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.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24091633

Syria's chemical weapons must be destroyed or removed by mid-2014, under an agreement between the US and Russia.

US Secretary of State John Kerry outlined a framework document under which Syria must hand over a full list of its stockpile within a week.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution backed by the threat of sanctions or military force.

The US says the Syrian regime killed hundreds in a gas attack last month.

The government of Bashar al-Assad denies the allegations and has accused the rebels of carrying out the attack on 21 August.

In a joint news conference with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Mr Kerry called on the Assad government to live up to its public commitments.

"There can be no room for games. Or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime," he said.

Mr Kerry and Mr Lavrov said if Syria failed to comply, then a UN resolution would be sought under Chapter VII of the UN charter, which allows for the use of force.

Russia and the US have agreed on an assessment that the Syrian government possesses 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents and precursors, according to a US official.

The US believes the materials are located in 45 sites, all in regime hands, half of which have useable quantities of chemical agents, the official added.

However, it is thought that Russians have not agreed the number of sites, nor that they are all under control.

'Important advance'
The agreement says initial on-site inspections must be complete by November.

It also stipulates that production equipment be destroyed by November, with "complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014".

Mr Kerry outlined six points to the agreement:

- The amount and type of chemical weapons must be agreed and "rapidly" placed under international control
- Syria must submit within one week a comprehensive listing of its stockpiles
- Extraordinary procedures under the Chemical Weapons Convention will allow "expeditious destruction"
- Syria must give inspectors "immediate, unfettered access" to all sites
- All chemical weapons must be destroyed, including the possibility of removing weapons from Syrian territory
- UN will provide logistical support, and compliance would be enforced under Chapter VII
- France and the UK both welcomed the agreement.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said it was an "important advance". France was the only country willing to join the US in taking military action in Syria.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague said in a statement: "The onus is now on the Assad regime to comply with this agreement in full. The international community, including Russia, must hold the regime to account."

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also welcomed the news of the agreement and in a statement pledged "the support of the United Nations in its implementation".

However, the military leader of the anti-Assad Free Syrian Army rejected the deal and promised to continue fighting.

"There is nothing in this agreement that concerns us," said Gen Salim Idriss, describing it as a Russian initiative designed to gain time for the Syrian government.

Free Syrian Army fighters walk along a curtain erected as protection from snipers in Aleppo
While the international focus is on chemical weapons, the fighting continues
Mr Kerry said he hoped the deal would help kick-start a wider peace process.

"We could also lay the groundwork for further co-operation that is essential to end the bloodshed that has consumed Syria for more than two years," he said.

"What we agreed on here today could conceivable be the first critical concrete step in that direction."

Mr Lavrov suggested there could be another international peace conference on Syria by October.

"The main thing is to make sure that all Syrian sides are represented at the conference," he said.

On the ground in Syria, fighting continued on Saturday. Activists reported heavy fighting between government forces and rebels in suburbs of Damascus, including some of the same areas affected by the 21 August attack.

More than 100,000 people have died since the uprising against President Assad began in 2011.

Millions of Syrians have fled the country, and millions more have been left homeless by the fighting.

**sebster**

PhantomViper wrote:
I thought we had already reached the conclusion that "the world" shouldn't do anything? At most this should be solved by the Arab League since any intervention by western nations would just serve to inflame the whole region even more.

A lot of people seem to have taken that stance. But calling it a conclusion, which I'd think would involve a coherent and essentially complete argument consistent with positions taken on other issus, would be a bit of a stretch. Not that I think the argument for invasion is any more coherent, complete or consistent... which is exactly why I posted my original complaint - because I'm still trying to make up my mind on the issue, but everything I read is nonsense, or quickly devolves in to horse race nonsense about how Obama 'handled it'.

