That may be, but Putin is making a case against intervention while omitting his huge conflict of interest. He is making self-serving arguments under the guise of caring about lofty ideals that his own actions demonstrate he has no regard for.
You are completely missing the point. Putin is stating that the reason no one should intervene in Syria, because we need to follow the law (the security council). When the truth is he could easily not veto and intervention would be lawful. That's why it is disingenuous. Vote for it and your dilemma is solved!
> When the truth is he could easily not veto and intervention would be lawful.
Allow me to point out America's veto record:
"Eighty-three times the US has exercised its veto. On 42 of these occasions it has done so to prevent Israel's treatment of the Palestinians being censured. On the last occasion, 130 nations supported the resolution but Barack Obama spiked it. Though veto powers have been used less often since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the US has exercised them 14 times in the interim (in 13 cases to shield Israel), while Russia has used them nine times. Increasingly the permanent members have used the threat of a veto to prevent a resolution being discussed. They have bullied the rest of the world into silence." [Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/09/obama-r...]
This is a bad argument. There are many illegal things a person can make legal by consenting to them. Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law?
(It's also inapplicable, since even if Russia consented, China wouldn't.)
> Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law?
No, but it is circular reasoning to base your argument for refusing consent by saying it is illegal. It's much less compelling if he comes right out and says: "Don't do it, because I don't want you too." So he tries to make the logic convoluted.
>> "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope..."
>> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law.
Right there they mention that they are for peaceful dialog because they are trying to protect international law. If they were really concerned with international law, why would they veto? Obviously, because they don't want it to happen, not this nonsense about them being all of a sudden concerned about international law.
The parent comment was stating the point that Putin was making it illegal himself by vetoing and retracting the veto would have made it legal. The same thing happens in sex, if you consent to it, it's ok; if you don't, it's rape. That's the mechanism of consent and of veto.
In your analogy there is no way the white bus passenger could instantly change the law by consenting to the black man sitting in the wrong section. It is illegal regardless of his opinion.
In sex as in international diplomacy you need unanimity (at least of the security council).
Your analogy is just as flawed since Assad has no say as to consent or veto. All is being decided by the five nations in power (the white people of diplomacy). Per your analogy, Russia is not an agent on either side.
The whole analogy business in arguments is one witty exercise in strawman.
I agree with you, there are many truths in this letter that can't be ignored.
I think many people would get upset with it because Putin is using the same propaganda the US government (and many others) has always used, both hypocrites governing through lies, manipulation, intimidation, coercion, persecution of activists, violence etc. All in the name of "Democracy".
Replace "Putin" with "Obama" is this sentence and there you have it, a perfect description of the United States. Waxing about freedom and human rights while manipulating and coercing the whole world according to their manifest destiny.
