Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

Sounds like a plan.
http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/DA8MU3382

Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons
AP 9/9/2013 2:56:16 PM
(AP) Russia to push Syria to surrender chemical weapons
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press
MOSCOW
In a surprise move, Russia promised Monday to push its ally Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.

The announcement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of "every single bit" of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.

Kerry added that he thought Assad "isn't about to do it," but Lavrov, who just wrapped a round of talks in Moscow with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moallem, said that Moscow would try to convince the Syrians.

"If the establishment of international control over chemical weapons in that country would allow avoiding strikes, we will immediately start working with Damascus," Lavrov said.

"We are calling on the Syrian leadership to not only agree on placing chemical weapons storage sites under international control, but also on its subsequent destruction and fully joining the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons," he said.

Lavrov said that he has already handed over the proposal to al-Moallem and expects a "quick, and, hopefully, positive answer."

His statement followed media reports alleging that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who discussed Syria with President Barack Obama during the group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg last week, sought to negotiate a deal that would have Assad hand over control of chemical weapons.

Speaking earlier in the day, Lavrov denied that Russia was trying to sponsor any deal "behind the back of the Syrian people."

The Russian move comes as Obama, who has blamed Assad for killing hundreds of his own people in a chemical attack last month, is pressing for a limited strike against the Syrian government. It has denied launching the attack, insisting along with its ally Russia that the attack was launched by the rebels to drag the U.S. into war.

Lavrov and al-Moallem said after their talks that U.N. chemical weapons experts should complete their probe and present their findings to the U.N. Security Council.

Al-Moallem said his government was ready to host the U.N. team, and insisted that Syria is ready to use all channels to convince the Americans that it wasn't behind the attack.

He added that Syria was ready for "full cooperation with Russia to remove any pretext for aggression."

Neither minister, however, offered any evidence to back their claim of rebel involvement in the chemical attack.

Lavrov said that Russia will continue to promote a peaceful settlement and may try to convene a gathering of all Syrian opposition figures to join in negotiations. He added that a U.S. attack on Syria would deal a fatal blow to peace efforts.

Lavrov wouldn't say how Russia could respond to a possible U.S. attack on Syria, saying that "we wouldn't like to proceed from a negative scenario and would primarily take efforts to prevent a military intervention."

Putin said that Moscow would keep providing assistance to Syria in case of U.S. attack, but he and other Russian officials have made clear that Russia has no intention of engaging in hostilities.

**pities2004**

This is a good solution and a great way to avoid wasting money on bombing Syria. The American public doesn't want to be there.

**Mr. Burning**

It enables Syria to play to the crowds while 'pondering' the offer.

Does this render moot the the use of chemical weapons in the first place(Although that is and remains a key point). And does this place extra pressure on an administration looking to sure up casus belli.

It certainly gives the nay sayers for action another point to lean on.

**notprop**

Well done Russia, the first practical measure we've heard yet.

A decent first step but I'd does require a decent measure of the stock pile that exists.

**Velour_Fog**

Quite a positive action that I didn't expect from them. Used to seeing them say / do things completely the opposite of the US and Europe out of principle (Along with China). Gets irritating.

**notprop**

I just saw this on the news.

The Syrians are making a great play of this as acceptable and not missing the opportunity to have a dig at the Americans.

Putin will be has happy as a pig in gak over this. Still kudos as its the closest to a workable plans as has been tabled yet.

**Mathieu Raymond**

I was listening to the radio in the car... is it me, or are some people forgetting that it's ont only about who loses face and who gets to be right, but also about trying to find a peaceful solution (I know, they've been at war for 2 years, Syria is far from being perfect, but still)?

**Frazzled**

Yep. If I were Obama I'd jump all over this to try to save a lilttle dignity.

**CptJake**

Mathieu Raymond wrote:
I was listening to the radio in the car... is it me, or are some people forgetting that it's ont only about who loses face and who gets to be right, but also about trying to find a peaceful solution (I know, they've been at war for 2 years, Syria is far from being perfect, but still)?

1st off, for the record I am very much against a US strike.

BUT, this is not a 'peaceful solution'. It does nothing to end the ongoing violent civil war.

**Mr Hyena**

They'll only show enough being removed to fool the West...but Syria will still maintain a workable stockpile probably. Russia wants war to happen.

**CptJake**

Mr Hyena wrote:
They'll only show enough being removed to fool the West...but Syria will still maintain a workable stockpile probably. Russia wants war to happen.

