Статья Путина в New York Times.

A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria

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.”

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.

New York Times

Заинтересовала не столько сама статья, сколько реакция Американцев на неё. Большинство одобряет и поддерживает Путина. А в комментариях на речь Обамы от 10 сентября большинство его(Обаму) хает))

Я тоже сомневаюсь , что у Америки есть там долгосрочные интересы, чего не скажешь о России, не ручаюсь за точность , но Сирия должна России 39 млрд. , в основном за оружие.

Выступая на заседании правительства в четверг, министр финансов Алексей Кудрин сообщил, что общая сумма задолженности Сирии как заемщика бывшего СССР составляет 14 миллиардов 550 миллионов долларов. Сумма встречных требований составляет 1 миллиард 150 миллионов долларов.

“Долг окончательно составил 13 миллиардов 400 миллионов долларов”, - сообщил Кудрин.

Тогда же правительство решило списать 3/4 долга.

…правительство РФ одобрило проект соглашения с Сирией, которое предусматривает списание этой стране 73% долга перед Россией.

“Речь идет о соглашении, о котором ранее договорился Владимир Путин, поэтому в действиях правительства нет ничего принципиально нового. Что касается самого факта списания основной части долга, то мы долги списали практически всем странам - Сирия одна из последних. И, например, после списания 80 процентов долгов Ираку, оставлять долги Сирии было бы просто смешно”, - сказал Никонов в четверг “Интерфаксу”.

В качестве основной причины списания долгов Сирии он обратил внимание на то, что “Сирия - неплатежеспособная страна”.

Источник

Нассать на его мнение. Пусть в России порядок наводит. США наведёт порядок в Мире. А потом, возможно, и в России. :whats_up:

СССР не существует уже 19 лет, Сирия “наотдолжала” уже немало у РФ.
Долги обычно списывают в обмен на что-то, например на возможность добывать полезные ископаемые в Сирии. Так же я не уверен в Вашем источнике и цитируемым им Кудриным, уж извините:)

Это новость за 2005 год. Гугл выдает огромное кол-во ссылок на эту тему.
Насчет содержания статьи дискутировать бесполезно - у каждой стороны там свой “интерес”. А вот реакция американского общества на критику собственного президента мне показалась интересной.

критиковать президента в США не уголовно наказуемо и я вот что вижу в комментах

While I believe that the stated goal of this article is admirable, let’s not forget that the motivation behind creating of this op-ed is not entirely benign. Russia has a significant presence within Syria, and has continued to invest a significant amount of money and resources to keep the established government in power.

и вот

Why were there zero proposals for peace from Russia until the Syrian government’s chemical weapons were threatened with force?

Would it had to have come to military threats if Russia had not consistently threatened to use their UN veto?

So Russia now proposes that those weapons be collected from the Syrian government, even while Mr. Putin continues to tell us that it was the rebel forces who used them? Really?

Please name a leader who does not believe, or at least say, that their country is exceptional.

коммент шикарен: путин сомневается , что хим. оружие применено правит. войсками и предлагает мирные переговоры и собрать всё хим. оружие. У кого? Повстанцев или Асада?
и вот это , особенно первые 2 абзаца

I wish I could feel that Mr. Putin was being sincere here. If nothing else, he has a fabulous writer.

But at my age, having grown up during the Cold War and witnessed all sorts of tricks, lies, distortions, and manipulations by the old Soviet Regime, I just have some doubts. As an ex-KBG agent, Mr. Putin may not be my age, but he was trained in the old Soviet culture.

I think the main thing that really strikes me here is how myopic the US can be to its image around the world. We pay lip service to the idea that certain actions will “surely win us more enmity around the world,” but we usually go on our merry way trying to get our way.

So, the benefit of Mr. Putin’s assessment here–even if contrived, manipulative, and written to lecture this country, in and of itself a pretty arrogant act–is how based in realpolitik it is.

But–and this is a very big but–I’m not sure that Russia is in any position to lecture anyone right now, given its long history of isolationism, paranoia, and curbs on basic freedoms inside its borders.

I think it will be interesting for all of us to save this article, and our posts, and see how they stack up against events as they unfold over the next 6 months. We will either be pleasantly surprised, or just surprised as how gullible we really were.

А остальные комментарии с высоким рейтингом Вы, конечно, не заметили, да? :wink:

прочитал примерно 10 , пять из них 5 поддерживают мою точку зрения и 5 -Вашу. Что будем делать?

Вот небольшая статья о том как пишутся комментарии к статьям в интернете http://www.novayagazeta.ru/society/59903.html

Вот небольшая статья о том как пишутся комментарии в интернете Новая газета - Novayagazeta.ru
Это я про то что много хвалебных комментариев в пользу Путина.

Статью читал , если честно не думаю что найдутся тролли со знанием английского, которые будут работать за 1000 баксов в месяц. Хвалебные оды в адрес ВВП-заблуждение доверчивых американцев, не более того.

Заинтересовала не столько сама статья, сколько реакция Американцев на неё. Большинство одобряет и поддерживает Путина. А в комментариях на речь Обамы от 10 сентября большинство его(Обаму) хает))

Газета эта является одной из самых либеральных в стране. И читают ее одни из самых либеральных господ. Отсюда и комментарии.
Пытаюсь вспомнить, пошел ли Путин в ООН перед входом в Грузию.

2 лайка

Нет, но других он туда посылать любит:lol:

А Washington Post тоже либеральная? Там речь Обамы критикуют.

Зато вчера Stock market поднялся почти на один процент. За один день.

по моему статья путина значительно сильнее обращения обамы

1 лайк

Обращение Обамы не смотрел. Что он говорил? Долго? Нудно?

США наведет порядок в других странах? не смешите меня,она скорее всех захватит под свою власть…
США построена на костях…

2 лайка

а черт его знает, что я слушал, что ли ? что нибудь про нацию говорил да про то что мол нельзя нам мордой в грязь ударить, надо чутка Сирию побомбить. а то уважать перестали.