Syria Crisis: Vladimir Putin's Letter To America

[Guest skibby]

By Vladimir Putin, Russian President, for The New York Times

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 organisation - 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 authorisation.

 

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 destabilise 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 organisations. This internal conflict, fuelled 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-defence 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".

 

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 non-proliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

 

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilised 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.

 

source:http://news.sky.com/story/1140518/syria-crisis-vladimir-putins-letter-to-america

[apriorion]

Wow. So weird. I love this under the radar, direct appeal to the American public. It smacks of a passive-aggressive dig at Obama. Kinda catty and manipulative. I suppose this move has something to do with the fact that large numbers of Americans basically agree with Putin on this Syria thing. I suspect that this is a move to undermine Obama's authority somewhat.

[Guest skibby]

deranged crazy theory dont h8 me for my opinion:

obama has no authority, he's just an actor. if a prez actually did things his or her own way, they'd get WACKED. wacked i say.

[Friendly Foil]

I've been told my entire life that Russia is evil and scary, so I'm afraid to read this. Will it transform me into a communist or what?

[ambermonk]

I read it. I get the impression that what he's driving at is cooperation and long-term stability, and is basically saying we all need to be on the same page. But at the same time he's calling Obama out for perpetuating bravado in US foreign policy.

But are there ulterior motives on Putin's part? I don't know enough about his background to make an accurate assessment.

[lumpenprol]

Wow. So weird. I love this under the radar, direct appeal to the American public. It smacks of a passive-aggressive dig at Obama. Kinda catty and manipulative. I suppose this move has something to do with the fact that large numbers of Americans basically agree with Putin on this Syria thing. I suspect that this is a move to undermine Obama's authority somewhat.

exactly. Putin just showed Obama how the game is played. I love the guy, despite knowing he's a bastard who jails and kills people without justification. He's so much smoother than Khruschev banging his shoe on the podium at the UN.

 

For someone who once seemed to have his finger on the pulse of public opinion ("change!") I'm quite surprised how far Obama has strayed from his pollsters. He should have figured out that Americans have war fatigue, and are solely concerned with economic recovery.

[lumpenprol]

this quote from the cnn comments made me lol:

 

 

 

Putin is simply more intelligent, has less people to answer to, and more experienced than Bozo in Chief, deal with it

[olo]

queue the Aphex hand clap gif.

 

Well played Putin. He struck while the iron & sickle is still hot. A nice veiled F-U to the Pres. He didn't mention that Russia is who probably gave Syria the chemical weapons though. Which is not cool Putin. Stop the chemical shit. The real weapons are those supersweet weather manipulation HAARP arrays. That's the future.

[goDel]

Whatever the case, Putin is outplaying Obama at this game of poker.

 

Well played!

 

edit: indeed. he probably has some other country already asking to buy syrias (=russians) chemical weapons. the only thing putin needs, is obama's OK. ;-P

 

tough decision obama?

[lumpenprol]

i'd also like to give Putin props for his "quite good" plastic surgery.

 

If you compare the "gaunt and baggy under the eyes Putin" from a few years back with the "plump with dermal fillers" Putin of today, it's quite remarkable. He went from being a kind of cadaverous creep to being a jovial looking metrosexual.

[Guest Araungzeb]

Yeah, because Putin has been such a long-time champion of human rights. Like by killing off dissident journalists KGB-style with polonium, banning discussions of homosexuality in Russian media and brutally occupying Chechnya Bush-style. I agree with most of his points, but I have a hard time taking the messenger seriously.

[BobDobalina]

I liked it, mainly because it cuts through the heart the prevailing BS rhetoric / agitprop that Jane & John Q. Citizen have become so desensitized to. FWIW these were my favorite truth 'bullets' from the piece:

 

• 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.
• 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.
• 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 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-defence 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.
• 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".
• 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.
• It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

 

I'm glad too that he called out that rodeo ass-clown for playing the american exceptionalism card. And yeah in a battle of wits between the two obama is basically unarmed.