I'm not sure Putin actually wants war as much as he wants Assad in power. That gives him a client, access to a port, and ensures the proposed gas pipeline to Europe does not get built, all of which directly benefit him/Russia. The stability of peace would be good for Russia, but they need Assad in power.

**Ouze**

CptJake wrote:
BUT, this is not a 'peaceful solution'. It does nothing to end the ongoing violent civil war.

Sure, but we've well established by now we don't care how many people he kills with bullets.

**d-usa**

Ouze wrote:
CptJake wrote:
BUT, this is not a 'peaceful solution'. It does nothing to end the ongoing violent civil war.

Sure, but we've well established by now we don't care how many people he kills with bullets.

**Ouze**

All joking aside, I hope this pans out. I'm for whatever ends with less people dying, but more importantly to me, none of our people dying.

**Dreadclaw69**

So;
- Assad dismantles his chemical weapons and gets to continue it's civil war without Western intervention
- The US gets to save some face and doesn't need to risk their intervention escalating because of ill thought out "red line" comments
- Russia still shows that it is holding all the cards, and has shown it's political savvy on the world stage by siezing on Kerry's comments
- Any AQ affiliated militias are deprived of a potential source of chemical weapons

Sounds like a decent resolution to the alleged use of chemical weapons under the circumstances.

**sebster**

Interesting how this is being played as a way of Obama saving face and Russia resolving the issue. What we're actually seeing is the Russians offering up a solution that prevents a client state of theirs getting bombed while the Russians just sit there looking like donkey-caves.

Russia finally coming to the table to offer a solution, after doing nothing but obstructing UN process, is all about Russia saving face, and would not have happened if the US hadn't moved this far forward in its plans to bomb Syria.

**Grey Templar**

I doubt Russia really cares about "saving face". Its not anybody really thinks less of them for doing what they've always done when a client state is squaring up against the West.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
Interesting how this is being played as a way of Obama saving face and Russia resolving the issue. What we're actually seeing is the Russians offering up a solution that prevents a client state of theirs getting bombed while the Russians just sit there looking like donkey-caves.

Russia finally coming to the table to offer a solution, after doing nothing but obstructing UN process, is all about Russia saving face, and would not have happened if the US hadn't moved this far forward in its plans to bomb Syria.

I had the same thought.

**sebster**

Grey Templar wrote:
I doubt Russia really cares about "saving face". Its not anybody really thinks less of them for doing what they've always done when a client state is squaring up against the West.

Read what I said, please. The 'saving face' has nothing to do with what people think of them standing up to the West, which is why I said nothing of the sort (in fact, standing up to the West in an obstructionist way is basically Russia's only meaningful presence in international affairs these days).

Russia's new plan is all about about avoiding what happens when the US bombs a Russian client state, and the Russians do nothing in response. That's humiliating for Russia, and a pretty much the end of any reason to look to Russia for protection. And so the Russians come up with this new plan, which they never would have bothered with if they hadn't been threatened with the likelihood of a US attack on Syria.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
Interesting how this is being played as a way of Obama saving face and Russia resolving the issue. What we're actually seeing is the Russians offering up a solution that prevents a client state of theirs getting bombed while the Russians just sit there looking like donkey-caves.

Russia finally coming to the table to offer a solution, after doing nothing but obstructing UN process, is all about Russia saving face, and would not have happened if the US hadn't moved this far forward in its plans to bomb Syria.

I had the same thought.

It's an interesting take, but I don't agree with it. This is us getting outplayed, plain and simple. Russia spends months telling us to go feth ourselves, then comes up with its own independent solution that takes us entirely out of the equation. Putin knows full well that Obama's not actually going to do anything, so not coming up with this scheme isn't that big of a risk.

I think it's a play about gain, rather than avoiding loss, of which there was no great risk to begin with. Russia gets to both look and act like the real power broker in the ME, and strengthens its position considerably with regard to Iran, which is, ultimately, what this is all a dress rehearsal for.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
It's an interesting take, but I don't agree with it. This is us getting outplayed, plain and simple.

Russia doing this as a means to avoid US bombing making Russia look impotent, and the move outplaying the US are not mutually exclusive things.

And I think the commentary about who is winning and losing is probably adding an element that isn't really there - no-one is winning in this, rather it's just a question of who loses the least. Note that at best, Russia looks to be able to control its client state and keep the US out is merely a preservation of the status quo.

But otherwise I pretty much agree with your point.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:

And I think the commentary about who is winning and losing is probably adding an element that isn't really there - no-one is winning in this, rather it's just a question of who loses the least. Note that at best, Russia looks to be able to control its client state and keep the US out is merely a preservation of the status quo.

