In a piece titled “The Greatest Political Show,” Aleksandr Panov of the Russian independent news site Novaya Gazeta analyzed President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the UN yesterda y, September 28, and his subsequent meeting with US President Barack Obama.

The Ukrainian delegation also left the hall when Putin spoke, after first hanging over the balcony a bullet-ridden Ukrainian flag from the Battle of Ilovaisk.

During the General Assembly meeting, Russian UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin demonstratively left the hall during Poroshenko’s speech, although the rest of the Russian delegation remained in the room, Novaya Gazeta reported. TASS cited an unnamed “high-placed diplomat” who said Churkin had left the room over Poroshenko’s “politicized and aggressive speech which did not correspond to the topic of the summit.” Poroshenko had noted the “traitorous annexation” of the Crimea and the ruinous effect of the war on the Ukrainian economy.

We could note that while Kerry has condemned the separatists holding elections on different dates and called for the need to implement the Minsk agreement generally, he has not focused on the point Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko again emphasized today which is that Russia must return control of the Ukrainian border back to Ukraine.

Secretary of State John Kerry said on the eve of the meeting and reiterated later that the forces fighting ISIS should be coordinated and the goal was a “united, secular Syria” without foreign troops. Lavrov in turn said that a Russian analysis of compliance with the Minsk accords was sent to the US.

Kremlin press secretary Dmitry Peskov said Putin would speak on Syria, and only get to Ukraine “if there was time.” Meanwhile, the US said the main topic was Ukraine and fulfilling the Minsk agreement and “there will be time for this.” Then later the White House said Syria would be the priority.

He noted that Russia’s increased presence in Syria likely helped Putin to get the meeting. Curiously, there were conflicting reports about whether it was the US or Russia that made the overture for the meeting. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Russia was “desperate” to get the meeting. Yury Ushakov, aide to Putin denied the claim and said it was the Obama Administration sending the offers for a meeting.

Panov wrote that Ukraine’s UN Ambassador Yuriy Sergeyev had written “Let him

see the flag from Ilovaisk” on Twitter. But it was actually more broadly directed:

Panov summarized Obama’s

speech in one line: “Democracy is better than tyranny” and said Obama

stuck to Washington’s position that Bashar al Assad must step down.

Russian experts said Obama was not calling for the immediate resignation of

Assad, however, and spoke of transferring power in the future. That

appeared to give a basis for some discussion with Putin.

Obama condemned

the annexation of Crimea in his speech at the UN and while he did not

mention Putin by name, clearly meant to reference him:





“On

this basis, we see some major powers assert themselves in ways that

contravene international law. We see an erosion of the democratic

principles and human rights that are fundamental to this institution’s

mission; information is strictly controlled, the space for civil society

restricted. We’re told that such retrenchment is required to beat back

disorder; that it’s the only way to stamp out terrorism, or prevent

foreign meddling. In accordance with this logic, we should support

tyrants like Bashar al-Assad, who drops barrel bombs to massacre

innocent children, because the alternative is surely worse.”

Panov mentioned Putin’s proposal for a creation of a joint information center to include

Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria which was called a “coalition of rivals” by some

in Washington. Panov cited Christopher Dickey in an article title “After Four Years of

Failure in Syria, Obama Looks to Russia and Iran for Help” expressing some reservations about this arrangement:





A

case in point, on Sunday an intelligence-sharing agreement was announced

among Syria, Iran, Russia, and the government in Iraq. (Some pundits

are calling the Damascus-Tehran-Moscow-Baghdad alliance taking shape

“the gang of four.”) Yet there also are as many as 3,000 U.S. personnel

in Iraq working, in many cases, precisely, on intelligence gathering.

Will their insights be shared by Baghdad with Tehran, Moscow, and

Damascus? It will be very hard to tell. But the question itself suggests

some of the contradictions, and the traps, that lie ahead.

Dickey also noted that there was

more common ground between Putin and Obama than seemed at first by

Obama’s concession that “realism dictates that compromise will be

required” in Syria. Dickey thought Putin’s statement in an interview with Charlie Rose on CBS’ Sixty Minutes to be “more specific” in his plan to support “the legitimate

government of Syria” and have a dialogue with “the rational opposition”

in Syria to conduct reform.

Panov also watched former Congressman Mike Rogers on CNN, who spoke of the message from “Professor

Obama to the leaders of the world — that you shouldn’t be dictators

and terrorists and bad people; unfortunately that’s not going to change

what’s on the ground for these countries.”

Rogers went on to say:





“I

think you’ll hear more detail from Putin who’s actually making an

on-the-ground realistic approach to where he thinks he can gain strength

and influence across the Middle East. I think we should have had a

little bit of counter to that with the President.”

After his 90-minute meeting with Obama, Putin gave a press briefing in which he

deemed the meeting “useful, constructive and very candid” and noted that it addressed both

Ukraine and Syria. Putin blamed the US for the “low state” of US-Russian

relations.

Asked about the possibility of Russian air strikes on ISIS

positions, Putin said:

“We are contemplating it and do not rule

anything out, but we will act in full accordance with international law.

Such air strikes must be conducted only after a UN Security Council

resolution or the appropriate request from the government of Syria.”

Putin

called the air strikes on ISIS made by the US, Australia and now France

“unlawful” but claimed he would not put any Russian boots on the ground.

It was a “useful exchange of opinions” and nothing more, concludes Panov; there were no breakthroughs.

US media was much more laudatory, seeing Putin as the winner. as Rob Garver of The Fiscal Times writes; the congratulatory headlines for Putin might have been scripted by Putin himself for

his controlled Russian media, but appeared in the US. He saw Russia’s

own media as even more subdued.

— Catherine A. Fitzpatrick