Putin Says Still at Odds with Obama after Bilateral Syria Talks, U.S. Leader Says Convincing Congress will be Tough
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربيةRussian President Vladimir Putin on Friday said he held talks on Syria with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G20 summit but confirmed the meeting did not end their differences on the conflict, as the American leader said he knew convincing the U.S. Congress to back military action against Damascus would be a "heavy lift."
"We spoke sitting down... it was a constructive, meaningful, cordial conversation. Each of us kept with our own opinion," Putin told reporters, saying the meeting lasted 20 to 30 minutes.
"There is dialogue, we hear each other and understand the arguments," Putin said. "He (Obama) disagrees with my arguments, I disagree with his arguments, but we do hear, and we try to analyze," he said.
The Russian leader said he agreed with Obama that a meeting between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry must be held as soon as possible.
His chief foreign policy aide Yury Ushakov also confirmed that the "contradictions remained" after the talks.
Putin said that a majority of countries at the G20 appeared to be supporting his position.
"You said views divided 50-50, that is not quite right," Putin said in answer to a journalist's question, listing only the United States, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France as countries supporting an intervention.
He said German Chancellor Angela Merkel remained "careful" and that while the British Prime Minister David Cameron supports the strike, he does not represent the "will of the people" as parliament rejected intervention.
Meanwhile, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Italy were "against military action," he said.
Even in the countries supporting the strikes, "the majority of the population is on our side," opposing them, he added.
"Using force against a sovereign state can only be done in self defense, and Syria is not attacking the United States," said Putin, adding such action could only be approved by the U.N. Security Council.
"As one participant said yesterday, those who do something different are placing themselves outside the law," he added.
Meanwhile, Obama on Friday acknowledged that he knew convincing the U.S. Congress to back military action against the Syrian regime would be a "heavy lift."
"I knew this was going to be a heavy lift," he told reporters at the end of the G20 summit in Russia. "I understand the skepticism," he added.
Obama stressed that the world cannot "stand idly" by on Syria and announced he would address the American people on Tuesday, describing his talks with Putin in Saint Petersburg as "as candid and constructive."
The U.S. president said tough decisions must be taken and that the U.N. Security Council must not be a hurdle in the way of enforcing international norms.
Obama added that he needs to convince the nation that his plans would be "limited and proportional" and designed to uphold international norms.
"I trust my constituents want me to offer my best judgment. That's why they elected me. That's why they re-elected me," he added.
With Congress showing signs of reluctance to back a resolution authorizing military strikes, Obama refused to say whether he would act if he fails to win that approval.
"It would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because right now I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," he said.
Obama told reporters that he and other leaders had had a "full airing of views on the issue." He said many foreign nations will be issuing statements on their positions, but he didn't say whether any specifically had joined France in supporting his move toward U.S. military strikes.
He said the leaders are unanimous in believing that chemical weapons were used in Syria and that international norms against that use must be maintained. He said division comes over how to proceed through the United Nations.
Obama added that he agreed with Putin that the conflict can only be resolved through a political transition, saying he thinks it is important that he and Putin work together to urge all sides in the conflict to try to resolve it.
The meeting came Friday as Obama sought to build international backing for military action. But three days after he left Washington, it's unclear whether the global coalition the president has been seeking is any closer to becoming a reality.
Putting up stiff resistance to Obama's appeals, Russia on Friday warned the United States and its allies against striking any chemical weapon storage facilities in Syria. The Russian foreign ministry said such targeting could release toxic chemicals and give militants or terrorists access to chemical weapons.
Obama earlier on Friday said the United States valued France's support for military action against Assad's regime.
"I value very much President Hollande's commitment to a strong international response for these grievous acts," he said, adding that "any action that we contemplate... would be limited and would be focused on deterring the use of chemical weapons in the future and degrade the Assad regime's capacity to use chemical weapons."
Later on Friday, Hollande said he will wait for the U.N. inspectors' report on their investigation of the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria.
That means even further delay in potential international armed action against Assad's military. France and the United States are preparing possible strikes, saying they have convincing evidence that Assad's regime launched the Aug. 21 attack.
France, which firmly backs the Syrian rebels and has strategic and historic interest in the region, had been ready to act last week but held off when Obama declared he would consult Congress first.
Hollande told reporters at the Group of 20 summit on Friday: "Yes, we will wait for the inspectors' report, as we will wait for the Congress vote."
It was the first time Hollande said he would wait for the U.N. report.
A French diplomatic official noted that his announcement came after discussions at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg with U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other world leaders, suggesting that those discussions persuaded Hollande to wait. The official was not authorized to be publicly named according to presidential policy.
Hollande's announcement appeared to catch French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius off guard. Earlier Friday, he told EU foreign ministers meeting in Lithuania that there was no need to await the U.N. report because it would simply confirm what was already known — that the chemical weapons attack had occurred — but would not say who was responsible.

time is running out on the Syrian regime, iran and their terrorist militia hizbushaitan.

The argument that " we should not turn to the UN because it is paralyzed over Syria." It sounds like someone wants to take the law by his own hand because the court of law does not share his own judgment. Imagine if we live in a society with such standard???

