isil. they're fighting hundreds if not thousands of groups, the free syrian army, north and southal news have a front and a variety of local groups as well as imitself. the syrian army is stretched very thin. russians are not going to put front line troops into syria. they don't want another afghanistan. i'm not sure it would make much difference any way. what this will do is probably shore up the regime from losing mortar tore. they are weak in the air. they've used helicopters and barrel bombs for a reason, because they don't have main good ground attack assets. this is what the russians are now giving them. in a sense what we're seeing the russians are putting assad in a stronger negotiating situation clearly not allowing him fall. unless assad were to fall, i don't think we'll see a solution ultimately. >> if he were to fall that would create a vacuum. what would happen if he did fall? >> in the current circumstances yes, it would cause a vacuum.
but the international communities that agreed we need an inclusive transitional government, even russia and iran agree to that. what we're seeing under the circus here is intensified diplomacy between the americans, russians and iranians and others to talk about what that might look like. this is long overdue. president obama has talked about the need for diplomacy, and really there has been far too little diplomacy over syria. >> what is happening now, as we were talking, russian president vladimir putin being introduced. >> i have the honor to welcome to the united nations he's excellency vladimir putin, president of russian federation and to invite him to address the assembly. >> your excellency,
mr. president, your excellence president secretary germ. distinguished heads of government, ladies and gentlemen, the 70th anniversary of the united nations is a good occasion to both take stock of history and talk about our common future. in 1945 the countries that defeated naziism joined its efforts for a post world order, but mind you the key decisions on the principles guiding the cooperating states ands establishment in the united nations were not mate in our country but in the anti-hitler coalition leaders. the system was actual more at the cost of tens of millions of lives and two world wars.
let us be fair. it helped the humanities through turbulent and at times dramatic events through the last seven decades. it saved the world from upheav upheaval. the united nations is unique in its legitimacy, representation, and universallality. it is true that the u.n. has been widely criticized for supposedly not being efficient enough and for the fact that the decision making on fundamental issues draw to insurmountable differences, first of all among the security council. however, i would like to point out that there have always been differences in the u.n. throughout all these 70 years of existence.
the rights have always been exercised by the united states, the united kingdom, france, china, the soviet union, and it is natural for diverse and representative an organization. when the u.n. was established its founders did not in the least think that there would always be unity. the strength of taking different views and opinions in consideration, but decisions debated within the u.n. are either taken as resolutions or not. they are to pass or not pass. what are the actions any state might take by passing this procedure are illegitimate. the u.n. charter and would defy
the international law. we all know after the end of the cold war, everyone is aware of that. a single center of domination emerged in the world, and then those who found themselves at the top of the pyramid were tempted to think that if they were strong and exceptional they knew better, and they did not have to recogniz reckon with the u.n. and often creates obstacles or in other words stands in the way. it has now become commonplace to see that it is original form has become absolute and it's historical mission. of course the world is changing, and the u.n. must be consistent with its natural transformation. russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of what consensus.
but we consider the attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the united nations as extremely dangerous. they could lead to a collapse of the entire architecture of the international relationship and then there would be no other rules left but the rule of force. there would be a world dominated by search irness rather than collective work, a world increasingly dictated, there would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by ever growing number of protectorates and controlled territories. what is the state sovereign as mention by our colleagues here? it is basically about freedom and the right to choose one own's nation for independent
nation-states. colleagues, the same holds true of the question of the sow legitimacy state one should play with or manipulate words every term in international law and international affairs should be clearly transparent and have uniformly placed. we're all different, and we should respect that. no one has to conform to a single development model that some have recognized as the only right one. we should remember what our past has taught us. we remember the history of the soviet union. social experiment for exports and placing other countries of
ideal preferences of tragic consequences, and to degradation rather than progress. it is that learning from other's mistakes everyone keeps repeating them. so the exper the export of evolutions, the democratic ones continues. it continues to look at the middle east and northamption africa as presented by my perimeter speaker, political problems in these regions have piled up for a long time, and people there who seek changes naturally. but how would it turn out? rather than bringing about reforms and foreign interference has resulted in a brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself. instead of the triumph of democracy and progress, there is
violence, poverty and social disaster. and no one cares a bit about human rights, including the right to life. i cannot help asking those who have caused the situation do you realize what you've done? but i'm afraid no one is going to answer that. and impunity has never been abandoned. it is obvious that the power created in some countries of the middle east and north africa to the emergence of anarchy areas which fill with extremists and terrorists, tens of thousands of militants are fighting under the banners of so-called islamic state.
