Комментарии
С любопытством почитал комменатарии к статье в NYTimes про недавний российский ракетный удар и наступление сирийской армии: "Russian Cruise Missiles Help Syrians Go on the Offensive"
Там больше тысячи комменатриев, из них полтора десятка NYT pick и еще несколько десятков, видимо, самых толковых или "лайкнутых", Reader's Picks -- выбор читателей. Мне кажется, что они могут служить индикатором того, как американский средний класс относится к событиям в Сирии и вокруг.
Ничего похожего на отечественную либеральную истерию или умопомешательство политического мейнстрима Украины. Общее настроение читателей NY Times можно передать следующим тезисами:
- Политика США непонятна даже самим американцам, и приводит к катастрофическим последствиям на Ближнем Востоке
- В кризисе виноваты в первую очередь США
- Русские пришли по делу и на легитимной основе (в отличие от)
- Давайте вместе победим ИГИЛ, а потом будем решать с Асадом
- Если мы не хотим помогать русским, то давайте хотя бы не будем им мешать
Ниже несколько выборочных комментариев, выбор делался не по содержанию, а больше по стилю изложения. Впрочем, любой может сам зайти на сайт и убедиться, что картина действительно такова.
SW
San Francisco 1 day ago
Obama's primary goal of taking out Assad on behalf of the Saudis has come into sharp relief now that the Russians are there to take ISIS out. Obama's bluff has been called. One has to wonder at Obama's logic that Russia, which was invited in by a legitimate government, should not be involved in picking sides, while the US, which was not invited in and hasn't officially declared war, is all about picking sides and regime change.
* * *
Alan Graf
Floyd, VA 1 day ago
This has the scary potential of causing a war between the US and Russia. World War I started in a way similar to this. With Russia now aggressively involved and the US peripherally involved, the chances of accidental engagement and death of US soldiers by Russian forces increases astronomically. And when the tension and testosterone levels rise, there is no telling what may happen. I think the US should just pull out completely and see what happens. Nothing we have done previously has made a positive difference, so why maintain any involvement here?
* * *
rob em
lake worth 1 day ago
At least, the Russians have a strategy. We have been running around, huffing and puffing, spending all kinds of money which inevitably leads to civilian "collateral damage, and all to no avail.
[Spoiler (click to open)]* * *
Donriver
Toronto 1 day ago
The only way to avoid escalation is for the US and NATO to completely pull out of Syria, and let Russia take care of the remaining mess.
* * *
GBC
Canada 23 hours ago
US foreign policy in Syria lacks an achievable objective. US military actions in Syria lack the commitment needed to succeed. Under these circumstances the US should not have become involved in Syria in the first place. With Russia now on the scene, the US cannot align with the Assad government's opponents to fight ISIS while Russia aligns with the Assad government to do the same thing. Russia has the greater commitment and greater willingness to act so the US must withdraw. This withdrawal may be an embarrassment, but if so that is wholly the result of flawed US policies, not the fault of Russia.
* * *
Carolyn
Saint Augustine, Florida 23 hours ago
I'm astounded at some of the comments. I don't know why so many feel compelled to assign ulterior motives to the Russia government when it's doing exactly what it declared it would do. There's no mystery; no "testing NATO," no "testing the U.S.", no embarking on a Cold War. Russia does not have "an inferiority complex," nor does she want to "assert herself" as a world power because she IS a world power, and HAS BEEN since WW II. Russia has two objectives as was openly declared: supporting Assad and wiping out terrorists. That's exactly what she's doing; no guess work needed. And if she's successful - and I suspect she will be - future generations throughout the world will have been saved, albeit not grateful; because those generations will not have endured all the ramifications of having the ME overrun by a multitude of murderers, rapists, and torturers bent on establishing pure evil throughout the region and exporting it across the globe.
* * *
K.H.
United States 22 hours ago
I hate to say this but, an elected dictator understands another countries ruled by another dictator far better than the U.S.
Putin might be entirely correct in ending this chaos using military forces and putting Assad back in charge. The US should just get out of the way and stop supporting another military group there, which does nothing but to escalate the instability.
