This article in the Jerusalem Post describes an interview with Russian President Vladamir Putin in which he discusses the rumored sale of Russian anti-aircraft missiles to Syria. Not to worry, says Putin. They're only defensive.
"First of all," he said, "we understand and are committed to maintaining the balance of forces in the region. We understand our responsibilities. We have not taken a single step to violate that balance and we will follow that pattern in the future."
Waiting patiently while his translator rendered this into English, Putin then continued, "Second of all, we won't bring to the region weapons that can be used by terrorists or that can be transferred to terrorists without controls." The Russian president then repeated, "We have and will always act according to our international obligations." In that light, he added, the contemplated missile sale to Syria would not constitute a violation of responsibility because, he asserted, these are purely "defensive missiles."
"While we're talking about supplies of weapons to countries in the region," he said, "such a supply should be understood in the light of supporting defensive capacities, as in Syria."
Should we take Putin at his word that his intention is not to allow Syria to threaten Israel but to defend itself? It's a stretch. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, the logical question would be: against whom would Syria conceivably need to defend herself? I don't think the real answer is Israel.
Some suspect that President Bush might be fixing his sights on Syria if Baby Assad doesn't take major steps to end his country's sponsorship of terrorists soon. And Russia is being less than subtle in trying to maneuver its way back into the Middle East as a major player. It's not hard to see which side she's taking, and against whom.
I thought the cold war was over. But maybe Putin didn't get the memo.
