Not that speeches delivered at the United Nations General Assembly matter, but, if they did, Vladimir Putin’s would have garnered him a failing grade, while Petro Poroshenko’s would have been in the A range.
Putin said his usual bromides about the importance of the UN and international institutions, conveniently forgetting his violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum and the 1978 Helsinki Accords. He praised state sovereignty, while ignoring his invasions of Georgia and Ukraine and occupation of eastern Moldova. He condemned terrorism, while promoting it in Ukraine. It takes real chutzpah to make the following claims:
Russia stands ready to work together with its partners on the basis of full 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 international organizations, and then indeed there would be no other rules left but the rule of force.
We would get a world dominated by selfishness rather than collective work, a world increasingly characterized by dictate rather than equality. There would be less of a chain of democracy and freedom, and that would be a world where true independent states would be replaced by an ever-growing number of de facto protectorates and externally controlled territories.
Russia has always been consistently fighting against terrorism in all its forms. Today, we provide military and technical assistance both to Iraq and Syria and many other countries of the region who are fighting terrorist groups.
Then, after excoriating the West for causing instability in Syria and Ukraine, Putin actually has the gall to propose the formation of an international anti-terrorist coalition. Fat chance. Somebody should have told Vlad that you don’t make friends by creating de facto protectorates and supporting terrorist regimes in eastern Donbas and Syria, claiming innocence, and hoping to create a coalition with the very people you detest.
Naturally, Putin knew that his speech would fall on deaf ears. The dictator of an imperialist state has no interest in international cooperation. But his megalomania requires that he preach to the converted: Russians back home and his fellow travelers abroad.
Unsurprisingly, the speech was vapid. The world expected Putin to announce some major initiative. He didn’t. Instead, he looked like a blustery whiner and a sore loser who just doesn’t get the rules of the game.
Contrast his performance with Poroshenko’s. The Ukrainian president took Putin head on and refused to mince words:
How can you urge an anti-terrorist coalition, if you inspire terrorism right in front of your door?
How can you talk about peace and legitimacy, if your policy is war via puppet governments?
How can you speak of freedom for nations, if you punish your neighbor for his choice?
How can you demand respect for all, if you don’t have respect for anyone?
The Gospel of John teaches us: “In the beginning was the word.”
But what kind of a gospel do you bring to the world, if all your words are double-tongued like that?
The anaphora was a nice rhetorical touch. Poroshenko came across looking like the strong and self-confident ruler of a country with a future. And he brought home the fact that “double-tongued” Putin is a liar who cannot, ever, be trusted.
Poroshenko implied much more: that Putin is also a criminal who promotes terrorism, kills innocents, and violates moral and legal codes.
And Poroshenko is right, of course.