**Jihadin**

There's the third option Seb. Obama dragged his feet on involving the US in a Syrian Civil War. That's my perception on what he did. What I don't like is the back tracking. The "red line" not being said by him. Kerry "purposely" suggestion to Russian official that "If Syra didn't have chemical weapons.." to get he ball rolling. Obama would probably win both sides of the aisle wen he went national to "plead" his case instead gave a "golf clap" to Putin and a thank you from the US. As for Kerry...damn I miss Hillary

**sebster**

Jihadin wrote:
There's the third option Seb. Obama dragged his feet on involving the US in a Syrian Civil War. That's my perception on what he did. What I don't like is the back tracking. The "red line" not being said by him. Kerry "purposely" suggestion to Russian official that "If Syra didn't have chemical weapons.." to get he ball rolling. Obama would probably win both sides of the aisle wen he went national to "plead" his case instead gave a "golf clap" to Putin and a thank you from the US. As for Kerry...damn I miss Hillary

Yeah, I'm increasingly convinced that giving Kerry the Sec State job was entirely a plan to make everyone realise how awesome Hillary was and sweep her in to the Whitehouse. I can see that as being part of the deal Hillary and Obama made in 2008 to get her to stop using the Democratic primary to tank Obama out of spite;

"Please stop, I'll make you Secretary of State."
"feth that, it's like an executive producer credit. Don't play a playa."
"Do it for one term, and then after that I'll give it to Kerry for my second term."
"After four years of that guy my term will seem like genius. I could even personally kill four people including an ambassador in Benghazi and I'll still be so good compared to Kerry that those damn fools, I mean American voters, that they'll have no choice but to finally make me the first reptile president. Not even whembly talking about Benghazi everyday until approximately the end of time will stop this plan from happening!"

But all that stuff, even when it isn't stupid jokes, is basically just noise. Instead of talking about how the world should respond to Syria, we just talk about how Obama has responded, and what we all feel about that. When the actual, real issue of how Syria needs to be handled is still up in the air, it all feels very trivial to me.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
A lot of people seem to have taken that stance. But calling it a conclusion, which I'd think would involve a coherent and essentially complete argument consistent with positions taken on other issus, would be a bit of a stretch. Not that I think the argument for invasion is any more coherent, complete or consistent... which is exactly why I posted my original complaint - because I'm still trying to make up my mind on the issue, but everything I read is nonsense, or quickly devolves in to horse race nonsense about how Obama 'handled it'.

Then you're simply not paying attention.

There's room for plenty of different threads of discussion, including both how it should be handled and how it's currently being mishandled. They're not mutually exclusive.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
Then you're simply not paying attention.

There's room for plenty of different threads of discussion, including both how it should be handled and how it's currently being mishandled. They're not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely. But when I found a serious lack of focus on the important part of the conversation, and more importantly a serious lack of quality where it does exist, it makes me notice the nonsense stuff a lot more. Especially when a major reason the important stuff appears to lack quality is because it appears to be compromised in an effort to protect/attack Obama.

**PhantomViper**

sebster wrote:

But all that stuff, even when it isn't stupid jokes, is basically just noise. Instead of talking about how the world should respond to Syria, we just talk about how Obama has responded, and what we all feel about that. When the actual, real issue of how Syria needs to be handled is still up in the air, it all feels very trivial to me.

Because "the world" had already responded to it. The only two western nations in favour of a military intervention were the US and France, and even then it was a very limited intervention.

I think that that is a sign that western powers are finally coming to their senses and realizing that we just don't understand that part of the world and its people well enough to try and make any significant political changes without the whole endeavour eventually ending out in disaster for everyone involved.

**Seaward**

PhantomViper wrote:
Because "the world" had already responded to it. The only two western nations in favour of a military intervention were the US and France, and even then it was a very limited intervention.

The US was not/is not in favor of a military intervention. We painted ourselves into a corner with public statements, and are now feverishly trying to build some sort of flying machine out of paint pots in order to airlift ourselves out of that corner.

