A true statesman, an adventurous leader and the climbing risk in Syria
Since the current president of the USA took over the office some months ago, the world has been monitoring how unstable and unreliable a “world leader could” be. This person has won much more enemies than friends and in fact the dislike (if not the hatred to be mild) of hundreds of millions in the world – to include those at home.
Some wrong steps he has taken under the slogan “All for America” have caused serious threats to global peace as well as to economic relations among countries of the world. Opening of an embassy in Jerusalem, the language used and attitude displayed regarding the conflict with North Korea and most recently the unstable policy followed in Syria have been among those inappropriate steps – not to forget the major issues he has been facing at home since the beginning.
The important part is all above has certainly caused the USA to lose substantial prestige in the world and today it has become real difficult to consider this country as the leader of the world.
Another president on the other hand has – despite his aggressive policies at times, in neighboring countries such as Ukraine, Crimea for instance– upgraded the prestige of Russia and although he might not be very much liked, has earned respect for his country (at least). It goes without saying – despite the fear he radiates – he is considered to be much more reliable and predictable, on the contrary to his counterpart. Moreover this person has managed to realize “the centuries-long dream” of Russia by establishing bases (military) on the Mediterranean coast of Syria. Today, Russia is in the Mediterranean, to stay forever.
This certainly has not been very easy and required some statesmanship qualities – as clearly practiced by this person all along the Syrian conflict. He has literally saved the Syrian president (dictator as some call him) from a disastrous end (such as the case of Gaddafi of Libya) using the power/authority – and armed forces – of Russia and earned his country, military bases in the territory, such as Hmeymim. At this point, we might be thankful for his well-balanced attitude in relations with the western world and the USA in specific, even at times of major provocations by his inconsistent counterpart. Like him or not, when seen from Russia’s point of view he has been successful in many cases.
As for the most recent incident, i.e. the missile attack against Syria there is no doubt that any kind of chemical attack on innocent people cannot be verified or even tolerated. This is absolutely a crime against humanity and should be punished. Then again we should not forget the implausible mistake the USA and GB made in Iraq many years back and the crime they committed (starting a war against Saddam, based on excuse he possessed nuclear arms which he did not in reality and thus causing deaths of millions). The saddening point is – talking about crimes should be paid for – the two leaders of all-time allies (UK and USA) have not even been held accountable for such a crime of humanity they committed at the time. Now, who could say “this is fair”?
Coming back to the most recent strike by the allies, the world is lucky to see that the leader of Russia is determined to act with logic and common sense once again. He does not talk much but he performs, rather. We understand Russia is not – despite its warnings, earlier – for retaliation, provided there is no harm against its own personnel and facilities in the region. However, the big question is “if Russia would tolerate any damage – intentional or accidental – to be caused by allies, against its own assets and personnel”. Now, hopefully the world will not be in position to find the answer to this question, because when it comes to that point and Russia’s leader believes it is high time to speak it might not be very pleasant to see what he has to say.