 

I can do without the emotional music swell but this catches the nail pretty flush:

 

 

 

[SR4]

I read it. I get the impression that what he's driving at is cooperation and long-term stability, and is basically saying we all need to be on the same page. But at the same time he's calling Obama out for perpetuating bravado in US foreign policy.

 

But are there ulterior motives on Putin's part? I don't know enough about his background to make an accurate assessment.

 

I was thinking that this could potentially backfire for Putin if it indeed ended up affecting the Obama admin's rep. Why on earth would he want someone even more warmongering (just about every Republican candidate I can think of) and interested in Middle Eastern interference?

[ambermonk]

I'm glad too that he called out that rodeo ass-clown for playing the american exceptionalism card. And yeah in a battle of wits between the two obama is basically unarmed.

 

I can do without the emotional music swell but this catches the nail pretty flush:

 

[youtubehd]16K6m3Ua2nw[/youtubehd]

Yeah the music was kind of cliche sentimental piano and stringed instruments for cinematic emphasis, but that was pretty damn good. Thank you for sharing. Do you know what movie or TV show this is from by chance?

[lumpenprol]

 

Yeah the music was kind of cliche sentimental piano and stringed instruments for cinematic emphasis, but that was pretty damn good. Thank you for sharing. Do you know what movie or TV show this is from by chance?

 

 

see, americans can't even read the description on a youtube clip :-)

 

"Beginning scene of the new HBO series The Newsroom explaining why America's Not the Greatest Country Any Longer... But It Can Be."

[BobDobalina]

It's from the HBO drama series Newsroom - I've never seen the show so I don't know the full context of the clip, only stumbled upon it a few weeks ago.

[Guest Araungzeb]

I can do without the emotional music swell but this catches the nail pretty flush:

 

 

Eh, I agree with most of the points made here but it'd be a lot cooler if it went further and challenged the idea of a "greatest country in the world." Okay so it's not the United States, who is it? Ireland? China? El Salvador? Liberia? Java? Under what criteria? If your criteria for "greatest country in the world" is most amount of investment in and infrastructure for scientific and technological innovation, I'd have to give to the US. If your criteria is least amount of human rights violations in the past 100 years, maybe Iceland? If your criteria is students with highest standardized test scores based on arbitrary curriculum and healthy amounts of score fraud, probably South Korea or Finland or something? I hate these kinds of superlatives, it's one big pissing contest.

[lumpenprol]

 

Java?

 

good overall point but...not a country

[eugene]

some guy from reddit:

There's a word omitted from the dictionary for people who believe "compassionate" statements from a president who:

• destroyed Russian democracy, ruling the country with a combination of Ex-KGB, Mafia and those oligarchs who have sworn fealty
• throws the rest of the oligarchs/ dissenters into prison without a trial, with nice touches such as purposefully exposing them to tuberculosis in the hope that they would die of "natural causes" before the mock-trial
• OPENLY KILLED Alexander Litwnienko in the middle of London, using a rare isotope as a special fuck-you message to everyone thinking about betraying Putin (that's why Polonium was used as opposed to a simple bullet to the head- to MAKE CLEAR that it was state-ordered)
• destroyed Czechnya, killed and raped its people, and installed a vassal to Moscow that to this day continues to oppress the people
• has a Punk band thrown into prison for some mildly outrageous public stunt, IS CRACKING DOWN ON GAY PEOPLE, and not-so-secretly playing to ultranationalism in the hope of diverting his people's attention from their squalid conditions
• most likely backed the attempted assassination of Ukraine's elected leadership, and props up the last European dictator in Belarus.

