Obama & Putin at UN - full transcript of both speeches

*Note to mods: There is no one story available with both speeches. I hope you'll allow some latitude for this thread as I have linked both speeches transcripts as a point of discussion.

Presidents Obama and Putin both gave speeches today at the UN General Assembly. With so much at stake in Syria and other places, the contrasting world view displayed in these speeches is striking. The question is ...... whose view is more realistic and compelling? Links below.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/2...ction=devloc&q=obama+speech+at+UN&v=133247963

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...9/28/read-putins-u-n-general-assembly-speech/

 

Neither
The main goal is only in reference to Syria, Obama wants Assad gone and Putin wants to ensure Assad remains in power, neither will bring peace to the region or get ride of ISIS, there never be peace in the Middle East.

 

Did you read both that quickly? Obviously Syria is on the front burner, but they both went beyond that and essentially presented their wider views to the GA.

 

There wider views are not going to happen I addressed that also. The ME has been at war for thousands of years and will continue into the foreseeable future nothing either can or will do will change that fact.

 

The ME, since the end of WWI, is an artificial construct, thanks to Sykes-Picot. It would be hard to make the argument for any ME wars of the last 100 years happening without Western influence of some sort, and that would include all the various jihadist incarnations.

 

Not that you are wrong or even that I disagree with you, what would you do? Has the Middle East asked specifically for something different? I truthfully have no clue what they want, other than "Kurdistan" nothing else seems to be set in stone?

BTW, as the OP yikes.

When I watched Obama live from my office I have to be honest, I couldnt handle the translator for Putin and didnt last long.

I knew it was bad, but I didnt know it was that bad. Putin wiped the floor with him.

 

Good question. I know Saddam wanted Kuwait back, which was part of Iraq until the Brits lopped it off in the 1920's to deny Iraq access to the Persian Gulf.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html

Other than that, so much water has passed under the bridge that the best that could be achieved might be federal systems put in place. No one wants to give up territory, so a more equitable sharing is likely the best that could happen. We may ultimately see something like that in Syria.

As to the speeches, Putin made more sense. Obama got more applause. Putin, though, made his point well enough to go forward in Syria. Time will tell how that works out.

 

I think there is the usual situation - each of them has own truth. But from my point of view Obama has no decisions of ISIS crysis. He likes to speak about good, evil Asad, fallen Russian economy and etc. But this not a decision - it is populism. Putin from his side suggests specific decision (of course
also with huge amounts of populism))) - support of Assad. What view is better? The time will show But I think it is insane to beleive that after Assad's fall democracy will be set in Syria.

 

If peace can be achieved in Syria through the Russian framework, Assad will share in the credit. I don't see him falling in that case, but a re-formatted government is a real possibility.

No matter what was said in the speeches at the UN, Obama knows he has once again been outplayed by Putin. The reality is that the US coalition has failed and Russia must now be accommodated. Putin bided his time well and Lavrov's shuttle diplomacy in the region, along with the refugee crisis hitting Europe just before the UN meeting was perfect timing for Russia to press forward with its plan.

 

No, the US uses Democracy to imply they will never support Assad, we know there wont be a Democracy in Syria because for the past 4 years there havent been a Syria, Assad killed the Democratic option when he refused to pass leadership when the rebels had a real opposition, now only terrorists remain, so you'll have Assad in Damascous for as long as the Russians protect him (he will still die in his toilet by a rebel one day) and the other parts on Syria will be divided, that's what already been happening, Russia wont regain Assad lost terretories without massive land unit support.

 

Generally I agree with you. But I can not imagine that Obama aft words "Asad must leave" (under Obama I mean US government) will change his mind. Moreover I do not beleive that wining ISIS is our (Russian) aim in ME. Only make political points and push ISIS from Syria.

 

What do you think Putin will achieve in Syria ? he can only hope to protect Damascus for his own reasons - not for helping refugees that refuse to fight for Assad and flee to Europe,

This is like the US support of the Iranian Shah only Russia actually sends troops there, there is NO way Assad will regain Syria, he and Russia may - perhaps - depending on the will of the ppl - infuse some life in Damascous to extend its suffering, but he will fall eventualy, not because of Israel or USA but because his own ppl turned thier backs to him (yea Im talking about the 15 Million Syrians over the 5 Million that support him), he is down to Merch's from Lebanon, Iran and now Russia.

