Putin's fate as a world player?

[mystic64]

Removing the chemical weapons from Syria will also remove Putin as a world player. Removing the chemical weapons from Syria will cause Assad to fall because no matter how it is done the balance of power in Syria will tip toward the rebels because of the disruptive presence of others that are not a part of the war. When Assad falls Putin then will become no longer a world player. Assad's Syria is Russia's last strong hold in the power politics of the world and Russia's only permission to be present in the middle east. Without Assad Russia will no longer have permission to be a player in the middle east and Russia's last strong hold in world power politics will cease to exist. When this happens, Putin will also cease to exist as a world player.

The glory of the old days are about to be over for Russia and when they end so does Putin as a world player. Putin's gambit to remover the chemical weapons from Syria, if they are removed, will will also cause the fall of Putin and Russia as world players.

Anybody?

 

[LuisDantas]

Just not seeing it, myself.

 

[esmith]

I'm not seeing it either. However, Putin's actions are not in character with what we think Putin's history is. We are fairly positive that he feels "Mother Russia" was humiliated by the fall of the USSR and the decline of the Soviet military thus the lessening of the influence that "Motther Russia" projected around the world. One must ask where is there Russian influence in today's world? Well, they got humiliated in Afghanistan (worse than what loss of influence the US will have though), They lost most of their influence in Africa, the Far East, and other areas in the world. The one place that they have considerable influence is parts of the Mid-East. When Putin put forth this chemical weapons plan for Syria, it showed that Russia can now once again be a player in the world and raised his standings back in Russia and probably other parts of the world. Putin has accomplished something that the US could not accomplish, chemical weapons ban in Syria. The world will not see this as the US threat of military action (everyone knows that the American public and Congress was against military action) but as an accomplishment for Putin.

 

[mystic64]

I'm not seeing it either. However, Putin's actions are not in character with what we think Putin's history is. We are fairly positive that he feels "Mother Russia" was humiliated by the fall of the USSR and the decline of the Soviet military thus the lessening of the influence that "Motther Russia" projected around the world. One must ask where is there Russian influence in today's world? Well, they got humiliated in Afghanistan (worse than what loss of influence the US will have though), They lost most of their influence in Africa, the Far East, and other areas in the world. The one place that they have considerable influence is parts of the Mid-East. When Putin put forth this chemical weapons plan for Syria, it showed that Russia can now once again be a player in the world and raised his standings back in Russia and probably other parts of the world. Putin has accomplished something that the US could not accomplish, chemical weapons ban in Syria. The world will not see this as the US threat of military action (everyone knows that the American public and Congress was against military action) but as an accomplishment for Putin.

In my opinion all of what you said was very well said. The only question is, "Will the process of the removal of the chemical weapons result in the down fall of Assad?" If not, then all is well. It is also my opinion that as long as Assad is in power in Syria, Putin will continue to be a player in international politics. It is just that a significant part of today's world does not like Russia or Assad and that significant part of today's world is gong to be in the middle of the Syrian war removing chemicals. What are the odds?

And, if Assad falls, then the only way, in my opinion, that Putin can remain a major player in the world of international politics would be for him to convert to Shiite Islam which would then make Russia and Iran international juggernauts as brothers in Islam, and Russia would then have to absolutely be taken seriously.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why Syria would be so decisive for Russia.

 

[Curious George]

In my opinion all of what you said was very well said. The only question is, "Will the process of the removal of the chemical weapons result in the down fall of Assad?" If not, then all is well. It is also my opinion that as long as Assad is in power in Syria, Putin will continue to be a player in international politics. It is just that a significant part of today's world does not like Russia or Assad and that significant part of today's world is gong to be in the middle of the Syrian war removing chemicals. What are the odds?

And, if Assad falls, then the only way, in my opinion, that Putin can remain a major player in the world of international politics would be for him to convert to Shiite Islam which would then make Russia and Iran international juggernauts as brothers in Islam, and Russia would then have to absolutely be taken seriously.

I think that "World Player" status does not rise and fall with one country. I do not see Syria as a tipping point.

 

[mystic64]

Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why Syria would be so decisive for Russia.

Sir, I am running under the assumption that countries that have military might or are allied to a country that has military might are, should they wish to be, major players in international politics. Countries that do not have military might or are not allied with a country that has military might are generally speaking not major players in international politics. The way that I see it is that Russia's military might is, at least at this time, basically defunct (not there anymore) and that the only true ally that Russia has left is Assad's Syria because Russia gave Assad some of the chemical weapons and the technology to make those that Russia did not give Assad. Which also, when the UN folks analyze the chemicals and technology used to produce them, and what they find leads to Russia, Putin and Russia may also lose standing in international politics because of world opinion.

