Vladimir Putin is no angel. He is an authoritarian dictator tramples the rights of his people. But, though maybe hypocritical, called out Obama and his statements in his timely speech the day before the anniversary of 9-11. He went on to talk against America's Empire foreign policy that twists the arms of other nations to bend them to its will, and how the rest of the world is tired of the bullying foreign policy, carried on by the majority of the US administrations of the past 60 years.
If one would really study the foreign policy carried on by US administrations he was spot on. He basically told the Emperor that he had on No Clothes. Putin, while his motives are suspect because he and his nations policies have been no better, was not attacking the US itself, just its administrations whose policies basically stay the same no matter which party or president sites in the oval office.
Part of Putin's letter to Obama is posted here:
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
(
read the entire article here)