In a country ruled by collective religion and iron hands, Assad, similar to Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein, creates balance and stability. The culture is not ready for American style democracy (Exhibit A: current Iraq, Exhibit B: current Afghanistan). The rise of radical religious military groups is even worse than a dictator (Exhibit A: Taliban, Exhibit B: ISIS).
* * *
Urizen
Cortex, California 22 hours ago
When will US leaders - and the media - admit that the CIA has been spending billions on arms and mercenaries and that it has done nothing but increase misery and death among the population?
* * *
Matt
Oakland CA 1 day ago
Questions for inquiring journalists:
- Is not the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, also classified as a "terrorist organization" by the United States?
- Are not the CIA-backed Syrian militias united in a military alliance with the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, in the Army of Conquest?
- Has the United States not been committed to waging a "Global War on Terror" aimed at Al Qaeda in every country?
- Have not the people of the United States been subjected to a whole range of infringements on their civil liberties, from daily harassment by the TSA at airports to omnibus spying by the NSA, all in the name of this "Global War on Terror"?
- Has the United States not provided therefore, a convenient practical ideological cover for Russia's own actions?
* * *
Paul
Virginia 1 day ago
After more than a decade of continuous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is militarily and politically exhausted. The American public is in no mood for more involvement in the ME. Its NATO allies are besetted by the refugee crisis. If the goal is to defeat ISIS and not regime change for the benefit of the Saudis, then the US should cooperate with Russia. Contrary to Ash Carter's assertion that the Russia's strategy is "tragically flawed," it's the US policy that is flawed.
* * *
DaveD
Wisconsin 1 day ago
Let's try to keep sight of one inescapable fact here. The only Syrian government asked for help from Russia so, unlike in the case of NATO, this is not a violation of Syrian sovereignty and airspace.
И т.д.
Не обходится и без эмигрантов из Украины, их русофобские голоса нет-нет да и проскакивают среди американцев. Во всяком случае один точно есть.
Yurko
US 22 hours ago
So should the world let Russia launch another Holocaust in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia - who's next? Why not step up with sanctions or impose a full embargo on Kremlin warmongers?
Но он звучит диссонансом с тем, что пишет большинство комменаторов.
Там больше тысячи комменатриев, из них полтора десятка NYT pick и еще несколько десятков, видимо, самых толковых или "лайкнутых", Reader's Picks -- выбор читателей. Мне кажется, что они могут служить индикатором того, как американский средний класс относится к событиям в Сирии и вокруг.
Ничего похожего на отечественную либеральную истерию или умопомешательство политического мейнстрима Украины. Общее настроение читателей NY Times можно передать следующим тезисами:
- Политика США непонятна даже самим американцам, и приводит к катастрофическим последствиям на Ближнем Востоке
- В кризисе виноваты в первую очередь США
- Русские пришли по делу и на легитимной основе (в отличие от)
- Давайте вместе победим ИГИЛ, а потом будем решать с Асадом
- Если мы не хотим помогать русским, то давайте хотя бы не будем им мешать
Ниже несколько выборочных комментариев, выбор делался не по содержанию, а больше по стилю изложения. Впрочем, любой может сам зайти на сайт и убедиться, что картина действительно такова.
SW
San Francisco 1 day ago
Obama's primary goal of taking out Assad on behalf of the Saudis has come into sharp relief now that the Russians are there to take ISIS out. Obama's bluff has been called. One has to wonder at Obama's logic that Russia, which was invited in by a legitimate government, should not be involved in picking sides, while the US, which was not invited in and hasn't officially declared war, is all about picking sides and regime change.
* * *
Alan Graf
Floyd, VA 1 day ago
This has the scary potential of causing a war between the US and Russia. World War I started in a way similar to this. With Russia now aggressively involved and the US peripherally involved, the chances of accidental engagement and death of US soldiers by Russian forces increases astronomically. And when the tension and testosterone levels rise, there is no telling what may happen. I think the US should just pull out completely and see what happens. Nothing we have done previously has made a positive difference, so why maintain any involvement here?
* * *
rob em
lake worth 1 day ago
At least, the Russians have a strategy. We have been running around, huffing and puffing, spending all kinds of money which inevitably leads to civilian "collateral damage, and all to no avail.