Also, my original assumption may be old school and may not be applicable to today's "World Community" approach to international politics. Which Putin with his letter to the American people was attempting to point out. We are now a world community and rogue action by one country or a few counties working together destroys the world community concept and is disruptive to the world community concept which then basically makes the UN a joke just like the League of Nations turned out to be. And Putin was not wrong in his letter if one really reads it and looks at what it said. I admit that my approach to the OP of this topic was based on old school thinking and that because of that my OP statement could be wrong. I hope so.

 

[esmith]

In my opinion all of what you said was very well said. The only question is, "Will the process of the removal of the chemical weapons result in the down fall of Assad?" If not, then all is well. It is also my opinion that as long as Assad is in power in Syria, Putin will continue to be a player in international politics. It is just that a significant part of today's world does not like Russia or Assad and that significant part of today's world is gong to be in the middle of the Syrian war removing chemicals. What are the odds?

If Russia felt that the removal of chemical weapons would cause the downfall of Assad, or his regime, I am almost positive that they would not have attempted to broker a deal. Remember, Russia has a huge interest and investment in Syria. Their naval base in Syria is very strategic to them and they have been a major supplier of weapons. Remember the USSR's incursion into Afghanistan and their embarrassment when they had to admit defeat. Who supplied the weapons that made the biggest difference.
I don't think it is a question of "likes". I am sure that most of the world does not like the idea that Assad has or used chemical weapons (of course that has not been 100% proven about use). I'm sure that there are some in the world that like Putin,especially in Russia, but the key work here, I think, is respect. When the chemical weapon issue came up, President Obama did not go to the UN, he immediately called for military action and was basically rebuffed, both by our allies, the American public, and more than likely Congress. Along comes Putin and basically says "I'm a better man than Obama, I will get Assad to give up his chemical weapons, you can count on me to insure that international peace is always my prime objective".
As far as the whole world being involved in the removal of chemical weapons. I do not see that as a possibility. It will be the Russian military that takes charge to insure the safety of the chemical weapons with embedded UN observers. Now, I could be wrong about the Russian military, but I don't see the US or any other allies of the US being allowed in-country by Assad.

And, if Assad falls, then the only way, in my opinion, that Putin can remain a major player in the world of international politics would be for him to convert to Shiite Islam which would then make Russia and Iran international juggernauts as brothers in Islam, and Russia would then have to absolutely be taken seriously.

Whether Assad falls or remains in power will have no consequences in international politics, as far as who wins or looses in Syria. If Assad wins, the answer is that Assad had a better military, if Assad goes all can be said is that the rebels beat the Syrian military. Russia has brokered the deal and that is all they have done. Their national honor is not on the line.

Maybe I am missing something, but I just don't see why Syria would be so decisive for Russia.

It wouldn't be decisive for Russia if Assad goes. Yes they would loose a important naval base, but it was not the Russian military that was defeated. This action by Putin is basically besting the US, at least as far as Putin sees it.

I think that "World Player" status does not rise and fall with one country. I do not see Syria as a tipping point.

Neither do I, but Putin has made a brilliant move that basically outmaneuvers the US and Obama. Remember Russian are excellent chess players.

 

[mystic64]

If Russia felt that the removal of chemical weapons would cause the downfall of Assad, or his regime, I am almost positive that they would not have attempted to broker a deal. Remember, Russia has a huge interest and investment in Syria. Their naval base in Syria is very strategic to them and they have been a major supplier of weapons. Remember the USSR's incursion into Afghanistan and their embarrassment when they had to admit defeat. Who supplied the weapons that made the biggest difference.
I don't think it is a question of "likes". I am sure that most of the world does not like the idea that Assad has or used chemical weapons (of course that has not been 100% proven about use). I'm sure that there are some in the world that like Putin,especially in Russia, but the key work here, I think, is respect. When the chemical weapon issue came up, President Obama did not go to the UN, he immediately called for military action and was basically rebuffed, both by our allies, the American public, and more than likely Congress. Along comes Putin and basically says "I'm a better man than Obama, I will get Assad to give up his chemical weapons, you can count on me to insure that international peace is always my prime objective".
As far as the whole world being involved in the removal of chemical weapons. I do not see that as a possibility. It will be the Russian military that takes charge to insure the safety of the chemical weapons with embedded UN observers. Now, I could be wrong about the Russian military, but I don't see the US or any other allies of the US being allowed in-country by Assad.


