Russia warns against unilateral intervention in Syria

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Salvadora

Member
Russia has warned against unilateral action in Syria after the US said it might intervene militarily if Damascus used chemical weapons on the rebels.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there should be no outside interference and countries should "strictly adhere to the norms of international law".

On Monday, President Barack Obama said the deployment of chemical weapons represented a "red line" for the US.

Meanwhile, troops are reported to have stormed a western suburb of Damascus.

'Correct path'
On Tuesday, Russia's foreign minister held talks in Moscow with China's top diplomat, State Councillor Dai Bingguo, and a Syrian government delegation to discuss the conflict, which the UN says has left 18,000 people dead.

After meeting Mr Dai, Mr Lavrov said Moscow and Beijing based their diplomatic co-operation on "the need to strictly adhere to the norms of international law and the principles contained in the UN Charter, and not to allow their violation".

"I think this is the only correct path in today's conditions," Mr Lavrov added.

He said only the UN Security Council could authorise the use of force against Syria, and warned against imposing "democracy by bombs".

He also told Syrian Deputy Prime Minister Qadri Jamil that he wanted to hear his plans for "further actions to shift the situation into the channel of political dialogue in order for Syrians themselves to decide their fate without external interference".

Mr Jamil said external interference was "hindering efforts for Syrians themselves to resolve this problem".

Russia and China have opposed intervention in Syria since anti-government protests erupted in March 2011. They have vetoed three Security Council resolutions seeking to press President Bashar al-Assad to end the violence.

On Monday, President Obama warned Syria's government at a news conference that "there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons".

Mr Obama said that he had not ordered military engagement "at this point", but added that the US was monitoring the situation carefully and had made contingency plans.

In July, the Syrian government admitted that it had chemical and biological weapons and might use them in case of any "external aggression". But it insisted they would "never be used in the Syrian crisis, no matter what the internal developments".

Correspondents say there is also growing unease in Washington that Syria's chemical weapons may fall into what Mr Obama termed "the hands of the wrong people".

On Tuesday, soldiers were said to have stormed the western Damascus suburb of Muadhamiya.

At least 23 people were killed and shops and houses were set on fire after government forces entered Muadhamiya at dawn, looking for rebel fighters, opposition activists said.

The bodies of several men who had been shot at close range were found inside buildings after the troops withdrew from the town, they added.

There was reportedly also heavy shelling and fierce fighting in the southern town of Herak and in the northern city of Aleppo, where the Japanese journalist, Mika Yamamoto, was killed on Monday.

A commander in the Free Syrian Army, Col Abdul Jabbar al-Ukaidi, told the AFP news agency that its fighters now controlled "more than 60%" of Aleppo, although a security source in Damascus dismissed the claims.
Syria's chemical weapons

  • The CIA believes Syria has had a chemical weapons programme "for years and already has a stockpile of CW agents which can be delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets"

  • Syria is believed to possess mustard gas and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent
    The CIA also believes that Syria has attempted to develop more toxic and more persistent nerve agents, such as VX gas
  • A report citing Turkish, Arab and Western intelligence agencies put Syria's stockpile at approximately 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons, stored in 50 towns and cities
    Syria has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) or ratified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19329637
Those chemical weapons make me very nervous. Who's to say what will happen when the Syrian regime is put in a corner?
 
The moment the current regime of Syria uses chemical weapons, they're dead. Seriously, they will be slaughtered as soon as they're caught.
Just a feeling.
That said, i wouldn't be surprised if they use them anyway.

What's with Russia being constantly against intervention? Are they just afraid of the US getting a greater influence over the Middle East if the US intervenens and helps establishing a new goverment for Syria?
Or is Russia doing business with the current Syrian goverment?
 
tino said:
Do you guys know Putin has a body double?
Click to expand...

He'll need it if he continues to cling onto power.
Woorloog said:
The moment the current regime of Syria uses chemical weapons, they're dead. Seriously, they will be slaughtered as soon as they're caught.
Just a feeling.
That said, i wouldn't be surprised if they use them anyway.

What's with Russia being constantly against intervention? Are they just afraid of the US getting a greater influence over the Middle East if the US intervenens and helps establishing a new goverment for Syria?
Or is Russia doing business with the current Syrian goverment?
Click to expand...
I think Russia has sold arms. My worry is that we'll be too late if they use chemical weapons.
 
I can't see the regime actually using chemical weapons, because that would destroy any remaining legitimacy and probably hasten their end. The more interesting question is if anyone attempts to retrieve the weapons once the regime falls (which, at this point, only seems like a matter of time, contravening any need for foreign powers to actually intervene at the moment).
 