...but sure, Obama's the devil, military intervention would have been catastrophic, and in NO WAY is Putin just looking out for Russian military interests in the middle East. You can see his peaceful intentions by the fact that NOT TWO DAYS after suggesting Syria turn in its poison gas, Russia agreed to outfit the Syrian army with the newest anti-aircraft defence system, effectively preventing any Western military intervention (as we would lose quite a bit of hardware if we were to go now).
Yeah yeah, since he says such REASONABLE things let's all listen to Putin. I almost feel like resurrecting the old anti-commie statement of "why don't you move to Russia then?".
How someone can honestly convince themselves that the US, with all its faults, corruption and pettiness, is even in the same LEAGUE of fucked-upness as countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. is absolutely beyond me. Put down the rose-tinted glasses.
BIG EDIT since everybody's screaming at me "But this is not about Putin, this is about the MESSAGE! Peace and love and unity!"
JUST HOW GULLIBLE do you have to be to not realize the precise intent of this op-ed, as well as his other recent media outings? Do you really think that, as a world leader interested in peace in Syria, you would use a popular newspaper to talk to your political opponent, rather than, say, any of the 10,000 constantly open diplomatic channels between the Kremlin and the White House?
This is not about the message. This is about Putin sensing dissent in the US, and driving his dagger right into the fault line. His true audience is not Obama, or the leadership. His audience is YOU, because the more conflicted the US is about intervention, the more secure the leadership of countries like Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe (to name just a few) are in their seats, and the more likely they are to ally themselves with Russia if Putin can present himself as the guy who can stop the West from bombing you. What do you think will happen to Syria when Assad (with Putin's help) manages to kill the last of the resistance? It will be complete, 100% total vassal of Russia, since Putin will never let Assad live that debt down. Yet here's Reddit fawning over one of the most insiduous and cold dictators since Stalin just because Obama didn't overturn all of the (admittedly not minor) US corruption, and turned out to be just another Washington dick.
So ABSOLUTELY we should discuss whether or not military intervention makes sense, ABSOLUTELY there is much to be said pro/ con, ABSOLUTELY you should harry your representative to make your voice heard. But don't fucking let someone who would readily imprison you for your dissent were you in Russia tell you what to think or not to think of the US, when all he wants is to see you low.
TL;DR: For once, the messenger matters MORE than the message.
FINAL EDIT: Thanks for the gold, anonymous benefactor! What a kind and cool thing to do- I shall use golden status

 

[Guest skibby]

i'd also like to give Putin props for his "quite good" plastic surgery.

 

If you compare the "gaunt and baggy under the eyes Putin" from a few years back with the "plump with dermal fillers" Putin of today, it's quite remarkable. He went from being a kind of cadaverous creep to being a jovial looking metrosexual.

 

 

Yeah, because Putin has been such a long-time champion of human rights. Like by killing off dissident journalists KGB-style with polonium, banning discussions of homosexuality in Russian media and brutally occupying Chechnya Bush-style. I agree with most of his points, but I have a hard time taking the messenger seriously.

 

[SR4]

Exactly. Putin might be right on this account, but he's a fucking monster as far as I'm concerned. Far worse than the past two or three Soviet rulers in terms of human rights abuses and authoritarianism without a doubt. Ex-KGB should pretty much explain it.

[joshuatxuk]

Wow. So weird. I love this under the radar, direct appeal to the American public. It smacks of a passive-aggressive dig at Obama. Kinda catty and manipulative. I suppose this move has something to do with the fact that large numbers of Americans basically agree with Putin on this Syria thing. I suspect that this is a move to undermine Obama's authority somewhat.

 

Bingo. Well said.

 

I've been told my entire life that Russia is evil and scary, so I'm afraid to read this. Will it transform me into a communist or what?

 

Nah, but if does turn you into a Russian you'll just feel like you've inherited depression and sorrow, a knack for pragmatic engineering, and a desire to work and drink your ass off. Also you won't go on to do great things, great things might go on to do you.

[Guest RadarJammer]

deranged crazy theory dont h8 me for my opinion:

obama has no authority, he's just an actor. if a prez actually did things his or her own way, they'd get WACKED. wacked i say.

i'm sure everyone knows this but if everyone had to take this into account when discussing these things the language would get so convoluted that a political debate could never untangle itself

[joshuatxuk]

Exactly. Putin might be right on this account, but he's a fucking monster as far as I'm concerned. Far worse than the past two or three Soviet rulers in terms of human rights abuses and authoritarianism without a doubt. Ex-KGB should pretty much explain it.

