Can Russia be trusted to handle the Syria situation?

Asked by: Atlas01
  • Look we have to trust someone

    Russia has been our enemy in the past but as one of the 3 foremost nations in the world we have to trust them. Also we trust them with nukes but not diplomacy? Really? Besides if we can build diplomacy with Russia we can finally get stuff done. If the U.S.A Russia and China band together we can help prevent proliferation also Russia has no reason to keep wmd's in Syria but they profit from the removal of these weapons as much as us. Our distrust of Russia is just McCarthyism that believes everyone who does not love the usa is a communist terrorist even though Russia's distaste for us is somewhat our fault.

  • Yes, I think they can.

    Why not? They don't want a conflict on their hands. They have an alliance with Syria but don't want to be going in against France and the U.S. Why should they do anything untrustworthy? There is too much at stake. Besides this will have a positive effect for them. They will have been the ones to solve the problem and prevent anything disastrous from happening.

  • Advantage Putin on this one. Russia is leading the US along by the nose!

    The Russians have sounded consistent, strong and clear throughout the whole Syria crisis. As a Brit I'm happy to see a strong counter argument coming from our side of the Atlantic. (Thank God our MP's at Westminster weren't Poodles for once!) A strong confident Russia showing Europe the way ahead in a Middle Eastern crisis and providing a clear alternative voice for Europeans is surprising and refreshing. Right now the Russian propaganda machine is much more effective than that of the US. Putin is the guard dog barking and Obama's running round in circles chasing his tail.

  • Yes, Russia may have an strategic interests in Syria but it does not mean that Russia's proposed solution is doubtful.

    Even if you say that Russia is supporting the Syrian government for varied reasons, still what the Russia wants is a diplomatic solution for the crisis not any military intervention. On the other hand, the US wants to intervene in Syria by attacking the latter's military facilities. Doing that US would take side in the civil war, thus violating non-intervention clause in the UN charter. Russia does not want to protect Assad from US, it only wants to observe the international law.

  • Yes, in this case..

    In this case, yes, Putin has much more credibility on Syria than our own President and when the leader of Russia has done more to keep us out of a war we don't want than our own President, it is time to seriously reevaluate the situation. The so-called rebels are nothing more than Islamic Jihadists, which are coming in from all over the world...Even places like Germany for crying out loud. It is amazing that people talk about this issue as if America was attacked...There has been no attack on our nation. It is war where neither side is friendly and we have no business being involved.

  • No, the USA shouldn't trust them.

    Syria has been adamant for years that it refused to put their chemical weapons under international control. However, now that, under the threat of the USA, are willing to do so, letting Putin deal with it is not the solution, because Russia is Syria's strongest ally. Russia wants Bashar Al-Assad to win over the rebels, so they won't do anything that would not help Bashar. So if go ahead with this plan, someone else has to keep an eye on Russia.

  • No, absolutely not.

    I believe that Russia is, how you say, "in cahoots" with Syria. They have a strong alliance with one another, and I don't think that Russia would do anything to keep Assad from achieving his goals, whatever they may be. Getting him to destroy his arsenal of chemical weapons would not put him any closer to where he wants to be, so why would Russia do it? If anyone should handle this issue, as much as I hate to say it, it should be the US.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.