Anyone even slightly-versed in global politics knows that Barack Obama of the U.S. and Vladimir Putin of Russia seem destined to be at odds over just about everything. That dynamic is on full-display these week as world leaders from across the globe converge in New York City to attend the United Nations General Assembly, and today it culminated as both men spoke on their views regarding the Syrian crisis and the international community’s response toward it.
President Obama cautioned member nations to avoid the temptation of using military power alone to enforce order in the region, and called out Russia multiple times by denouncing their solid support of current Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. He strongly opposed providing any resources to al-Assad, whom he described as a “tyrant” who “drops barrel bombs to massacre innocent civilians”.
A little more than an hour later, Putin responded to President Obama’s accusations by claiming that al-Assad represents “stability in the region” and that arming his militants represents the best way to fight the forces of ISIS– despite the fact that, currently, Russian and Syrian governmental forces are primarily engaged in stopping rebel Syrian forces seeking to oust al-Assad.
However, Putin did out-step Obama by calling for GA Resolution to establish an international coalition with a united plan to stop ISIS. This sort of coordinated multinational response is long overdue, but the drastically-different methods currently being carried out by the United States and Russia will not result in any efficient solution to Syria’s many problems.
Many countries are willing to participate in an international military effort in Syria, but the question remains: does it make more sense to stick by al-Assad and his regime, as per Russia’s strategy, or to work independently or with rebel groups, as has so far been the U.S.’s main policy? For a sophisticated effort to take place, either Obama or Putin will have to convert to the other’s plan for defeating ISIS in Syria.
BYU Kennedy Center Live 
With both sides playing opposites, it’s as if this new “proxy war” is straight from the history books on the Cold War.
I agree, there is a conflict of interest regarding who is going to be the savior. The Syrian crisis needs to be viewed from a humanitarian and anti-extreme point of view. Nevertheless, it is always more convenient for the US, Russia, and any other nation that offers its help to consider what is going to get back if it becomes involve in the conflict. I do not take the involvement on any conflict lightly. It will take a lot of economic and human capital to get involved, but maybe the approach might be a wrong one.
All I see from this is another my horse is bigger than your horse situation. It’s like we would rather take on all the burden than share the glory with another. Until we learn to work together we probably will just end up doing more harm than good. I’m sure there is a compromise that could provide both parties (America and Russia) with some happiness, we just have to be willing to sit down and come to it.
At this point in the 4 and a half year war it seems almost futile to go either way. Yes, Assad is being pushed into a corner, but what ground has the rebels gotten when ISIS is gaining so much ground? I wonder if it would be best to bring both sides to the table and let diplomacy work its magic by letting them figure out a stable government, the departure of Assad and building a united front against the ISIS forces.
The awkwardness surrounding Putin and Obama’s opposing comments makes it seem like achieving an agreement will be difficult. Putin’s call for a “broad coalition” to coordinate military moves was an interesting point, as I don’t see how this coalition could be made without either side budging, and judging from President Hollande’s comments about Assad’s departure, I don’t know how a coalition will turn out in favor of Russia’s current aims. Perhaps he was just trying to save face from having an opposing opinion, as a call for diplomacy helps him seem a little more understanding than Obama.
I think that the worst part is that they are both pointing fingers without even presenting actual resolutions to the problem. Yes, we already know that there is a problem and who has caused it, but lets try to figure something out to help those people rather than condemn one another and point fingers. It’s politics at its finest I guess.
__ presents a good topic and good summary (although it would’ve bee nice to see more of a position and an argument). Bravo on Putin’s outstepping Obama by appealing to the General Assembly. Funny, how he institutes that measure after being absent from the body for over a decade, and it was a good point to bring it up.
However, what are “the drastically-different methods currently being carried out by the United States and Russia” that “will not result in any efficient solution to Syria’s many problems”? I feel that other measures are being carried out in the state department and in terms of hosting refugees. Other points were good, but would’ve liked a little more meat and potatoes here.
*Note: ___ was ment to include “amandasolomon”
Putin and Obama have completely separate agendas that are going to conflict even further in the future. It’s no surprise that they are awkward around one another. Obama is trying to shake a finger at Putin and Putin simply doesnt care. Obama is either needs to either start taking serious actions against Putin to show how serious he is, or back down because Putin isnt going to back down anytime soon. He has too much at risk to look weak in front of the Russian people at this point.