What are your thoughts on the speech Putin made?

Russian history and culture is something of a "side specialty" of mine...has been for a long time.

In my opinion, there are two critical things Americans do not understand about Russians...First, that they have historically gravitated towards powerful, central leadership. Second, they have a longer cultural view of themselves than we can comprehend.

If this speech is accurately translated (my Russian is virtually non-existent, but I picked out a few phrases)..then Putin is essentially speaking to Americans from a Russian point of view: One that considers the current leadership temporary-and evokes a broad view of both our nations' place in the international spectrum.

We think of Russia as either the "former Soviet Union" or "Imperial Russia" under Nicholas II...we forget Catherine and Peter the Great...we forget the Crimean War and the invasion of Napoleon.

We embrace Western Europe as our natural allies, but forget too that these nations have a less favorable history with respect the the US. We had plans for fighting Britain up until WWI...have had a tenuous alliance with France ever since their revolution (like it or not, Americans envy monarchies)...have fought Germany twice...and have always had a strange relationship with Italy and Ireland (if anyone cares to hear my opinion on that, it would take longer than this post).

Russians, on the other hand, share some amazing cultural similarities to Americans...and it doesn't take a genius in sociology to see that we stand out as unique examples in the post-modern era. I've been working on a concept for a white paper for some time..."Red Star-White Star"...focusing on the complex and often misunderstood relationship between the American and Soviet revolutions; how we were alike, and how we differed...and more importantly, how and why both revolutions substantially failed (ultimately a positive for both nation's futures). That's right-for better or worse, neither remained true to the original motivations ,and quickly regressed to what their parent cultures "understood". Again-a much too complex discussion for this post.

Long story short-the "New World Order" embraced by some in the West, is not workable.

The cultural and ideological differences across the globe are vast...I could go further, citing how attempting to meld certain cultures is impossible...but that gets into murky waters. Suffice it to say, the US and Russia have the capability to remain the dominant super-powers, and it's a healthier, more stable world when we do. We balance one another out...and in our respective spheres of influence, keep many things in check.

SGM Mikel Dawson
First off thanks for sharing the video.

Secondly, I completely agree with Putin (if the video was translated correctly) in that our government is mostly to blame for ISIS!

I don't trust the translation, but...
The current state of affairs in Syria is a direct and clear result of US policies. I say "policies" because there have been several since protesters first took to the streets in Syria. Many of those are contrary to the previous ones.
There is a kind of unholy alliance between disengagement and engagement.
My take:
The President and the inner circle generally can't be bothered with many overseas issues. They have been widely reported as not being interested in the daily intelligence briefing, thus missing problems fomenting overseas until they become crises. Meanwhile, there are staff people who are solely focused on particular regions, so when clear trouble breaks out, they get summoned to the White House or Foggy Bottom or Langley to report and recommend. Not really knowing any better, or perhaps more focused on the political consequences, these recommendations are followed, but only in part and only as they conform to economy of effort. After all, if sizeable effort were expended, they'd need Congress on board and a national debate distracting from more pressing matters (politically speaking) would ensue. Taking the recommendations of regional experts (who are not allowed to speak to the media) also has the added benefit of generating a ready-made scapegoat in the event things go poorly.

I can't pretend to read the minds of those in power, as it is very clear that they think differently than I do. However, people are mostly rational, so let me try and break it down.
The stated goal is to degrade and destroy ISIS, and replace Assad with a democratically elected player to be named later.
In order to do this, one would come up with a series of lines of effort, such as denying export or purchase of extracted oil and antiquities to starve ISIS of funds, travel restrictions in order to starve ISIS of recruits, electronic warfare to deny communications and coordination between ISIS elements, media exposure of ISIS' crimes and barbarism to counter ISIS propaganda advantage, and focused strikes on ISIS ground lines of communication in order to fragment and isolate over-extended ISIS elements and facilitate retaking lost ground.
Measures of effectiveness would be clear and easily readable, such as numbers of foreign recruits joining the cause. Syria is fairly difficult to get to, if bordering nations play ball - and they should. I think the weak point in this siege would be Lebanon. This portion is imminently achievable.
Creating conditions on the ground where free elections could be held is far more problematic, as our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan indicates. I think that we'd be hard-pressed to achieve this without some kind of security force on the ground to secure sites against interference from within and without. I'd suggest that the Arab League constitute this security force, if they are willing. That'll take some focused diplomacy, but I'd bet they'd be interested. Iran wouldn't like that one bit.

However, our actions do not indicate that we are seriously working towards that end state. This suggests another, unstated goal. I think that unstated goal is to keep this situation in check while other priorities get serviced domestically. In short, I think that the President wants to avoid an outcome where he is found wanting in international affairs, damaging his image as well as the political aspirations of his current (or former) administration. It is a legacy play.
If I am correct, we will see some proposals on domestic issues in the near future, causing the media and the populous of America to focus on that. Gun control seems ripe for this. Talking points out of the campaigns suggest college tuition is a preferred topic.

In short, politics is supplanting and subverting policy.