Whether Assad falls or remains in power will have no consequences in international politics, as far as who wins or looses in Syria. If Assad wins, the answer is that Assad had a better military, if Assad goes all can be said is that the rebels beat the Syrian military. Russia has brokered the deal and that is all they have done. Their national honor is not on the line.


It wouldn't be decisive for Russia if Assad goes. Yes they would loose a important naval base, but it was not the Russian military that was defeated. This action by Putin is basically besting the US, at least as far as Putin sees it.


Neither do I, but Putin has made a brilliant move that basically outmaneuvers the US and Obama. Remember Russian are excellent chess players.

Ok. What actually happens is gong to be interesting.

 

[LuisDantas]

Quite a lot is indeed in the eyes of the beholder, it seems.

 

[metis]

Actually Putin did Obama and us a big favor, even if it was just for his own nationalistic interest. And if this doesn't work out, it is Putin that will take some heat because of his failure to deliver. Our administration has played their cards right, imo, because alternative actions would have been worse, although we're not out of the woods yet. And if it fails, then military action will be more accepted domestically and internationally, in all likelihood.

 

[YmirGF]

Putin is just filling a void created by the Obama administration. He offset the warmongering of a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that will have a greater impact than many would suspect.

 

[metis]

Putin is just filling a void created by the Obama administration. He offset the warmongering of a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. I think that will have a greater impact than many would suspect.

Which "void", if I may ask? We're still the main power-broker there, and Putin well realizes that by his actions. Do you honestly think he and Assad would have done this without the threat of military force by us?

 

[LuisDantas]

Which "void", if I may ask? We're still the main power-broker there, and Putin well realizes that by his actions. Do you honestly think he and Assad would have done this without the threat of military force by us?

And is it even a bad thing if he would?

Just asking.

 

[metis]

And is it even a bad thing if he would?

Just asking.

I'm not sure how you mean this, so could you explain so this simpleton can understand?

 

[LuisDantas]

I guess what I mean is that ultimately we have no particular reason to trust either Obama or Putin, nor to expect much in the way of wisdom from either.

So we should not complain when they surprise us favorably.

 

[esmith]

Which "void", if I may ask? We're still the main power-broker there, and Putin well realizes that by his actions. Do you honestly think he and Assad would have done this without the threat of military force by us?

In very simple terms no. There was no credibly threat of a military strike by the US. Obama went to the Congress and it is quite obvious that Congress would not give its approval for a military strike. Obama would not have gone against the American public or the wishes of Congress.

 

[YmirGF]

Which "void", if I may ask? We're still the main power-broker there, and Putin well realizes that by his actions. Do you honestly think he and Assad would have done this without the threat of military force by us?

Oh, come now, foreign policy under the Obama Administration has been a seriously flawed from the get go. It's not one Golfer-in-Chief's strongest areas - if, in fact, he has any strengths whatsoever. The threat of an "unbelievably small" military response was never meant and was never taken seriously. It was bluster, hyperbole, theater or comic sideshow - take your pick. I guess it was just another aspect of his outreach to the Muslim world. No doubt, they are deeply impressed.


Anyone up for screwing around with another Muslim country?
It's such a great way to show them we really care.

Nothing says "we care" better than a series of missile attacks or a "unbelievably small" pack of drones, eh?

It's just another aspect of Amateur Hour from the White House.

 

[metis]

I guess what I mean is that ultimately we have no particular reason to trust either Obama or Putin, nor to expect much in the way of wisdom from either.

So we should not complain when they surprise us favorably.

Trust no one completely, including ourselves, and then we cannot be disappointed.

 

[metis]

In very simple terms no. There was no credibly threat of a military strike by the US. Obama went to the Congress and it is quite obvious that Congress would not give its approval for a military strike. Obama would not have gone against the American public or the wishes of Congress.

Even though Congress was against striking Assad's forces, that sword still hung over Assad's head, and Putin was obviously aware of this. For both Putin and Assad to agree to these inspections wouldn't likely happen because they suddenly got religion, but more on the basis that we were ready for a strike and that possibility still loomed over them. And we should remember that there was criticism of Obama coming from those like McCain who said Obama should have attacked right away.

There simply is no logical reason to believe that Putin and Assad did this because they decided to be nice guys. There simply is no "void" there.