True, we took the law in our hand only when we got threatned by peace-loving muslim brotherhood. We take the matter in our hand when the west-Israel want to destroy every Christian in ME as happened in Iraq and Egypt. We do take the law in our hand if the Saudi Arabi is the role-model the zionist want for us in Syria. God bless your intellect!

My country, the USA, has no real allies in a strike over Syria nor does it have the support of the American people. World affairs, for better or worse, are governed by the United Nations. Humanitarian efforts to thwart the inhumane acts of gassing civilians must stem from a binding UN resolution, where the world body decides, finances and implements the agreed upon action. The USA has no legal standing to strike Syria without a UN resolution. If the USA wants to declare war against Syria which does not require a UN resolution then it must explain and justify the reasons why to the American people and then it must seek approval from congress prior to doing so, otherwise the war would be 100% illegal.

@Mr. Obama, lest you forgot, the USA does fight evil actors with evil actions and we certainly do not replace one evil with another to make a statement to the world that we are strong and mighty. There is absolutely no way the USA or the American people can be linked or identified as having helped unleash the likes of Al-Nusra on humanity. Act morally sir, no-one cares about credibility of the USA in the eyes of the world. Some hate us and will always attack us regardless, some worship us and will defend us regardless, no need to draw red lines and start World War Three to show everyone whose the boss. Yes Mr. Obama, even the USA is not above the law!

It's all hype and show, I don't think there will be any attack. America only attacks defenseless countries. Syria is not at that point yet so hence no attack.

america only attacks "defensless "countries.....yes korea , japan and hitler's germany were defensless.....need some more history reading my man.....and saddam was not defensless .....

to hb9z, We are not talking about ww2. America is not the same country it used to be back then. Besides, don't forget it wasn't a sole mission by the americans against Germany, you had the allies from west and Russia from east so maybe it is you that needs some history lessons. I know Lebanese don't like to give the Syrians credit for anything but believe it or not, the Syrians have the most disciplined and best army in the middle east. For them Israel would be a cake walk if it weren't for the back stabbing Arabs and Turks.

@viper-nibble. Well, what more proof do you want then the current situation. Is it not the neighboring arab countries along with turkey that is attempting to destroy Syria. just imaging what would have happened to Syria if they had made the first move to attack Israel.

mr city boy....russia begged america at the yalta conference to open the western front and the allies were mainly american 80% of the force and canada and britain and france 20%- so without america , we would be speaking german now ...or nothing because hitler would have nuked us... any way , you believe america has changed since WWII and korea and I do not agree except for the matter regarding israel unfortunately where they need to correct that ...
and regarding your belief in the syrian army ...its much worse than what the iraqi army was , if that does not tell you anything ...you are hopeless .....

mr hb9z, before you call anyone hopeless you better look in the mirror. I never thought much of the Iraqi army, so don't even bother comparing that army to the Syrian army. It was 2 years ago that I told your like on here that Bashar is not going anywhere. And no attack from the Americans will change that. The Americans will give will regret any attack, that is if they are foolish enough to strike Syria.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/aipac-syria-_n_3862369.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
""It is imperative to adopt the resolution to authorize the use of force," the powerful Israel lobby said in a statement. It urged members of Congress to "take a firm stand that the world’s most dangerous regimes cannot obtain and use the most dangerous weapons." "
AIPAC calls for the use of force:http://www.capwiz.com/aipac/issues/alert/?alertid=62906416&type=CO
http://www.aipac.org/en/news-hub?id={3D36D091-5FD8-48EA-837A-9DE611A29922}#
"AIPAC will be lobbying in favor of Congress authorizing the President to use military force in Syria."
" We believe that Congress’ failure to grant the President this authority would be interpreted as a sign of American weakness, and cast doubt about whether America will act to carry out its commitments in the Middle East – including the President’s and Congress’ pledge to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."
etc.

M11er, very true generally, but how true is it in this case?
Pushing for US military intervention/action makes a lot of sense for Israel.
First, if America DOES seem weak, Iran won't mind the threats all that much/won't be afraid/US pressure won't work/Iran will be encouraged.
Second, it's about time Al-Assad is replaced. Al-Assad being so sympathetic to Iran is dangerous in both expanding its already significant influence over the region(Iran-Syria-Iraq-Lebanon+regional countries) and its direct and unhampered logistical ease in delivering weapons to Hizbullah(through Syria). A replacement for Al-Assad, one who is much less sympathetic to Iran makes sense, and to take advantage of US intervention to shield Israel from the spotlight in its ambitions makes even more sense.I do not understand why regime change is bad for Israel, especially since many of the more prominent members of the coalition are great replacements wanting to please the West/cut off ties with Iran/Hezbollah.

Actually:
"what better scenario for israel it is than to see hezballa, syria, iran and al qaeda fighting each other"
This is true, hence Israel supports the US attack since it will benefit.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/20139414329291833.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-organizations-in-us-support-syria-strike/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-dUSBRE97K0EL20130903
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/why-israel-supports-the-syria-strike/279428/
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/white-house-congress-syria-protect-israel-96133_Page2.html

was hoping putin will pressure assad into discussions before the strikes but maybe not....

don't agree// eric cantor virginia republicain and a jew was strongly for it...bachar is a dangerous madman and he is best removed.....

that would be blessing that would stop the bloodshed at least.....