President Putin's Newyork Times Op Ed On Sept 12

[jon46]

 

 

September 11, 2013

 

A Plea for Caution From Russia

 

 

By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN

 

 

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

 

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

 

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

 

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

 

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

 

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

 

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

 

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. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

 

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

 

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.â€

 

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

 

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

 

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

 

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

 

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

 

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

 

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

 

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.†It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

 

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.

[acockasian]

Wow!

 

Putin appealing to the average American to save the children and stop this US support of terrorists!

[Plainsdrifter]

Long windbag, he's playing the White House and they don't realize what he is doing.

[Flashermac]

Why didn't Stalin appeal to the American people during the Korean War?

[Coss]

How odd...

[Flashermac]

A friend with a Russian wife and an ex-KB officer father-in-law told me he was warned about Putin long ago. Ex-KGB dad-in-law told him that Putin was dangerous, since he wanted to rebuild the Russian Empire, with himself boss of course. Putin often acts that way. How would he like it if Obama made an appeal to the Russian people, trying to bypass the head of state?

[cavanami]

How would Obama like it if Syria told him he was the snake and traitor he has proven to be!

 

Russia or Syria is not the problem, the USA/Obama is the problem, IMO...

[jon46]

If the writer of the New York Times Op-Ed wasn't President Putin, I feel the politicians in the USA would find it reasonable (except for for the part where Putin suggested that the opposition used chemical weapons in Aug on its people).

 

What politicians, especially Obama's party (the Democrats) should realize is that Obama was facing a huge defeat in the House and possibly the Senate on the vote to authorize bombing Syria when Putin toss him a "lifeline" with the proposal of Syria give up its control of its chemical weapons stockpile. Putin's proposal dates back to a year ago at the G-20 meeting which the US ignored and again brought out a few months ago with no action by the US. This time Obama wisely accepted Putin's proposal and called off the vote.

 

Let's take for a moment to speculate what would have happened if Obama failed to get Congress to grant him the authority to bomb Syria which most experts believed would not have any effect in stopping the use of chemical weapons or changing the balance of power between Assad and the opposition, Obama would be crippled and a "lame duck", essentially destroying whatever Obama aimed to accomplish in his second term.

 

Obama knows this and that is why he is not speaking out against Putin as other politicians on both parties have.

 

For me, I want to take Putin at his word and see if his proposal bear fruit in the not-so-distant future.

[Steve]

Wow. This is somewhat unprecedented. Putin from what I've read, as his ex KGB background suggests, is an opportunist and by any means necessary type of guy. A few stories of how he bullies on a personal basis. He stole the super bowl ring of the owner of the New England Patriots on a visit to Russia during the Bush years. That said, and he may not mean any of it but the actual words said, its hard to find issue with it. We can attack the person, and there is ample reason to but lets closely examine what was said. Did he say anything that either wasn't true, unfair or otherwise wrong? I believe in American exceptionalism based on our accomplishments. As a collective when we want to do something it gets done, developing atomic weapons from scratch during the WW2, putting a man on the mood with absolutely no knowledge of how we would do it and getting it done before the decade as promised. Stealth technology that is 30 years old and only the chinese with stolen secrets have come close to it. Other fields, medicine, science, its clear to me at least, but just like my religious faith, I don't expect anyone else to accept it or believe it. its sort of a domestic motivational thing to some extent. What I don't like about using that term is using it to feel a sense of superiority. The exceptioalsm is where immigrants can also excel because we create a platform for it. Freedom, the rule of law, equality. Sadly, the exceptionalism platform is becoming more and more a thing of the past. Anyway, with regards to his words specifically, not the person, what was wrong about what he said?

[baa99]

... what was wrong about what he said?

 

That the rebels launched the gas attack! This essentially undercut all his other arguments. Now Russia is on the hot seat to get Syria to comply.