Obama and Putin: Two Conflicting Views

The U.N. General Assembly took place on Monday, featuring speeches from Obama and Putin on the Syria situation, the Islamic State group and the consequent war on terrorism. Following the trajectory of each speech and the post-assembly media analysis has left us with the impression that we are watching the transformation of the architecture of global politics.

The speech given by Obama did not stray too far from America’s standard strategic doctrine: He emphasized the importance of having a dominant position, sticking to the American tradition of interpreting the world as unipolar (“I lead the strongest military that the world has ever known, and I will never hesitate to protect my country or our allies”). He insisted on removing Assad — who he has defined several times as a terrible “tyrant” — and stuck by the method (already tried-and-tested) of preventing by any means the entrenchment of dominant regional stances that are clearly at odds with U.S. policies.

It is worth noting moments in the speech where Obama returned to the parameters that form his philosophy: reflections on how aggressive policies toward Cuba are changing, and his request for international cooperation in the war on terror in the Middle East. It is hardly a mystery that redistributing power and displacing attention onto new territories (which are seen as strategic for keeping the balance in the 21st century, the “pivot toward Asia”) top the list of solutions used by the Obama administration.

Putin’s speech had a different strategic, political and communicative scope: The Russian leader spoke briefly, with coherent rhythm, and avoided dramatic pauses.

He started out with a forthright attack on America’s foreign policy in the last 20 years, guilty of leaving power vacuums in Africa and the Middle East that have allowed a terrorist entity — that includes the Islamic State group — to develop. Strong words were used to criticize the decision to train rebels and terrorists against Syria: “It is [...] irresponsible to manipulate extremist groups [...], hoping that later you’ll find a way to get rid of them or somehow eliminate them. To those who do so, I would like to say — dear sirs, no doubt you are dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're in no way primitive or silly. [...] any attempts to play games with terrorists, let alone to arm them, are not just short-sighted, but fire hazardous [sic]. This may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions.”

Beyond this diametrically opposed view on the role of Assad — seen by Putin as the way to bring stability to Syria — the real show of difference between the two leaders’ speeches resides in their different visions for the future architecture of world politics.

On the one hand there is the universalist ideal, represented by Obama, which requires America’s unipolar political set up. On the other is Putin’s multipolar approach, which reinforces the importance of keeping sovereign states independent and of having varied political and developmental models. Making these two visions coincide would not be easy.

“We are all different, and we should respect that. No one has to conform to a single development model that someone has once and for all recognized as the only right one,” is how Putin put the aforementioned concept into words.

The General Assembly has therefore shown signs of change where international power relations are concerned — from a diplomatic point of view, anyway. Maybe, in this moment of great instability in a region of first-rate importance such as the Middle East, the audience of U.N. representatives and millions of spectators across the world will — for the first time — have anticipated Putin’s speech with more trepidation than they did Obama’s.

A leader of a country that differs from the U.S. seems to have taken control of the reins, strengthened by strategic and political errors made by the eternal rivals. Now he is getting ready to outline the next moves in the Middle East.

According to the latest news, the evening summit between Obama and Putin (despite their continuing profound differences on the future role of Assad) seems to have produced possible solutions with regard to the fight against the Islamic State group, with a potential coalition of international air forces. In any case, Russia has begun its raids on some military targets belonging to extremist factions on Syrian territory, backed by Damascus.

The struggle against the Islamic State group and a long-term political project that will bring stability to the Middle East must be prioritized by the international community, which in this way has the opportunity to stop and redirect the flow of migrants: The salvation of entire populations and the tortured story of terrorism cannot wait any longer.