. (perhaps 150years?) We need to work out a cohesive alliance among all. Perhaps its those terms that are being hammered out now.
18
Nah. Let Russia bleed there. It'll quench their thirst formore of these little sojourns.
6
Your grasp of history is better than most.
2
you know that's not always true. I'm Russian, but my family friends and I don't view our country as a salvation army. In fact I personally don't even support our involvment in Syria and anywhere else. I think that the whole idea of 'special Russian road' which is popular here is absurd if you look at our economy. The thing is Russia's always been a country where autocratic forces took advantage of less educated masses and used their sincere adoration as a mean of their political game. What really makes me sad is the desire of media to pick on nationality, i.e. 'the Russians', 'the Americans'. People quickly forget that decisions are made without them. Was US population heard when Bush decided to intervent Iraq? Do you think Kremlin cares what a regular person thinks of Mr Putin's actions. The sad part is that while some understand that Russians/Americans/Europeans have nothing to do with the politics their government establishes the wars are eventually fought by regular citizens and we count casualities among each other. And UN is not a help there.
18