new recruits come from labia i can't, a statehood that was destroyed in a cross violation in 1973, and now the ranks of radicals are now joined by the so-called moderate sirran. first they're armed and trained, and then they defect to the so-called islamic state. besides the islamic state just does not come from nowhere. it was initially forged as a tool against undesirable secular regimes. having established a foothold in iraq and syria, the islamic state has become dominant. and if goes further than that. the situation is more than dangerous. in these circumstances it is irresponsible to make loud
declarations of the threat of international terrorism while turning a blind eye while supporting terrorists including the process of trafficking illicit trade in arms. it will be equally irresponsible to bring troops apt place them in one's service in order to achieve political goals in hopes of later dealing with them or in other words liquidating them. to those who do so, i would like to say dear sirs, no doubt you're dealing with rough and cruel people, but they're just as you are, and you never know who is manipulating whom. there isn't data on the most moderate opposition is the best proof of it.
we believe that any attempts to play games with terrorists and to arm them is not just short-sighted, this may result in the global terrorist threat increasing dramatically and engulfing new regions given that islamic state camps train militants from many countries including the european countri countries. dear colleagues, i have to put it frankly, russia is not an exception. we cannot allow these criminals who have already tasted blood to return back home and continue their evil doings. no one wants this to happen. does he? russia has always been consistently fighting terrorism in all its forms. to date we provide military and military technical assistance to many regions fighting terrorist
groups. we believe it's a mistake to cooperate with the syrian government who fight terrorism face to face. we should finally acknowledge that no one but president bashar al-assad's forces are truly fighting the islamic state and all the terrorist organizations in syria. we know about all the problems and contradictions in the region which are based on reality. dear colleagues, i must note that such an honest and frank approach of russia has been used as a pretext to accuse it of growing ambitions as thoughs who say it have no ambitions at all. however, it's not about russia's ambitions, dear colleagues, but about the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world, but we actually propose to be guided by
common values and common interests rather than ambitions. on the basis of international law we must join efforts to address the problems that all of us are facing, and create a jen willie broad international coalition against terrorism. similar to the anti-hitler coalition it could unite a broad range of forces that resolutely rei resist in those. and naturally the modern countries are to play a key role in the coalition even more so because the islamic state does not pose a direct threat to them but desecrates one of the greatest world religions by its bloody crimes. the idealologist of islamist and it's values. i would like to address region
as well. your authority and your guidance is a great importance right now. it is essential to prevent people recruited from making hasty decisions and those who have already been deceived and who, due to various circumstances, find themselves among terrorists need help in fighting a way back to normal life, laying down arms, and putting an end. russia will shortly convene as president security council and carry out an analyst of threats in the middle east. we propose discuss building it is possible to agree on a resolution aimed as coordinating the actions and the forces that confront the islamic state and other terrorist organizations. once again this coordination should be based on the principles of the u.n. charter. we hope that the international community will be able to develop a comprehensive strategy
of political stabilization as well as economic. then there would be no need for new refugee camps. today the flow of people who were forced to leave their homeland has literally engulfed its neighboring countries and then europe itself. there are hundreds of thousands of them now, and there might be millions before long. in fact, it is a new great and tragic migration of peoples, and it is a harsh lesson for all of us, including europe. i would like to stress refugees undoubtedly need our compassionate support, however, the only way to solve this problem at a fundamental level is to restore the statehood where it has been destroyed to strengthen the government institutions where they still exist or are being re-established to provide comprehensive assistance to military, economic nature to countries in a difficult situation, and certainly to
those people who despite all the or deals will not abandon their homes. literally any assistance to sovereign states can and must be offered rather than imposed, in accordance with the u.n. charter. in other words, everything is being done or will be done to pursue the norms of international law must be supported by our organization, everything that contravenes the u.n. charter must be rejected. above all i think it is the utmost importance to restore, support the new government of iraq and provide comprehensive assistance to the legitimate government of syria. dear colleagues, insuring peace and regionible statement remains the key objective of international community. we believe this means creating a space of equal and indivisible security not just for a select
few but for everyone. yet it is a challenging and time-consuming task, however, they're not thinking of the time of the cold war and both there are those who continue their expanding nat toe. the cold war has collapsed, and yet the nato continues expanding and it's fluster offering poor soviet countries a false choice, either to be with the west or the east. sooner or later this logic of confrontation was bound to spark off a political crisis. that's what happened in ukraine where the discontent of population with the current authorities was used and the military coup was orchestrated from outside, and a civil war
results. confident that only through implementation of the minsk agreement of february 12, 2015, can put an end to the bloodshed and find a way to dialogue. the reason they need to coordinate with them is provided by the minsk agreement, the key element of the government structure. they will become a central leak in building a common space of security and economic cooperation both in europe and eurasia. ladies and gentlemen, i have mentioned these common cooperation on purpose. not long ago in the economic sphere with its objective market laws we would all live in dividing lines. we would build on transparent
