In reading Vladimir V. Putin’s opinion piece in the New York Times, I was struck by one undeniable fact: Putin’s grasp of world affairs is no greater than that of his soul mate, George W. Bush. Either that or Vlad, like his boyfriend George[1], thinks the rest of the human race is as stupid as he.

For those who think that Vladimir, ex-KGB agent that he is, has provided a cogent piece of international truisms while putting the United States in its place, consider the following:

1. He accuses the U.S. of excessive militarism with the implication that Russia is a country of peace. Certainly, if one focused on the George W. Bush years, one would see eight years of adventurism and unwarranted warfare, but the other presidents? I never liked Ronald Reagan but even he wasn’t as crazy as George. As for Russia, they were allies with Hitler and the Nazis until Stalin and Hitler had a falling out. Then Stalin came running for help from Great Britain and the United States. Post-WWII, Russia suppressed and occupied half of Europe for approximately 40 years. During that time, Russia invaded places like Hungary and Afghanistan. Why? Because they wanted a government of their choice rather than what the Russians dictated. In the case of Afghanistan, the Russians created a land of chaos and extreme poverty. After the Cold War, Russia supported the genocidal policies of Slobodan Milosevic in what once was Yugoslavia. Russia poisoned the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko. Wasn’t Putin the leader of Russia then? And we can’t forget that Russia invaded Chechnya…twice. Guess what Putin has in common with the Syrian al-Assad family. President al-Assad levelled the city of Hamas[2]. Putin levelled the city of Grozny, the Chechen capital. Now I don’t think the U.S. is perfect. I definitely don’t agree with a lot of its foreign policy decisions. However, as a rough rule, the actions of the United States have not left the world in worse condition[3]. On the other hand, I can not think of one action of Russia that has not left the world in poorer condition[4]. All of Russia’s actions can be seen as a simple continuation of its old Czarist policies of unending, expansionistic imperialism. It’s the same old, same old and Putin is only another Czar dressed in a latter-day suit.
2. Putin writes as though it is the al-Assad regime that is the victim in the Syrian conflict. When Bashar al-Assad stepped into the shoes of his father, Hafez, it was hoped, given his Western education, that he might liberalize his country. It quickly turned out, however, that al-Assad was pretty much the same style of tyrant that his father had been. The only value of his strong arm tactics has been that he has provided a certain degree of stability in the region. Given the current concerns of Turkey, Jordon, Israel and other allies in the region, I’d venture that Bashar is no longer viewed as a stabilizing force.
3. Putin goes on and on about how the opposition is composed of radical and dangerous Islamists. First, let’s be clear about one thing. Although the roots of the radical, conservative element in Islam can be traced back a few hundred years ago to major defeats suffered by the Turks, the modern version of radicalization can be traced back only a few decades to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. There are those who like to blame the “creation” of bin Laden on U.S. foreign policy. That’s ridiculous, however. Radical Islamists like Osama bin Laden and organizations like al-Qaeda are the direct result of Russian foreign policy. If it weren’t for Russia’s desire for warm water ports in the Indian Ocean, there’s a good chance that Afghanistan would have had a stable and progressive government. Second, those radical elements of the opposition that Putin refers to arrived late to the party, so to speak. If Russia had been more helpful, supporting the Syrian people rather than a tyrant, perhaps the conflict would have been resolved before things got this bad. The problems we see in Syria can be easily placed at the feet of the Russians. For my part, I hope that Putin’s dreams are forever filled with the faces of all of those dead Syrian children.
4. Putin suggests that Bashar al-Assad’s government, which apparently has buckets and buckets of sarin gas, would never use their chemical weapon as a chemical weapon. Instead, Vlad suggests that it was the opposition trying to frame poor little Bashar. I know the mechanisms by which sarin kills, but I don’t know how much it would take to kill 1400 people. I imagine it would take an awful lot, though. More than could be easily produced in some small clandestine lab set up by the underfunded Syrian opposition. Where would the opposition get all of that sarin then? Iran? Britain? France? The U.S.? Or, perhaps it was Russia. Here’s a reasonable scenario. Putin, unhappy that he has been reduced to the status of a marginalized idiot and tyrant on the world stage, provided poison gas to the radical opposition in Syria, encouraging them to frame al-Assad. This would force Obama to begin taking steps toward a military response and allow Putin to come in with an 11^th hour proposal, thereby saving the day and becoming a major player on the world stage again. Think about it. It’s as good as Vlad’s suggestion.

Even though there may be times when a military response is the only option, I’m all for exhausting all diplomatic and political solutions first. Military action is violent action. Once violence begins, it is difficult to stop. Once violence begins, it is difficult to control. When military action is taken, people die. I don’t care if those who die are military or civilian. I don’t care if those who die hate me. Death is death. The act of people dying is never good. Feeling safer does not mitigate the loss of another. When people die, there is always someone, a mother, a father, a brother or a sister, a spouse, a child, who will cry in pain at the loss of their loved one. To feel justified in creating that pain, I can’t see it. I confess that I can not understand why anyone feels it is right to kill in the name of God or for some political institution or material wealth. We’re all going to die. Why do we need to speed things up? I can guarantee one thing, though. Those who kill in the name of God are not favoured by God. They never have been and they never will be.

I welcome the idea of averting any U.S. military action against Syria by Syria giving up control of its chemical weapons. I hope that it happens. I do wonder, however, why wasn’t this idea broached before? I mean, the timeliness of Putin’s suggestion and the ready acquiescence of al-Assad seems a little too orchestrated. But then again, the actions of tyrants like Putin and al-Assad have to be legitimate once in a while; don’t they? Or…is this some sort of P.R. campaign.

While I recognize that an opinion piece is just that…an opinion…surely the New York Times editorial board has a responsibility for publishing opinions based upon reality and facts. Instead, they published a self-serving, low-brow piece of trite that is filled with cute little sound bites. If nothing else, it solidifies the idea that Vladimir V. Putin and George W. Bush are truly soul mates. Either one of them could have written it.

Pace è Bene