Russia Gets Syria to Eliminate Chemical Weapons

[SGOS]

Russia offers arms deal to Syria on the promise that Syria will give up it's chemical weapons.  This may offer a way for Obama to appease polls showing lack of public support against bombing Syria.  The administration seems to approve.  Syria's agreement with Russia might include arms from Russia.  There may be some interesting issues to speculate on here.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-sees-possib ... 03859.html

PARIS/AMMAN (Reuters) - Syria accepted a Russian proposal on Tuesday to give up chemical weapons and win a reprieve from U.S. strikes, while its warplanes bombed rebel positions in Damascus for the first time since the West threatened military action.

The Russian diplomatic initiative, which apparently emerged from off-the-cuff remarks by the U.S. secretary of state, marks a sudden reversal after weeks in which the West appeared finally headed towards intervention in a two-and-a-half year old war.

France said it would put forward a U.N. Security Council draft resolution for Syria to give up its stockpiles of chemical arms, threatening "extremely serious" consequences if Syria violates its conditions.

Syria's rebels reacted with deep dismay to the proposal, which would halt Western military action to punish President Bashar al-Assad's forces for a poison gas attack that killed hundreds of people in a Damascus suburb last month.

U.S. President Barack Obama, for whom the proposal provides a way out of ordering unpopular strikes days before contentious Congressional votes, said it could be a "breakthrough".

[_Xenu_]

I think this may have averted World War III. Just this once, hooray for Putin!

[Hydra009]

That would be an acceptable solution.  A temporary ceasefire to allow for further investigation would be nice too, while we're at it.

[SGOS]

I think this may have averted World War III. Just this once, hooray for Putin!

Didn't this follow some meeting that the US had with Russia recently?  I can see that it may be in Russia's best interests to avoid conflict with the US, but I'm still surprised it would do anything to help Obama.  I have no idea why this surprises me.  It just did.

[Plu]

I guess some rich people in Russia realised that not being bombed to hell was more important than pissing off the US.

[SGOS]

That would be an acceptable solution.  A temporary ceasefire to allow for further investigation would be nice too, while we're at it.

The rebels and Assad would have to agree to a ceasefire.  That would surprise me too.

[_Xenu_]

I think this may have averted World War III. Just this once, hooray for Putin!

Didn't this follow some meeting that the US had with Russia recently?  I can see that it may be in Russia's best interests to avoid conflict with the US, but I'm still surprised it would do anything to help Obama.  I have no idea why this surprises me.  It just did.

The idea started with an off the cuff remark from John Kerry that worked out quite well. As for Obama, this allows him to save face while avoiding an unpopular war.

[Hydra009]

Didn't this follow some meeting that the US had with Russia recently?  I can see that it may be in Russia's best interests to avoid conflict with the US, but I'm still surprised it would do anything to help Obama.  I have no idea why this surprises me.  It just did.

Russia hosted the last G-20 summit.

[Nonsensei]

This is just a smoke screen. The US set up an unavoidable trigger for it's intervention when Obama redlined the use of chemical weapons. That was planned and intentional for Obama to get the US involved. What he didn't count on was the backlash from congress, the public, and the US' allies that would essentially prevent him from acting.

So what to do? Just set up another red line but make it less obvious. Have Assad give up all his chemical weapons, but then ensure that sometime down the road chemical weapons are used again. Or maybe they aren't but its reported that they were. The truth of events doesn't matter in the slightest as long as you paint Assad as a bloodthirsty genodical liar and you are even more justified in going in. This isn't over. We are still on a direct course for military intervention.

[Smartmarzipan]

I just saw this in the news and was like, "Good. A diplomatic solution. Wish we could have talked like that at first instead of immediately saying we're going to bomb the shit out of someone."

Anyway, here's another story, too.

Syria accepts Russian proposal on weapons; France to bring resolution to Security Council (3 pages)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

An unexpected Russian proposal for Syria to avert a U.S. military strike by transferring control of its chemical weapons appeared to be gaining traction Tuesday, as Syria embraced it, France said it would draft a U.N. Security Council resolution to put the plan into effect, and China and Iran voiced support.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said bringing the proposal to the Security Council would allow the world to judge the intentions of Russia and China, which until now have blocked efforts to sanction Syria for any actions during its 2 1 / 2-year-long civil conflict.