 

Putin has mentioned more than once the number of Russian citizens joining ISIS and that he doesn't want them back in Russia. Seems like a real enough motivation to me.

I don't think he wants to commit a lot of troops to Syria. He would rather send a small number of specialists to help the Syrians. That way, any victory (or defeat) would be more Assad's to take credit or blame for. I have seen mention of Russian airstrikes already, though, but not sure if that's reliable info.

Things could get bigger though, as Iraq is now sharing intel with Russia and Iran. Guess we'll all just have to watch it unfold.

 

I don't equate this with US support of the shah. Iran had a full scale popular uprising. In Syria, any popular uprising has been pushed aside by the jihadi headchoppers. Totally different set of dynamics.

I think Putin, first of all, wants ISIS defeated. Then, a political settlement in Syria. I don't think he would expend this much effort for a rump Syria. JMO

 

exactly that s what I ve just said - limited Russian involvement will not defeat ISIS Iraq is not our problem...

 

It is very naivy to think that there was a healthy opposition in Syria... Open your eyes look at Libya - there are only two types of opposition in such countries: guys with guns whom want to replace Assad and guys - religious fanatics like ISIS. And 15 mln people hate assad much less than this f..ing endless war. As a matter of fact I think these 15 mlns hate everything Assad, opposition, USA, ISIS and Israel (historically) And whom we should blame for this? Idiots with weapon? Or another idiots whom gave them this weapon?

I agree with you that without land support Assad has no opportunities to unite all parts of Syria. This hell is for a long time....

- - - Updated - - -

Pls see above

 

Pushed aside ? yes, but to what extant and for how long ? the vast majurity is still opposing Assad only they got no real alternatives now, for Russia to bet on Assad is very unsecure move, once ISIS is pushed back from certain areas the heat will turn back on Assad and then what? Russia will be the personal guard of a dictator his own ppl will continue to seek killing him with some acutual boots on the ground, forget diplomats in US embessy....

But yea, for the first move, a join up against ISIS is best, Im willnig to bet that the Syrian rebels/USA/Israel red line to push back ISIS is much diffrent than the Russian/Iranin red line.

 

After defeat of ISIS the tension between Assad and rebels will move to the first line again, you are right. But look on the other side of this medal. At the end of the war with ISIS in Syria Assad will receive 100 thousand army with modern Russian weapon which came trough hell. And rebels will have two ways - join or die in endless war against Assad supported by Russia. In other words for not fanatics the best way - joining to the process of negotiations. Time will show what they will choose Yes good old days of non controlled dictatorship has gone for Assad but not his time at all... Such structure with Assad may be stay for decades..

 

And from the point of view of border countries. What will Israel government choise? To have near controlled dictator or uncontrolled country in chaos? Or you think among Syrian rebels a lot of people who are not radicals in respect to Israel and Golan Heights? Think about this...

 

Ehm ... you know a fact?
Israel wasn't happy about Arab Spring movement in general! In matter of Syria it was undisputed that Israel and Assad regime were hostile, but aside some minor issue sin Lebanon there was since more as 3 decades only a cold war between both ... a situation with what Israel could live with and was pleased so far + of course watching eyes and the usual hidden war of secret services.
The Rebellion swept this all away and reactions of Israel in Syria were ice cold acting against any rebels + destroying of all serious dangerous weapons if in danger that falling in rebels hands via Air Strikes and Commando Actions!

So in answer to your question:

There was for Israel never any question you are asking here and now ... because they always preferred Assad, because computable regime!

 

You keep saying "defeat ISIS" what does that mean ? you think Russia will remain there till ISIS is gone from Iraq? Iraq ppl = ISIS.....

 

) it was a rhetorical question to Gilos, you ve just widden my thought by details like there is no question for Iraq and Jordan... That is why I think Assad with Russian support may stay in power as long as we need

 

Of course no - defeat ISIS in Syria only that s what I mean. In other words to bleed white Syrian part of ISIS. I think its possible by Assad hands

Iraq war with ISIS is the problem which may be solved only by attraction of large ground forces. In other words - USA and EU problem.

 

But Russia will set its strengthen forces in Syria also for decades. It is not connected straightly with ISIS

 

The US is not a democracy. It's an oligarchy. So stop pumping out this democratic nonsense as though the US holds the moral high ground. It does't and hasn't for a long, long, long, time.