A Plea for Caution from Russia
A Plea for Caution From Russia
Based on my understanding of our country’s commitment to the United Nations, maintaining international peace and security, promoting social progress, fighting for better living standards and human rights is morally embraced within the U.S government. However, our predisposition to act morally hasn’t been viewed in the same light by many countries and world leaders. In fact, the U.S.’s past international strategies on dealing with conflict in other nations has at times come off as forceful, unwanted, and aggressive. We’ve basically adopted this belief that the United States should sometimes step in and take the responsibility of helping shape the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently criticized this idea of “American exceptionalism” in his op-ed in the September 11th edition of The New York Times. He begins by basically reminding us why the United Nations even exists and possible repercussions of what may happen if the U.S chose to take military action on Syria. Then moves on to make some profound arguments.
Putin argues that a potential strike by the US, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, could lead to more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict beyond Syria’s borders. He is also stressing that a strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. I consider this a weak inductive argument by prediction. Although Putin’s premises may be true, the risk of our country taking military action against Syria, he doesn’t provide evidence that supports this conclusion. Putin adds, “It could throw the entire system of international law out of balance.” However, this is illogical because this is a claim solely based on opinion. Being the president of Russia, Putin can draw conclusions without evidence and still be able to appeal to the people who also believe that the U.S is breaking international laws. Simply
Based on my understanding of our country’s commitment to the United Nations, maintaining international peace and security, promoting social progress, fighting for better living standards and human rights is morally embraced within the U.S government. However, our predisposition to act morally hasn’t been viewed in the same light by many countries and world leaders. In fact, the U.S.’s past international strategies on dealing with conflict in other nations has at times come off as forceful, unwanted, and aggressive. We’ve basically adopted this belief that the United States should sometimes step in and take the responsibility of helping shape the world. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently criticized this idea of “American exceptionalism” in his op-ed in the September 11th edition of The New York Times. He begins by basically reminding us why the United Nations even exists and possible repercussions of what may happen if the U.S chose to take military action on Syria. Then moves on to make some profound arguments.
Putin argues that a potential strike by the US, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, could lead to more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict beyond Syria’s borders. He is also stressing that a strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. I consider this a weak inductive argument by prediction. Although Putin’s premises may be true, the risk of our country taking military action against Syria, he doesn’t provide evidence that supports this conclusion. Putin adds, “It could throw the entire system of international law out of balance.” However, this is illogical because this is a claim solely based on opinion. Being the president of Russia, Putin can draw conclusions without evidence and still be able to appeal to the people who also believe that the U.S is breaking international laws. Simply