But major questions remain over whether Syria's longtime patrons and critics will be able to agree on the specifics of a resolution and how Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons could be transferred to international monitors in the midst of a bloody and protracted civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Russia floated the idea of handing over the weapons Monday, after a seemingly offhand remark by U.S. Secretary of State John F. Kerry that such a move would be a way for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to avoid a U.S. military strike.

President Obama has been urging world leaders and U.S. lawmakers to endorse military action as a way of sending a message of condemnation and deterrence to Assad, whose government allegedly authorized nerve gas attacks outside Damascus on Aug. 21 that killed more than 1,400 civilians.

But on Monday evening, after Russia and Syria embraced Kerry's weapons-transfer scenario, Obama said that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria's arsenal of weapons that have been outlawed around the globe "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed strike.

But it was not clear whether the resolution language proposed Tuesday by Fabius would be acceptable to Russian officials, who have voiced doubts about whether the Syrian government was responsible for the Aug. 21 attacks and who can veto any Security Council resolution.

The resolution will "condemn the massacre of August 21 committed by the Syrian regime," Fabius told reporters in Paris, and "require that this regime sheds light without delay on its chemical weapons program, that they be placed under international control and that they be dismantled."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said his country will soon announce "a feasible, clear and concrete plan," which it will discuss with "the U.N. secretary general, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the U.N. Security Council."

Alexander Kalugin, the Russian ambassador to Jordan, said the plan would need "international inspectors," likely from the United Nations, and agreement from both the Syrian government and rebel forces to secure their safety.

"We are now engaged with Syrians about working out some concrete details on how to do the job," Kalugin said by telephone from Amman. "It's certainly not an easy mission."

The Syrian Opposition Coalition described the initiative as a strategy to stall for time and said that Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons, a violation of international law, requires a "serious and proportionate response."

"Crimes against humanity cannot be absolved through political concessions, or surrendering the weapons used to commit them," the opposition coalition said in a statement.

The chairman of the international affairs committee of Russia's lower house of parliament, Alexei Pushkov, said that Russia's role in pushing the proposal is a key to its acceptance by Syria.

If the United States had demanded that Syria put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control, Pushkov told reporters, it would have looked like "blackmail at gunpoint," and Assad would very likely have rejected it.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei told reporters that officials "welcome and support the Russian proposal" and believe that "the international community ought to give it positive consideration."

"China always believes that a political settlement is the only realistic way to solve the Syrian issue," Hong said. "We should insist on this direction without wavering."

In Tehran, newly appointed Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said Iran "welcomes Moscow's initiative at this stage to resolve the Syrian crisis. The Islamic Republic of Iran sees this initiative as a way to halt militarization in the region."

The possibility of placing Syrian chemical weapons under international control was discussed by Obama and Russian President Vladi­mir Putin when they met Friday at the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg. On Monday, appearing before reporters, Kerry referred to it almost sarcastically when he was asked whether there was anything Assad could do to avoid a U.S. attack.

"Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international community within the next week, without delay," Kerry responded with a shrug. "But he isn't about to."

As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received a midair call from Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary's remarks and was about to make a public announcement. The statement in Moscow came before Kerry landed.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said that the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama's request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

"I am skeptical. Very, very skeptical," McCain said in an interview with CNN Tuesday morning. "But the fact is, you can't pass up an opportunity like this without trying to determine if it's real. I think we can find out very quickly whether it's valid or not."

I like to see this whole thing moving in this direction. The whole "We must strike them now!" mentality gets to me. No one really bothered to see if there was a better solution. Kerry just made a sarcastic comment he didn't believe would work at all, and lo and behold, it could diffuse war.

[Smartmarzipan]

This is just a smoke screen. The US set up an unavoidable trigger for it's intervention when Obama redlined the use of chemical weapons. That was planned and intentional for Obama to get the US involved. What he didn't count on was the backlash from congress, the public, and the US' allies that would essentially prevent him from acting.

So what to do? Just set up another red line but make it less obvious. Have Assad give up all his chemical weapons, but then ensure that sometime down the road chemical weapons are used again. Or maybe they aren't but its reported that they were. The truth of events doesn't matter in the slightest as long as you paint Assad as a bloodthirsty genodical liar and you are even more justified in going in. This isn't over. We are still on a direct course for military intervention.

