Putin's Mother Teresa act on Syria is unconvincing but effective

“The world knows that Vladimir Putin is the one who really deserves that Nobel Peace Prize,” gushed Fox News analyst KT McFarland, lauding his “give peace a chance” proposal to avert possible US strikes against Syria. Putin the peacenik is the unlikely hero for right-wingers who adore the Russian strongman for “embarrassing” Obama. Like the skinny guy in those old Atlas body-building ads, Obama now looks like the 90-pound weakling wiping sand off his face. Putin, not content to bask in the moment, has taken the peacenik act one step too far — into the realm of incredulity. He decided to “speak directly to the American people” through a sanctimonious New York Times op-ed preaching the virtues of restraint: 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. [caption id=“attachment_1103955” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Putin’s peacenik act is rather unconvincing for now. Reuters[/caption] The message is sound but undermined by the messenger: A man infamous for ruthlessly squelching dissent and democracy within Russia; the violent and bloody repression of the uprising in Chechnya; openly intervening in the internal affairs of neighbouring Georgia and Moldovia. Putin doesn’t exactly possess the credibility to tell any nation, “The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not” — hence the amused derision his little lecture evoked outside the Obama-bashing bubble. Some inconveniently recalled the 1999 Times op-ed Mr Putin wrote in defense of strikes aimed at a very different target: American officials tell us that ordinary citizens are suffering, that our military tactics may increase that suffering. The very opposite is true. Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population. We have nothing to gain by doing otherwise. The Chechen citizens, after all, are our citizens too. Our land and air forces strive to target only opposing armed forces. The whole reason we chose accurately targeted strikes on specifically identified terrorist bases was to avoid direct attacks on Chechen communities. Fourteen years later, the same Putin is not so convinced about ‘accuracy’: “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.” Too bad, the 25,000 dead Chechens killed in that little intervention (as per the official Russian count) can’t enjoy the benefits of such hindsight. Putin playing Mother Teresa bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain hairy grandma. Unfortunately for him, there aren’t many little Red Riding Hoods to buy his act. The Russian leader, however, must be congratulated on transforming a potential disaster into a diplomatic coup in one fell swoop. Unilateral strikes on Syria would have confirmed Russia’s waning clout, forcing it to standby and watch as the world’s now only superpower bombed its closest ally. And if the military action had indeed “changed the momentum on the ground”, Kremlin would have lost in Basher Al Assad one of its few remaining allies in the Middle East. Relocating the goal post to the UN Security Council, NYT’s Bill Keller notes, is a win-win for Putin: “He has stalled and possibly ended the threat that his client thug, President Bashar al-Assad, will be struck by American missiles for gassing his own people. As long as the international community is debating the endless complications of finding, verifying and locking down Assad’s chemical arsenal, Congress and the allies have ample excuse to do nothing.” Without the looming prospect of US intervention, the Syrian opposition will likely lose heart, more so since the proposal focuses solely on chemical weapons, giving Assad the time and latitude to use conventional weapons — secured from Moscow — to mow their forces down. Well played, Mr Putin. As for those gloating over Obama’s “wimpy” performance, let’s remember that opting for peace over ego is not necessarily such a bad thing. As Greg Sargent points out in the Washington Post: If the goal of getting involved in Syria in the first place was to halt the use of chemical weapons — and the possibility of a diplomatic solution that could realize that goal has arisen — why shouldn’t Obama adapt as he goes along and try to make that happen? Some will argue Obama wouldn’t be doing this if Congress were willing to authorize force, but I don’t buy it. What’s more, the unstated premise underlying the idea that this is an unacceptable or mock-worthy contradiction is that Obama should declare his intention to use force and stick to it no matter what changing circumstances dictate. Why would that be seen as a good thing? Have folks already forgotten what happened the last time a president approached foreign policy that way? Nor does Obama’s decision to opt for a diplomatic solution let Putin off the hook, at least not in the eyes of the White House. Responding to Putin’s op-ed, one administration official told CNN_:_ That’s all irrelevant… He put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike – which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver. The out-of-the-blue peace proposal has successfully reasserted Russia’s clout in the Middle East. But having eclipsed Obama, Putin now has to prove he can indeed deliver us into light. And his success will depend on whether Assad will play his assigned role as a dutiful satellite.