and jointly formulated rules including the wlo principles stimulating trade and investment and open competition, nevertheless, today unilateral sanctions circumvent in have become commonplace in addition to pursuing political objectives, the sanctions serve as eliminating competitors i would like to point out another sign of economic selfishness. some countries have chosen growth and exclusive with the establishment behind the scenes in secret of those country's own citizens, the general public, business community and other countries. other states whose interests may be effected are not informed of anything either. it seems that we are about to be faced with an accomplished fact that the rules of the game have been changed in favor of a narrowed group of the privileged
with the having no say. this could unbalance the trade system completely and disintegrate the economic pace. these issues effect the interests of all states. that's why we propose discussing them with the u.n. i refer to the so-called integration based on universal and transparent rules of international trade. as an example i would like to cite our plans to inter connect with china's initiative of the silk road economic belt. we still believe that harmon eyeing the integration processes within the eurasian economic union is highly promising. ladies and gentlemen, the issues that effect the future of all
people include the challenge of global climate change. it is in our interest to make the u.n. climate change summit to be held in paris, we plan to reduce greenhouse emissions to 75% of the 1990 level. i suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. yes, we might defuse the problem for a while by setting quotas on handful emissions, taking other measures that are nothing but tactical but will not solve it that way. we need a completely different approach. we have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. also, there would allow us to restore the balance between the
bio fear by human activities. it is a challenge, but i'm confident that human kind has intellectual potential to address it. we need to join our efforts. i refer first of all to the state that have a solid research basis, and that have made significant advances in fundamental fines. we propose convening special forum for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change. russia will be ready t for such a forum. it was on the 10 of january 1946 in london that the u.n. general assembly gathered for its first session.
they opened the session with a concise definition of the basic principles that the u.n. would follow, which are free will defines of spirit ever cooperation. today words sound as a guidance. russia believes in the huge potential of the united nations which help us avoid a new global confrontation, and engage in strategic cooperation. target with other countries we will consistently work towards strengthening the central coordinating role of the u.n. i'm confident by working together we will make the world stable and safe as well as provide conditions for the development of all states and nations. thank you. >> vladimir putin addressing the
u.n. assembly for the first time in ten years. covering a number of topics from climate change to battling isil to making the case for the assad regime remaining in place in syria. let's go out to the u.n. the united nations here in new york with our own mike viqueira has been covering this throughout the morning. mike, what did you hear? >> i heard vladimir putin putting a rhetorical thumb in the eye of barack obama. clearly putin is rejecting the logic put forth by president obama on the question of syria in particular. but taking a shot at some very tender targets as putin sees them, saying it is, in fact, the united states' idea of exceptionalism is what we hear among conservative circles that led to the disaster that is syria, that led to the instability that is iraq. vladimir putin suggesting as you reported, richelle, that the
international community under the auspices of the u.n. and it is interesting the way appealing that the united nations has been largely ignored by the obama administration, but suggesting that assad must be strengthened as opposed to removed, which is the longstanding policy of president obama and the american administration. so a fascinating pretext setting the stage for what is doubtlessly going to be an interesting and immediate substantive meeting between president obama and vladimir putin about 5:00 here in new york at the margins of the united nations. their first meeting in some year and a half since they met in france. >> we're going to take a break. we have much more to talk about, about what vladimir putin said, and we'll look to hear from iran, france, qatar as well. let's get in a quick break on the other side. keep it here.
>> this afternoon, there is a meeting with u.s. president obama top of the agenda will be the differences they have on what to do about syria, and the leader of syria bashar al-assad. we were talking about this with our correspondent, mike viqueira, who is out there. he said, putin that is, that if you think you can manipulate extremist groups, you're mistaken because in many cases they're more clever or just as clever as you are. >> yes. >> who is he talking to there?
>> well, clearly most of that was geared towards the united states. and some very sharp points and barbs raised by vladimir putin aimed towards the united states and barack obama, who this morning talked about russia and russian ambitions, as president obama put t and vladimir putin taking that on earlier saying this is not about russian ambition but an intolerable situation in the world, and putin going against the grain, and advocating that the international community strengthen bashar al-assad's hand. it is, after all, in his estimation the only viable entity within syria right now. if there was answer question, a lot of questions going into these meetings and these speeches of what vladimir putin is up to in syria, if you take his comments here at fast value, he is, in fact, trying to bolster the position of bashar al-assad. a lot of speculation that he was simply positioning himself to have a position of influence within syria on the inevitable
situation where the assad regime were to collapse. and in fact, the assad regime has suffered losses in recent days. if putin is to be taken as face valuabl value, he's calling for enforcement of the assad regime. something that is unlikely to happen. >> we'll bring someone in the discussion, th a former british diplomat, what did you hear? what stood out from vladimir putin's speech. >> i'm fired by the sub text of these speeches, tones that are not explicit but are there. the beginning of his speech referred back to the second world war. you felt a kind of tone of regret that those were the good ol' days when the soviet union was on top of the world, and we had a state-based