 

Yeah, you know that's kind of the same dilemma that very far-left or far-right critics often find themselves if they lose focus and context regarding war: that's why I've always felt George_Galloway was an assclown, to give an example.

[lumpenprol]

 

some guy from reddit:

 

There's a word omitted from the dictionary for people who believe "compassionate" statements from a president who:

• destroyed Russian democracy, ruling the country with a combination of Ex-KGB, Mafia and those oligarchs who have sworn fealty
• throws the rest of the oligarchs/ dissenters into prison without a trial, with nice touches such as purposefully exposing them to tuberculosis in the hope that they would die of "natural causes" before the mock-trial
• OPENLY KILLED Alexander Litwnienko in the middle of London, using a rare isotope as a special fuck-you message to everyone thinking about betraying Putin (that's why Polonium was used as opposed to a simple bullet to the head- to MAKE CLEAR that it was state-ordered)
• destroyed Czechnya, killed and raped its people, and installed a vassal to Moscow that to this day continues to oppress the people
• has a Punk band thrown into prison for some mildly outrageous public stunt, IS CRACKING DOWN ON GAY PEOPLE, and not-so-secretly playing to ultranationalism in the hope of diverting his people's attention from their squalid conditions
• most likely backed the attempted assassination of Ukraine's elected leadership, and props up the last European dictator in Belarus.

...but sure, Obama's the devil, military intervention would have been catastrophic, and in NO WAY is Putin just looking out for Russian military interests in the middle East. You can see his peaceful intentions by the fact that NOT TWO DAYS after suggesting Syria turn in its poison gas, Russia agreed to outfit the Syrian army with the newest anti-aircraft defence system, effectively preventing any Western military intervention (as we would lose quite a bit of hardware if we were to go now).

Yeah yeah, since he says such REASONABLE things let's all listen to Putin. I almost feel like resurrecting the old anti-commie statement of "why don't you move to Russia then?".

How someone can honestly convince themselves that the US, with all its faults, corruption and pettiness, is even in the same LEAGUE of fucked-upness as countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. is absolutely beyond me. Put down the rose-tinted glasses.

BIG EDIT since everybody's screaming at me "But this is not about Putin, this is about the MESSAGE! Peace and love and unity!"

JUST HOW GULLIBLE do you have to be to not realize the precise intent of this op-ed, as well as his other recent media outings? Do you really think that, as a world leader interested in peace in Syria, you would use a popular newspaper to talk to your political opponent, rather than, say, any of the 10,000 constantly open diplomatic channels between the Kremlin and the White House?

This is not about the message. This is about Putin sensing dissent in the US, and driving his dagger right into the fault line. His true audience is not Obama, or the leadership. His audience is YOU, because the more conflicted the US is about intervention, the more secure the leadership of countries like Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe (to name just a few) are in their seats, and the more likely they are to ally themselves with Russia if Putin can present himself as the guy who can stop the West from bombing you. What do you think will happen to Syria when Assad (with Putin's help) manages to kill the last of the resistance? It will be complete, 100% total vassal of Russia, since Putin will never let Assad live that debt down. Yet here's Reddit fawning over one of the most insiduous and cold dictators since Stalin just because Obama didn't overturn all of the (admittedly not minor) US corruption, and turned out to be just another Washington dick.

So ABSOLUTELY we should discuss whether or not military intervention makes sense, ABSOLUTELY there is much to be said pro/ con, ABSOLUTELY you should harry your representative to make your voice heard. But don't fucking let someone who would readily imprison you for your dissent were you in Russia tell you what to think or not to think of the US, when all he wants is to see you low.

TL;DR: For once, the messenger matters MORE than the message.

FINAL EDIT: Thanks for the gold, anonymous benefactor! What a kind and cool thing to do- I shall use golden status

 

 

 

that's very on target. I couldn't believe the pussy riot incident. Plus the recent anti-gay ridiculousness.

 

Putin is still sly like a fox, though. At least he understands the value of quiet diplomacy and coalitions. Seems Obama forgot that part (as well as the part about rallying domestic support)