But it won't be... certainly not from the EU (more likely?? Surely you jest...) and not likely from the US either. The Russians know it and so do we, so what's the point of blustering about it?
Why would the US want to threaten Russia, especially over a matter that doesn't even involve Russia? What would be the point? Or are we supposed to threaten people on a regular basis, on general principles, just for practice, or because we can?
I can't see how Russia, or anything Russia said, would have anything to do with it at all. Even were the bear as meek as a sea slug, the US and EU would still want nothing to do with this one.
There are few things easier than advocating reckless, high-risk intervention from the safety of a remote armchair like yours or mine. After all, our opinions have no consequences, and neither do our decisions. Those who make policy haven't that luxury.
It's a reasonable conclusion, and I think anyone who's been paying attention to US public opinion would agree with it.
Again, your opinion.
Quick effective intervention can remove a government. Removing a government doesn't mean anything is "all over". Unfortunately, whoever removes the government is generally held responsible for managing what comes after. Removing a government isn't where the problems end, it's where they start... and while it's all very well to speak of leaving things for the locals to sort out their way, weren't you recently advocating intervention in the Ivory Coast precisely to prevent the locals from sorting things out their way?
Meaning that if we get sucked into Syria we may have the opportunity to get sucked into Iran as well? What a wonderful pleasure that would be... I can think of few better arguments for staying out.
Bookmarks