Facing a stark choice between engaging the United States, Britain and France in combat or passively watching them strike his ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin has opted for the peaceful route.
Putin opted for a peaceful route?
Putin had the stark choice of risking his weapons not working to stop the missiles fired by the allies or doing nothing.
Putin had the stark choice of risking a clash with the allies that he would lose or doing nothing.
Putin had the stark choice of angering the Arab world by defending Assad who gasses his own people and is a hand puppet of Iran or doing nothing.
So Putin did nothing during the attack on Assad's chemical weapons infrastructure.
But what Russia has done in Syria is not "the peaceful route."
Putin has been on the route of massive bloodshed and misery by backing Assad to the hilt by supplying Assad with the means to do even more killing; by engineering a faux chemical weapons deal with our idiot secretary of state that saved Assad when he was on the ropes; by bombing civilians directly; by standing aside as Assad uses chemical weapons; and by shielding Assad from repercussions in the UN Security Council.
The idea that Putin has chosen a "peaceful route" in Syria is offensive.
Oh, and check this out:
Putin condemned Saturday's strikes as an "act of aggression" that will worsen the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and have a "destructive influence on the entire system of international relations."
This would be outrageous just considering Syria in isolation.
But when you recall that Putin has dismembered Ukraine by seizing Crimea and parts of the Donbas region (on top of carving out parts of Georgia) in defiance of the UN Charter that represents the system of international relations, the ability to report that with a straight face is amazing.
So fine, Putin portrayed himself to his people at home as a wise man avoiding plunging Russia into a nuclear war by standing aside during the attack. But why go along with that propaganda in reporting that interesting angle?