France may be in favor of military intervention, but they're in favor of military intervention the way I'm in favor of the US winning the World Cup; I'll happily cheer from the sidelines, but I'm not going to play any actual part.

**sebster**

PhantomViper wrote:
Because "the world" had already responded to it. The only two western nations in favour of a military intervention were the US and France, and even then it was a very limited intervention.

So that's it? Various countries of the world take their positions and then people at large just stop talking about it? "Oh, don't talk about that any more, our government made a decision on it."

I think that that is a sign that western powers are finally coming to their senses and realizing that we just don't understand that part of the world and its people well enough to try and make any significant political changes without the whole endeavour eventually ending out in disaster for everyone involved.

If we assume that our actions in the region were undertaken with best intentions, and we assume that the various disasters were entirely unpredictable and took regional experts by surprise then I think you'd have a point.

**Frazzled**

Evidently Sebster wants Australia to go to war. Be my guest boyo.

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:
Evidently Sebster wants Australia to go to war. Be my guest boyo.

Actually I have no idea what the best course of action should be. I have this problem because I've been searching for good, honest analysis of the issue and pretty much found nothing but political bs from people who picked their sides on this issue for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Syria.

Your post above is a reasonable example of the problem.

**Seaward**

sebster wrote:
Actually I have no idea what the best course of action should be. I have this problem because I've been searching for good, honest analysis of the issue and pretty much found nothing but political bs from people who picked their sides on this issue for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Syria.

Good, honest analysis is that we probably could have made a significant difference with a fairly minimal footprint if we'd gotten into the game a lot earlier, a la Libya. If we'd helped out a pre-radicalized rebel movement with a relatively quick air campaign, we very well could have ended up with, if not an ally, then at least a Syria more neutral towards us while sending a strong message to Russia about how we're not going to get held hostage to their goals in the region. It would have been a roll of the dice, but most things in the ME are.

Now? We have zero good options, or at least zero good options that will have any kind of impact.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
Good, honest analysis is that we probably could have made a significant difference with a fairly minimal footprint if we'd gotten into the game a lot earlier, a la Libya. If we'd helped out a pre-radicalized rebel movement with a relatively quick air campaign, we very well could have ended up with, if not an ally, then at least a Syria more neutral towards us while sending a strong message to Russia about how we're not going to get held hostage to their goals in the region. It would have been a roll of the dice, but most things in the ME are.

Now? We have zero good options, or at least zero good options that will have any kind of impact.

Yeah, I've gotten that impression, and adding to it are the recent reports that conflict is becoming stalemated (and given the sides involved, a negotiated, lasting truce is really, really not likely).

I am interested in the claim that the rebels have become radicalised though, as while it seems to have become an idea that people have in general accepted and been happy to repeat, the analysis I've read of the actual groups making up the rebels is far more complex.

**Seaward**

I personally believe it's stalemated because Assad wants it stalemated until some sort of deal is struck with the US. He can pretty much act with impunity once he's got our signature on something.

And yeah, saying, "the rebels became radicalized," is too simplistic, because there are plenty of competing factions within the rebel movement, but it's beyond doubt that they've seen a significant influx of radical fighters, and it's been said that they're among the more effective guys in the game. Victory's going to breed converts, but even if they don't wind up winning, they're going to walk away with new Syrian allies, new contacts, etc. If the rebels do somehow topple the government and the radicals aren't the dominant faction, well, who know where that goes, because it could be anywhere, but they'll very much be a factor, one way or another.

I think the lesson to be learned is that we need to take these uprisings on the volley, and act quickly and decisively (without even considering sticking around for the long haul, meaning as limited a ground presence as possible, and preferably none beyond secret squirrels doing their secret squirrel things), or not at all.

**Ouze**

Seaward wrote:
I think the lesson to be learned is that we need to take these uprisings on the volley, and act quickly and decisively (without even considering sticking around for the long haul, meaning as limited a ground presence as possible, and preferably none beyond secret squirrels doing their secret squirrel things), or not at all.

