Carnegie Moscow Center
The main goal of Vladimir Putin’s op-ed in the New York Times is to force the United States back into the U.N. Security Council-centered international system.
In his New York Times op-ed, Vladimir Putin asserts that Russia is not supporting Assad as an ally, but it is supporting the world order, centered on the U.N. Security Council.
As the debate over congressional authorization for action in Syria showed, the American public has lost its taste for unilateral military intervention that cannot be justified by a direct threat to American lives.
Moscow and Washington face the tough task of coming up with an enforcement mechanism to secure Syria’s chemical weapons that outlines possible consequences if Assad reneges or cheats on the deal.
Russia has submitted a plan for chemical weapons seizure in Syria.
The message that the president and the American people are sending at the moment is that the United States prefers even unlikely and temporary solutions over more war, more chaos, and possibly more Americans being put at risk.
For the moment, an idea that might ultimately seem to be in the interest of Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, arguably, the Syrian opposition has gained surprising traction.
Washington should endorse the Russian proposal and invest President Vladimir Putin’s prestige in winning Syria’s assent and full, timely implementation. Such an outcome would be better than military action and better than no action.
Russia’s position on Syria is based in large part on Moscow’s concerns about the political repercussions of intervention. At the G20 Summit, Vladimir Putin attempted to create a de facto referendum on intervention.
Though Putin purported to oppose any attempt to hijack the economic agenda of the G-20, he succeeded in setting the stage for a critical debate on U.S. foreign policy with the global leaders.