[Spoiler (click to open)]* * *
Donriver
Toronto 1 day ago
The only way to avoid escalation is for the US and NATO to completely pull out of Syria, and let Russia take care of the remaining mess.
* * *
GBC
Canada 23 hours ago
US foreign policy in Syria lacks an achievable objective. US military actions in Syria lack the commitment needed to succeed. Under these circumstances the US should not have become involved in Syria in the first place. With Russia now on the scene, the US cannot align with the Assad government's opponents to fight ISIS while Russia aligns with the Assad government to do the same thing. Russia has the greater commitment and greater willingness to act so the US must withdraw. This withdrawal may be an embarrassment, but if so that is wholly the result of flawed US policies, not the fault of Russia.
* * *
Carolyn
Saint Augustine, Florida 23 hours ago
I'm astounded at some of the comments. I don't know why so many feel compelled to assign ulterior motives to the Russia government when it's doing exactly what it declared it would do. There's no mystery; no "testing NATO," no "testing the U.S.", no embarking on a Cold War. Russia does not have "an inferiority complex," nor does she want to "assert herself" as a world power because she IS a world power, and HAS BEEN since WW II. Russia has two objectives as was openly declared: supporting Assad and wiping out terrorists. That's exactly what she's doing; no guess work needed. And if she's successful - and I suspect she will be - future generations throughout the world will have been saved, albeit not grateful; because those generations will not have endured all the ramifications of having the ME overrun by a multitude of murderers, rapists, and torturers bent on establishing pure evil throughout the region and exporting it across the globe.
* * *
K.H.
United States 22 hours ago
I hate to say this but, an elected dictator understands another countries ruled by another dictator far better than the U.S.
Putin might be entirely correct in ending this chaos using military forces and putting Assad back in charge. The US should just get out of the way and stop supporting another military group there, which does nothing but to escalate the instability.
In a country ruled by collective religion and iron hands, Assad, similar to Qaddafi and Saddam Hussein, creates balance and stability. The culture is not ready for American style democracy (Exhibit A: current Iraq, Exhibit B: current Afghanistan). The rise of radical religious military groups is even worse than a dictator (Exhibit A: Taliban, Exhibit B: ISIS).
* * *
Urizen
Cortex, California 22 hours ago
When will US leaders - and the media - admit that the CIA has been spending billions on arms and mercenaries and that it has done nothing but increase misery and death among the population?
* * *
Matt
Oakland CA 1 day ago
Questions for inquiring journalists:
- Is not the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, also classified as a "terrorist organization" by the United States?
- Are not the CIA-backed Syrian militias united in a military alliance with the Nusra Front, Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, in the Army of Conquest?
- Has the United States not been committed to waging a "Global War on Terror" aimed at Al Qaeda in every country?
- Have not the people of the United States been subjected to a whole range of infringements on their civil liberties, from daily harassment by the TSA at airports to omnibus spying by the NSA, all in the name of this "Global War on Terror"?
- Has the United States not provided therefore, a convenient practical ideological cover for Russia's own actions?
* * *
Paul
Virginia 1 day ago
After more than a decade of continuous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US is militarily and politically exhausted. The American public is in no mood for more involvement in the ME. Its NATO allies are besetted by the refugee crisis. If the goal is to defeat ISIS and not regime change for the benefit of the Saudis, then the US should cooperate with Russia. Contrary to Ash Carter's assertion that the Russia's strategy is "tragically flawed," it's the US policy that is flawed.
* * *
DaveD
Wisconsin 1 day ago
Let's try to keep sight of one inescapable fact here. The only Syrian government asked for help from Russia so, unlike in the case of NATO, this is not a violation of Syrian sovereignty and airspace.
И т.д.
Не обходится и без эмигрантов из Украины, их русофобские голоса нет-нет да и проскакивают среди американцев. Во всяком случае один точно есть.
Yurko
US 22 hours ago
So should the world let Russia launch another Holocaust in Syria, Ukraine, Georgia - who's next? Why not step up with sanctions or impose a full embargo on Kremlin warmongers?
Но он звучит диссонансом с тем, что пишет большинство комменаторов.