Dospix: 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

Dospix: 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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

shymexx: No country is holy!

Lordave: you're just trying very hard to convince a lot of people that Russians ain't sissies in this case.
They certainly know that they have more to lose if it brakes out, hence, Putin is begging in a style.

You really know what Putin is feeling so I wouldn't say don't be deceived. And for those that're seeing putin as a saint, I've nothing to say to you all than to urge you guys to stop buying Shymexx's cheap propaganda. He sounds paid, like America has denied him something important in life.

Clueless Underdogs usually looks like Saints

Lordave: Russia is the holiest.

shymexx:

Utter bollocks!

Who told you Russians don't believe in God? Russian is more of a Christian country than America is and has more Christians than America. Ever heard about orthodox Christians and why gay marriage was outlawed in Russia?

And when did equality, transparency, democracy and equity became an American thing?

Most of you are robots, with garbage in, garbage out. You definitely need to read more.

ACM10:

Russia during the time of Communist rule was officially an atheist country. Orthodoxy started to make a comeback in the last decade. So he is right.

shymexx:

How are they sissies? They double-dared the yanks and NATO 2weeks ago like they have been doing for the past 2 years - why didn't the almighty yank and its dogs attack Syria? That alone should tell you who the pus.sy is!!

Putin saw a window of opportunity to help Obama save-face and he's just trying to be diplomatic. Even after he wrote this letter - he announced that Russia would be sell the s300 missiles to Iran, after cancelling it based on the agreement he had with US and Israel. So who's the pus.sy?

luckynzo: Whateva can be dnne to oust Assad's regime. The rebels will never win the war without the help of the U.S. This action is coming too late. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if they acted earlier. Two years and over 300,000 lives lost. C'mon. Na until e reach death toll of Rwandan genocide before we go wake up?

safarigirl: Dear Putin, your write-up was intelligent and thought-provoking. Concerning your last paragraph, that homo-supporting, animal- phucking anti-christ in the white house, unfortunately does NOT beleive in God or give 2 phucks bout Him, don't desecrate the name of the Most High when addressing demonic entities. Shalom.

Italiano1:
Very myopic view and shows lack of understanding.

Polish people and most Eastern European nations are just as anti- homosexuality but have no choice to tone their opposition due their membership of the EU . Go and do your research I beg you.

The USA is one of the very few countries where pro-Gay laws cannot be imposed by a Senate or Parliament, they practice true Federalism where each state can effectively decide whether to allow Gay marriage or not- I will like to see how Gay marriage will be accepted in Utah or Oklahoma in the nearest future.

You sound like you are anti- American which is your prerogative and I can understand that but when you say "And when did equality, transparency, democracy and equity became an American thing?" - Please can you give us an example of a country that encapsulates those qualities as much or better than the Americans then we can start the debate from there.

shymexx: Honestly, I still don't know why people always underestimate Russia.

Apart from Navy and arguably the airforce, the Russians are superior to the Americans.

They have more nuclear warheads, better cruise missiles, better defense capabilities, better army in terms of moral, better space technology, better ICBMs, and better in almost all other facets.

And with what Russia and Putin is cooking, by 2020, the Russian navy and airforce should be at par, if not better than the yank's.

So what's all this nonsense about America's invincibility about?

Italiano1:

Very myopic view and shows lack of understanding.

Polish people and most Eastern European nations are just as anti- homosexuality but have no choice to tone their opposition due their membership of the EU . Go and do your research I beg you.

The USA is one of the very few countries where pro-Gay laws cannot be imposed by a Senate or Parliament, they practice true Federalism where each state can effectively decide whether to allow Gay marriage or not- I will like to see how Gay marriage will be accepted in Utah or Oklahoma in the nearest future.

You sound like you are anti- American which is your prerogative and I can understand that but when you say "And when did equality, transparency, democracy and equity became an American thing?" - Please can you give us an example of a country that encapsulates those qualities as much or better than the Americans then we can start the debate from there.

ashile: This just made me LOVE this man d more

Negotiation is key

If war starts its not only going to affect syria, other neighbouring nations would feel the bite.

May I ask "what natural resources does syria have?"

Shey its oil

That says it all

BLACK GOLD

Lordave: You're trying harder.
Russia knows really well that they would profit from America's invasion of Syria, cuz Syria will order for more weapons from their ally Russia in defence of their country against the Yanks. And also they know they lack the ability to confront US and it would be a big disgrace and disappointment to those countries that has always looked up to them. That's certainly why they are trying to look like they are preventing a looming war.

The truth is that Russia would like America invade all arab countries so that they can keep milking them in the name of supplying weapons.
Inshort you know the truth but I don't know what America did to you, I don't know how much Russians paid you to be advertising their weapons on every thread.

You better refund their money cuz GEJ is buying no shît from them.

dokunbam: with all these diplomatic talk from RUSSIA,i think they are trying to win the heart of so many to their side

The world is now seeing US as government of force, really they should respect the international law
i dont support Syria, but....

China and Russia are now been friendly in the international politics, the baton will change one day

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

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

Italiano1:
I hope you know that is all conjecture unless you want to tell us you have simultaneously served in the Russian and American Military and have strong insider knowledge then your statement is largely theoretical.

Essentially, can you provide any cogent evidence to support your statement apart from Wikipedia?