TED Conversations

Andrei Latyshau

New Youth Policy (Canadian chapter)

This conversation is closed.

Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?

On 11 September 2013 New York Times featured a byline in the op-ed section you don't see every day. The Russian president Vladimir Putin addressed the American people and their political leaders directly with a Plea for Caution.

The same night, the Fox News analyst Pat Buchanan praised Vladimir Putin's op-ed, calling it “outstanding", pointing out that it was the Russian president, and not President Barack Obama, who has best spoken to American opinion on Syria.

A day before that, Vladimir Putin's candidacy has been proposed for the Nobel Peace Prize. A letter to the Nobel Committee has been sent by the president of the Russian Foundation for Education, Sergei Komkov. The letter emphasized that, Vladimir Putin showed his commitment to peace in practice: "Being the leader of one of the leading countries of the world, he makes every effort to maintain peace and tranquility in his own state and actively contributes to the peaceful resolution of all conflicts arising on the planet."

It is noteworthy to mention that Vladimir Putin has already been awarded China’s version of the Nobel Peace Prize in 2011.

What do you think about all that?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Sep 15 2013: Let's look at the most recent 8 awards with the reason they were given: 2012) for advancing peace [in a war-torn world?]. 2011) for advancing women's safety[in a world of deadly sweat shops?]. 2010) human rights in China [one-quarter of the Earth's population denied basic rights and dignity?]. 2009) strengthening international diplomacy [same person overseeing the Benghazi debacle and the Syrian crisis today-for which we are to give Putin the award?]. 2008) resolving international conflicts [in a world of unending strife and turmoil?] 2007) for advancing the fight against global warming [for a politically motivated non-scientific Leftist agenda item? 2006) for economic and social development [in an unprecedented global economic and social collapse?] 2005) for global nuclear safety [aka the Fukushima Award?]. See a trend here? It's all sound and fury signifying nothing. The Emperor is naked!
    • thumb
      Sep 17 2013: A very good point, thank you! I completely agree with you that the Nobel Peace Awards is discredited and being used to show black as white.

      My question was: Does the Russian president Vladimir Putin deserve the Nobel Peace Award? And I see now that it might be understood ironically in the opposite sense:)

      So, first of all, there is no irony in my question. The objective of the question is to see what people really think about Vladimir Putin, whether they understand him as a person who deserves an “award for Global Peace” or not. In other words, what do you think: if the Peace Prize is given to Vladimir Putin, does it discredit the Nobel Prize or revives its public image?

      And of course, as it is a TED conversation, I look forward into identifying the reasons why people think so or so.
      Furthermore, it is useful to determine how people in general decide whether somebody deserves the “World Peace Award”. What they find important today for the global peace. How they understand what it means to make peace and how to make it.

      From my perspective, the world today is too close to World War 3. The issue is that the American government is simply incapable (as history shows) of resolving the global problem, but despite this fact they consider themselves as the only boss who knows what to do and how to bring the planet to peace and prosperity. The fear of being weak and the total distrust to other geopolitical players lead the whole nation in the dangerous direction. The American people have become hostages of the ill politics of their leaders. If it continues, then soon the America itself might need outside help in resolving its own psychological conflicts. Thus, maybe today America should just step back and try to work in collaboration with other people and institutions for developing peace on the planet. But do American people trust Vladimir Putin as a public figure and politician of global scale? And what they think about his official appeal to them on 9/11 of 2013?
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2013: I see. Your question does seem to indicate a high regard for the Nobel, as if winning it really indicates great and meaningful contributions to Mankind. Thus my comment was aimed at the prize and not the man. What does Putin deserve? Since Russia is being run by crime syndicates it seems unlikely that Putin has influenced anything on a global scale. His training and experience is entirely in "closed" activities in the KGB. His political experience is limited to the municipal level and he has never campaigned for public office. His resume is lukewarm and has done nothing to promote peace. That should get the "prize" for him.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2013: Okay Putin sells arms to one side and they go and use chemicals ... guess what I live just across the border from these guys and they could also use them against us. So I make a deal with them that if they give up the chemicals we will get the US to call off their dogs ... and I still sell you weapons and you can shoot all the rebels you want ... just no chemicals. The US could care less about the 100,000 you shot.

          Do we have a deal ... good. Time to publically spank the US Secretary of State and globally embarrass the US President ... with any luck I will be a global hero and get a lot of good press ... a Nobel Prize ... aha life is good for Putin.

          The only question left is ... does Putin get the prize for stopping chemical attacks that killed 1,300 (max guess) ... or ... does he get the Nobel prize for limiting the killing of 100,000 to the use conventional weapons he sold to the Syrian Government. Both are noble causes and meaningful contributions.

          I will go to church Sunday and ask forgiveness for writing this.
        • thumb
          Oct 3 2013: (Reply to Robert Winner)
          Robert, you seem to be forgetting that the casualties you are referring to are the result of an armed conflict started by armed terorrists ("rebels"), and that casualties are property of any armed conflict. A huge number of people died during WWII - are you going to go and blame the Soviet government for all casualties in a war started by Nazi Germany?

          Claims that the Syrian government used chemical weapons and that it "massacres its own population" have remaind only claims, with no basis nor logic behind them (read my replies to Nadav Tropp).

          Also, can you please elaborate on this though - what would have happened and would be happening in Syria if the Russian government did not sell weapons to the Syrian government?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.