Should Putin and Obama Save Syria? First considerations on the American speech at the General Assembly

(To Denise Serangelo)
28/09/15

At the 70 General Assembly of the UN they did not even agree on the program to follow during the bilateral meetings, let alone on Syria.
 When the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, anticipated the contents of today's meeting he stressed the Syrian crisis, while the White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, argued that the main topic being discussed between Putin and Obama will be the situation in eastern Ukraine.
An oversight? Not so.

The only weak point of coincidence seems to be the need to cooperate jointly for the good of Syria.
While the president of the United States - Barack Obama - enchants the crowd, Putin launches a new request for a military coalition to fight the IS.
A speech heard, that of the president, and as usual his rhetoric strikes, the right times, the right words.
Evocative examples and subtle allusions project the listener into an imaginary video where everything is organized and planned.
Obama is the face of America that does not apologize or justify itself, which denies the criticisms leveled by half the world over the lack of interventionism in Syria.
But this time, words are not enough, the World is afraid and has the eyes of an imploring child.

The habit of beautiful speeches and good intentions clashes loudly with a very different reality, with a flawed American foreign policy, crafty and hesitant.
That there would be little incisiveness on the international front, Obama, had announced it at his re-election, taking many steps backwards from the Middle Eastern powder keg.
It was preferred to decline the offer to put voice, again, in countries like Syria and Iraq to make room for countries like Japan and the United Arab Emirates (hopefully one day United).
Beautiful, beautiful, but impractical.

"Is the United Nations still fit to protect this world? To guarantee its stability?"
The president's question is legitimate but the answer is equally rhetorical.

"The order imposed by force by the greatest and most powerful powers cannot work"
Here, that strident sound, reality and words that collide and are not found.
America in Iraq has implemented one of the greatest military and diplomatic failures in history, Obama knows it perfectly and sinks the knife into the newly opened wound.

With a coup de theater not small, he admits "we learned a terrible defeat from Iraq, we cannot defend the world alone. The order that a military contingent can create is a random order is temporary. Sooner or later this order imposed will start to creak ".
Never were words more true and above all meaningful.
Accustomed to a policy made up of stunts and continuous comebacks, Obama for once, assumes the faults of his nation.
A mea culpa made, perhaps, to pave the way for bilateral talks with Russia on the Syrian front?

It is difficult to favor this option when it then defines Assad as a "tyrant", closing the dialogue with Russia twice.
The road that the two presidencies have taken is not a credit to either of them, will they have noticed that their credibility is being severely tested?

Obama, after being admitted to Iraq, does not want to leave too much room for maneuver for Russia and Ukraine does not admit replies.
"America has no interests in those parts and its only desire is to see a free and sovereign Ukraine.
If a state violates the sovereignty of another state, let us remember that it could happen to all of you.
Russia could have embarked on a diplomatic path alongside the UN to defend those it believes are its rights. Instead he chose a road that hurts everyone ".
The lunge arrived straight but it is not finished.

"There is someone who tells us that we should support tyrants like Assad, because the alternative is much worse."
Struck and sunk but Putin's policy smiles at the verbal confrontation, thanks to his pragmatic interventionism, of his doing without speaking.

The world needs facts, of this.
If the fight against terrorism passes from the assumption of responsibility as claimed in Obama's speech, it certainly does not pass through Western countries but not even Russia.

For three weeks now President Putin has been playing Risk in front of the cameras, he claims he wants to revive Syria but in the end nothing is done. Moving a few tanks and making a big voice in front of the world craving facts is easy.
He really had the intentions to move, he had the means and the potential to do it, but he stalled and it was nothing different from what President Obama is continuing to do.

Definitely commendable is the intention to pave the way for a politically solid intervention, but without dialogue with the interested parties what intervention would we like to implement?
The American president does not explain this, but he comes back with strength to try to unite all the supporters of the Anti-Assad in a coalition.
"Only together could we win and only by making an inclusive government we would have a Syria capable of recovering"
The president does not seem to have understood the term "inclusive", that is, which includes all the actors competing for Syria, including Assad.
Having just made amends for Iraq, one thinks that he has not fully understood what mistakes have been made.
The Anti-Assad seems to be a fundamental requisite without which Syria will not be able to move forward, certainly a problem to be faced convincingly by both sides but where will the intransigence come from?
"We must be more incisive on the policies to be implemented after the fall of the oppressive regimes. We must support those who support a lasting peace process."

If Obama and Putin really wanted to save the country from an abyss that seems to be around the corner, the agreement would have already been signed for months.
The IS will not wait for the fate of Assad to be decided, the IS is hungry for territories and oil, it wants to conquer an entire state and at this rate, it will soon have its war booty.

Obama's phantasmagorical speech enchants but does not convince.
The ball is now in Putin's hands, hopefully aiming for his much-renowned pragmatism and proposing concrete and feasible ideas.

If the future of Syria is in the hands of the Obama and Putin policies, God will assist us.