Russian foreign minister: Obama wants to spare ISIS so they can force Assad out in Syria

If we're going to quote Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov - and we are - this is probably as good a time as any to remember that everyone who takes a shot at Barack Obama is not necessarily someone we should admire or trust. The Russians may be pleasing conservatives at the moment by showing Obama up, but they still have a geopolitical agenda that would prop up some of the worst characters on the face of the Earth for the sake of Russia's own influence and power, and of Vladimir Putin's personally.

Everyone on this site who values freedom, prosperity and integrity in government should understand that the Russians are the enemies of all of the above - not because they have to be, but because they choose to be. So with all that said, here's a curious take from Lavrov on Obama's reluctance to go after ISIS, as quoted in the Russian news service TASS:

"The problem around the U.S.-led coalition is that despite the fact that they declared its goal in fighting exclusively the Islamic State and other terrorists and pledged not to take any action against the Syrian army (life has proved they never went back from their words), analysis of the strikes delivered by the United States and its coalition at terrorist positions over the past year drives us to a conclusion that these were selective, I would say sparing, strikes and in the majority of cases spared those Islamic State groups that were capable of pressing the Syrian army. "It looks like a cat that wants to eat a fish but doesn’t want to wet its feet. They want the Islamic State to weaken Assad as soon as possible to force him to step down this or that way but they don’t want to see Islamic State strong enough to take power. "Our opinion of the developments after the anti-terrorist operation was launched in August 2014 is based on what we see and we see next to no concrete results but for the expansion of the Islamic State over this time," Lavrov said. "We noted tactical successes when a couple of cities were recaptured in Iraq."

---

Shorthand: Getting rid of Assad is more important to Obama than defeating ISIS, which Obama himself pretty much confirmed this morning. And Obama thinks ISIS just might have the chops to take Assad down, unless the Russians change sides in the Syrian civil war and turn on Assad - which they're not going to do - Obama wouldn't mind keeping ISIS viable so they can do the job and get rid of Assad instead. Plausible? On first glance it's hard to imagine that even Obama would cast his lot with this big a bunch of monsters. And yet . . . as much as his strategic decisions have made no sense whatsoever in the contest of any rational strategy, it's not really that far-fetched to imagine entirely different motives he might have. Then again, here's another possibility: Obama thought he could play hard guy in diplomatic talks with the Russians, telling them privately that if they didn't deal with Assad, he'd leave ISIS in place to create problems for Assad and for Putin, regardless of whatever he might be saying publicly. (It would hardly be the first time Obama told the Russians to disregard what he told the American public.) This little bit of too-clever-by-half diplomacy promptly blows up in Obama's face when ISIS attacks Paris and the Russians blab what he told them he was going to do. So take your pick: Is Obama an intentional malefactor or just a really inept diplomat? And if Lavrov is wrong about what's behind Obama's bizarre approach to dealing with ISIS - which is to say, not dealing with ISIS at all - then would you like to offer an explanation that makes more sense? I'd love to hear it.