Yeah, that latter option sounds way better for the US. We're gonna go with that, and I think it's the right pick.

**sebster**

Seaward wrote:
I personally believe it's stalemated because Assad wants it stalemated until some sort of deal is struck with the US. He can pretty much act with impunity once he's got our signature on something.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way.

And yeah, saying, "the rebels became radicalized," is too simplistic, because there are plenty of competing factions within the rebel movement, but it's beyond doubt that they've seen a significant influx of radical fighters, and it's been said that they're among the more effective guys in the game. Victory's going to breed converts, but even if they don't wind up winning, they're going to walk away with new Syrian allies, new contacts, etc. If the rebels do somehow topple the government and the radicals aren't the dominant faction, well, who know where that goes, because it could be anywhere, but they'll very much be a factor, one way or another.

Very true, and in addition, even if the rebels do win, well the longer it takes to win the nastier the victors will be, even if they're not Islamic radicals.

I think the lesson to be learned is that we need to take these uprisings on the volley, and act quickly and decisively (without even considering sticking around for the long haul, meaning as limited a ground presence as possible, and preferably none beyond secret squirrels doing their secret squirrel things), or not at all.

**Frazzled**

Seaward wrote:
sebster wrote:
Actually I have no idea what the best course of action should be. I have this problem because I've been searching for good, honest analysis of the issue and pretty much found nothing but political bs from people who picked their sides on this issue for reasons that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation in Syria.

Good, honest analysis is that we probably could have made a significant difference with a fairly minimal footprint if we'd gotten into the game a lot earlier, a la Libya. If we'd helped out a pre-radicalized rebel movement with a relatively quick air campaign, we very well could have ended up with, if not an ally, then at least a Syria more neutral towards us while sending a strong message to Russia about how we're not going to get held hostage to their goals in the region. It would have been a roll of the dice, but most things in the ME are.

Now? We have zero good options, or at least zero good options that will have any kind of impact.

No no we have a great option. Stay the

out.

**CptJake**

sebster wrote:

Very true, and in addition, even if the rebels do win, well the longer it takes to win the nastier the victors will be, even if they're not Islamic radicals.

There was zero chance it was ever going to end without the victors slaughtering the defeated. Any honest look at how uprisings in the region have been going doesn't lead to any other conclusion. If the rebels won in the first month of the war, Assad and his backers would have died horrible deaths. If Assad won in the first month, the rebels and their backers would have died horrible deaths. The length of the conflict may increase the scale of the slaughter, but it was always going to be a slaughter.

**Dreadclaw69**

CptJake wrote:
There was zero chance it was ever going to end without the victors slaughtering the defeated. Any honest look at how uprisings in the region have been going doesn't lead to any other conclusion. If the rebels won in the first month of the war, Assad and his backers would have died horrible deaths. If Assad won in the first month, the rebels and their backers would have died horrible deaths. The length of the conflict may increase the scale of the slaughter, but it was always going to be a slaughter.

Yup, just look at Libya. Look at Iraq when Saddam gassed the Kurds after Desert Storm, then later when he was overthrown. In some places politics is a real life version of 'A Game Of Thrones'

**sebster**

CptJake wrote:
There was zero chance it was ever going to end without the victors slaughtering the defeated. Any honest look at how uprisings in the region have been going doesn't lead to any other conclusion. If the rebels won in the first month of the war, Assad and his backers would have died horrible deaths. If Assad won in the first month, the rebels and their backers would have died horrible deaths. The length of the conflict may increase the scale of the slaughter, but it was always going to be a slaughter.

Yes, but the scale matters a hell of a lot. The difference between show trials and executions for a few hundred leaders of the losing faction, and mass slaughter of everyone unlucky enough to be ethnically/geographically related to the losing side is a big deal.

And my comment on 'nasty' also refers to the quality of the government we see. Short revolutions are much more likely to produce decent governments than protracted ones.