I hate being cynical (especially since I'm so happy about a diplomatic solution this morning), but you're probably right, at least about this not being over. Syria has been an important game piece for all these other countries. Someone made an interesting point the other day....this is about oil. Not so much how much Syria has, but how they factor into the regional industry over there. Pipelines, petrodollars, etc. I wish I could find it again because I'd never thought about it that way before.

EDIT: This isn't what I saw the other day, but it's the basically the same content
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/is-this-what ... lly-about/

Syria is a key energy transit route to Europe. A number of countries appear to be seeking dominance of the energy market that runs through Syria.

In a hearing earlier this week, Secretary of State John Kerry said Arab counties have offered to pay for any U.S. military intervention in Syria.

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., asked for an estimated amount the Arabs might contribute. Kerry replied that they offered to pay for a full invasion.

"In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we've done it previously in other places, they'll carry that cost," Kerry said. "That's how dedicated they are at this. That's not in the cards, and nobody's talking about it, but they're talking in serious ways about getting this done."

Unmentioned are major gas and oil deals that could impact the economies of Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia enormously.

Beside the prospect of its own gas field, Syria is also one of the most strategic locations for natural gas pipelines to flow to Europe.

Qatar, home to the world's largest gas field along with Iran, has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey that would traverse Syria to the Mediterranean, with the gas then being shipped to Europe.

However, Assad in 2009 refused to go along with the plan, instead inking deals with Russia and Iran.

Syria is site of the proposed construction of a massive underground gas pipeline that, if completed, could drastically undercut the strategic energy power of U.S. ally Qatar and also would cut Turkey out of the pipeline flow.

Dubbed the "Islamic pipeline," the project may ultimately favor Russia and Iran against Western energy interests.

[SGOS]

This is just a smoke screen. The US set up an unavoidable trigger for it's intervention when Obama redlined the use of chemical weapons. That was planned and intentional for Obama to get the US involved. What he didn't count on was the backlash from congress, the public, and the US' allies that would essentially prevent him from acting.

So what to do? Just set up another red line but make it less obvious. Have Assad give up all his chemical weapons, but then ensure that sometime down the road chemical weapons are used again. Or maybe they aren't but its reported that they were. The truth of events doesn't matter in the slightest as long as you paint Assad as a bloodthirsty genodical liar and you are even more justified in going in. This isn't over. We are still on a direct course for military intervention.

I won't disagree.  I don't trust our government either, but I'm wondering what would motivate Obama to attack Assad, other than chemical weapons?

[Smartmarzipan]

This is just a smoke screen. The US set up an unavoidable trigger for it's intervention when Obama redlined the use of chemical weapons. That was planned and intentional for Obama to get the US involved. What he didn't count on was the backlash from congress, the public, and the US' allies that would essentially prevent him from acting.

So what to do? Just set up another red line but make it less obvious. Have Assad give up all his chemical weapons, but then ensure that sometime down the road chemical weapons are used again. Or maybe they aren't but its reported that they were. The truth of events doesn't matter in the slightest as long as you paint Assad as a bloodthirsty genodical liar and you are even more justified in going in. This isn't over. We are still on a direct course for military intervention.

I won't disagree.  I don't trust our government either, but I'm wondering what would motivate Obama to attack Assad, other than chemical weapons?

Oil interests.

viewtopic.php?f=5&p=959947#p959947

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Obama stands nothing to gain invading Syria. Make him out to be some sort of blood thirsty tyrant hell bent on global domination?? Really? The chemical weapons 'red line' was never intended as a precursor to war, but the political curtain cops are going to make every US president out to be the boogieman.
Europe was ravaged by poison gas as have plenty of nations yet you want to turn a long standing ban into tyranny..

[Nonsensei]

Obama stands nothing to gain invading Syria. Make him out to be some sort of blood thirsty tyrant hell bent on global domination?? Really? The chemical weapons 'red line' was never intended as a precursor to war, but the political curtain cops are going to make every US president out to be the boogieman.
Europe was ravaged by poison gas as have plenty of nations yet you want to turn a long standing ban into tyranny..

How shortsighted. Obama gains nothing? Maybe on a personal level, but his corporate constituents stand to gain a lot. Lucky oil corporations are lining up to be the ones to turn Syria's 50,000 barrel a day oil production into the 1 million barrels a day experts have estimated it could be. Defense contractors are chain-ejaculating into their pants at the prospect of opening up another front in the middle east. This military "intervention" stands to make some corporations a tremendous amount of money at the expense of the American taxpayer.