Reading Between the Lines of Putin's Op-Ed

REPLAY VIDEO
Your next video will start in
Pause

Recommended Videos

  • Info

  • Comments

  • VIDEO TEXT

Sept. 12 (Bloomberg) -- Andrew Weiss, VP for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Michael Allen, co-founder of Beacon Global Strategies, discuss Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. They speak with Pimm Fox on Bloomberg Television's "Taking Stock." (Source: Bloomberg)

We are also joined by michael allen, beagle globe and shouted cheese.

What do you make of the op ed piece?

We are also joined by michael allen, beacon global strategies.

There is nothing that putin has not been saying over the last 18 months.

The real question is what russian negotiators are able to sign on to and what is he able to get bashar al-assad to do.

Do you think john kerry will be successful with his russian counterpart in the negotiations?

I think it will be tough.

You will hear whether their accession to the chemical weapons convention is verifiable and enforceable.

These are two big questions.

That is why secretary kerry has brought experts with him to geneva and they will have to drill down on the details or else it will not be taken as a serious agreement.

Is this really all about chemical weapons or is it about the balance of power and strategic interest in the middle east?

I think the russians have three priorities.

They want to forestall u.s. military action and they see this as a way to do that falls top they are worried about the overall situation in the middle east.

They see a conflict brewing and they are worried about how that might impact russia along their southern frontier.

Is this about the russian interest in the middle east?

It is absolutely about their interests in the middle east and really on the world stage.

We know something about putin and i think that he regrets the collapse of the soviet union.

A little bit of the op-ed was him saying i am still here, i am trying to be a big player.

Certainly in the middle east but he is reminding us in his role in the un security council.

When people hear that him -- that from him, they think he is a soviet retread.

He said that anyone who doesn't miss the soviet union has no heart at anyone who wants it back has no brain.

There is a characterization here that folks tend not to focus on.

This is a pragmatic kind of person.

He revels in the bad arrest and engages in a lot of trash talking but if there is a deal to be had, we should not be trying to egg him on to just not do it to spite us.

Can you talk about the religious aspects of this conflict?

The russian president is a follower of the russian orthodox church.

The syrian minority was protected by bashar al-assad.

I thought it was ironic that putin en vogue the pope and the religious overtones must be a part of what his thinking is but overall this is him trying to protect his client in the middle east, trying to protect russia's interest in the middle east and i think that is the primary motivator for his actions of late.

We spoke earlier about how the world of twitter was a fire because of this piece from vladimir cutin and we are getting news that twitter is going to file for an ipo.

Is this the current state of diplomacy that will be conducted in public?

No, what are the important early investors and twitter was a russian venture capital firm called global sky.

The presentations today by lavrov and kerry, lavrov said that diplomats like the quiet.

We will say what they produce.

These are hard issues.

This is not something that people will get full transparency on on the outside.

Diplomats might like quiet and silas but politicians, that is not so much their bag.

What will happen with the house of representatives and the senate when it comes to supporting the president if indeed military action is called for?

If we learned anything from the past 10 days or so, it is that support is very thin in the house of representatives and apparently we were beginning to lose votes in the senate as well and i think that is why president obama asked the congress to postpone the vote.

I think what the president has got to be able to say to putin is that the threat of military force is a real option as far as the u.s. is concerned because that is where he thinks he will get leverage over the russians.

The president must be able to keep that option out on the table so he can get the best deal he can.

Would military action actually work when it comes to dealing with chemical weapons in syria?

We have read that even in the best of times, albeit with a civil war going on, it is difficult to find these kinds of weapons and dispose of them.

I think the president was true to his word when he said that we don't do pinpricks.

This text has been automatically generated. It may not be 100% accurate.

Advertisement

BTV Channel Finder

Channel_finder_loader

ZIP is required for U.S. locations

Bloomberg Television in   change