And we agree again.

Seaward wrote:

Russia spends months telling us to go feth ourselves, then comes up with its own independent solution that takes us entirely out of the equation.

Russia, and Syria, responded to John Kerry's suggestion.

Seaward wrote:

Putin knows full well that Obama's not actually going to do anything, so not coming up with this scheme isn't that big of a risk.

Putin knows that Obama doesn't have the political clout to impel the military to act without Congressional approval. What is more problematic for him is the Russian relationship with the numerous European states that are not fond of Russia, and it's behavior regarding Syria.

**Seaward**

We see the situation in remarkably different lights. I believe Putin's playing a much smarter and deeper game than you're giving him credit for, but I suppose we'll just have to wait and see at this point.

**PhantomViper**

dogma wrote:

Russia, and Syria, responded to John Kerry's suggestion.

That wasn't a suggestion! At least it wasn't a serious one, it was just a sound byte that Kerry thought would sound good, in response to a question from a reporter...

Russia played it beautifully by jumping on it and saying that they would pressure Syria to do just that, now the US can't attack Syria because if they do then they are discrediting their own Secretary of State!

This administration of yours really needs to learn to keep its mouth shut with comments like this one and the "Red Line" debacle! You are allowing sound bytes in press conferences to dictate your foreign policy.

**Frazzled**

When your Secretary of State looks like he had so much plastic surgery that he's actually a shaved French poodle, it happens.

**dogma**

PhantomViper wrote:

Russia played it beautifully by jumping on it and saying that they would pressure Syria to do just that, now the US can't attack Syria because if they do then they are discrediting their own Secretary of State!

Well, at least until his "end of the week" deadline.

Also bear in mind that Russia has just come very close to claiming that Syria has chemical weapons.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Russia played it beautifully by jumping on it and saying that they would pressure Syria to do just that, now the US can't attack Syria because if they do then they are discrediting their own Secretary of State!

Well, at least until his "end of the week" deadline.

Also bear in mind that Russia has just come very close to claiming that Syria has chemical weapons.

Ummm... that's public knowledge. Syria was never a signatory to the chemical weapons treaty, so they aren't breaking any laws by having them.

**PhantomViper**

dogma wrote:
PhantomViper wrote:

Russia played it beautifully by jumping on it and saying that they would pressure Syria to do just that, now the US can't attack Syria because if they do then they are discrediting their own Secretary of State!

Well, at least until his "end of the week" deadline.

Don't be naive. An agreement of this type can never be accomplished in one week. Syria already agreed to do it in principle, now they have to decide where to keep them and who is going to guard them, etc, and all of that is going to take allot longer than a week...

dogma wrote:

Also bear in mind that Russia has just come very close to claiming that Syria has chemical weapons.

Syria HAS chemical weapons, Russia never said they didn't have them. In fact, the proposition that they relinquish control of their chemical arsenal to international forces, kind of implies that they have to have an arsenal to relinquish in the first place...

**dogma**

PhantomViper wrote:

That wasn't a suggestion! At least it wasn't a serious one, it was just a sound byte that Kerry thought would sound good, in response to a question from a reporter...

Kerry clearly didn't issue an ultimatum so, as SecState, his only recourse was vague frustration.

The notion that it wasn't serious is nonsense as there is no way the SecState did not know about the President's position.

PhantomViper wrote:

Don't be naive.

You misunderstand. The US is essentially free to intervene in Syria once Kerry's end-of-the-week deadline expires; at least per the restrictions you have outlaid.

PhantomViper wrote:

Syria HAS chemical weapons, Russia never said they didn't have them. In fact, the proposition that they relinquish control of their chemical arsenal to international forces, kind of implies that they have to have an arsenal to relinquish in the first place...

Whether or not Syria has chemical weapons has no bearing on whether or not their allies publicly recognize that fact.

**Seaward**

dogma wrote:
The notion that it wasn't serious is nonsense as there is no way the SecState did not know about the President's position.

It was very much an off-the-cuff remark that referred to an option nobody had seriously thought of pursuing until the Russians said, "Okay, sure." The scramble to claim that this was the plan all along has begun, but if you buy it, then I'd also like to interest you in buying some of this lovely ocean view property in Iowa that I'm trying to offload.

You misunderstand. The US is essentially free to intervene in Syria once Kerry's end-of-the-week deadline expires; at least per the restrictions you have outlaid.

We're free to do so at any time we please.