Mgoblue201 said:
I can't see the regime actually using chemical weapons, because that would destroy any remaining legitimacy and probably hasten their end. The more interesting question is if anyone attempts to retrieve the weapons once the regime falls (which, at this point, only seems like a matter of time, contravening any need for foreign powers to actually intervene at the moment).
Click to expand...
If they feel they are going down either way what's stopping them?
 
Consequently, the regime’s stockpiles of these internationally outlawed weapons now include large quantities of mustard gas, used to devastating effect by Germany against British and French troops during the First World War, and sarin, a nerve agent that repeatedly stimulates the body’s glands and muscles, causing breathing problems that eventually result in complete paralysis, thereby causing death. And just in case neither of these proves effective enough, it also has at its disposal reserves of VX nerve gas – arguably one of the most dangerous chemicals ever created – as well as stores of cyanide.
Click to expand...
Telegraph detailed some of the chemical weapons that Syria has. Really scary stuff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...arack-Obama-prevent-a-chemical-nightmare.html
 
Salvadora said:
If they feel they are going down either way what's stopping them?
Click to expand...
At that point, I think the regime would be too weakened - corroded power structure, mass defections, very little will to fight - to carry out mass killings. I wouldn't rule it out either, but then again I don't really know their mindset.
 
Regarding chemical weapons usage by the Syrian government:

Crazy thing is, it would make a lot of sense for the rebels to try to make it look like the Syrian government used WMDs.
Or worse, for the United States to use/maneuver the Syrian government into using WMDs
 
Mgoblue201 said:
At that point, I think the regime would be too weakened - corroded power structure, mass defections, very little will to fight - to carry out mass killings. I wouldn't rule it out either, but then again I don't really know their mindset.
Click to expand...

SquiddyBiscuit said:
Regarding chemical weapons usage by the Syrian government:

Crazy thing is, it would make a lot of sense for the rebels to try to make it look like the Syrian government used WMDs.
Click to expand...

Both of these situations could happen & it scares me.
 
Well, this is certainly sounding familiar. History repeating itself far too soon.

Syria is none of our business. Period.
 
Hopefully Russia can set things straight in Syria.
 
nyong said:
Well, this is certainly sounding familiar. History repeating itself far too soon.

Syria is none of our business. Period.
Click to expand...
If they use chemical weapons, it's everybody's business.

I agree with the gist of your post up until that point, though.
 
Salvadora said:
I understand this point of view but the fact that they have WMD's for a fact is difficult to ignore for any nation.
Click to expand...
Their neighbors are well within their own rights to take action. We, however, should be finished playing the role of World Police.

Every single major conflict we've participated in since WWII has ultimately proven to be a mistake in retrospect: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia...even Korea. Enough is enough.
 
nyong said:
Their neighbors are well within their own rights to take action. We, however, should be finished playing the role of World Police.

Every single major conflict we've participated in since WWII has ultimately proven to be a mistake in retrospect: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia...even Korea. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

How was Korea a mistake? I doubt having more Koreans trapped in poverty and Stalinism would improve the world.
 
nyong said:
Their neighbors are well within their own rights to take action. We, however, should be finished playing the role of World Police.

Every single major conflict we've participated in since WWII has ultimately proven to be a mistake in retrospect: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia...even Korea. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...

I understand the trepidation but this is the equivalent of saying you wouldn't care who get's their hands on nuclear weapons. Assad's regime may not of used chemical weapons yet but we have to take measures to make sure it isn't even an option.
 
Acheron said:
How was Korea a mistake? I doubt having more Koreans trapped in poverty and Stalinism would improve the world.
Click to expand...
A nuclear-armed country of 24 million scared, starving, and brainwashed people led by a bat-shit crazy desperate psychopath. Can't get much worse than that.
 
Salvadora said:
I understand the trepidation but this is the equivalent of saying you wouldn't care who get's their hands on nuclear weapons. Assad's regime may not of used chemical weapons yet but we have to take measures to make sure it isn't even an option.
Click to expand...
Syria's chemical weapons pose no direct threat to our nation, ergo it's none of our business. Nuclear weapons, however, do.
 
nyong said:
A nuclear-armed country of 24 million scared, starving, and brainwashed people led by a bat-shit crazy desperate psychopath. Can't get much worse than that.
Click to expand...

Not to derail my own thread but you are arguing that UN intervention was a negative ?(Let's not forget it wasn't just the US).

nyong said:
Syria's chemical weapons pose no direct threat to our nation, ergo it's none of our business. Nuclear weapons, however, do.
Click to expand...
This is arguable.
 
nyong said:
Well, this is certainly sounding familiar. History repeating itself far too soon.

Syria is none of our business. Period.
Click to expand...

Not even if chemical weapons were to get into the hands of someone who could use them here?
 
Vilix said:
Not even if chemical weapons were to get into the hands of someone who could use them here?
Click to expand...
Chemical weapons are horrible and inhumane, but cannot even begin to compare with nuclear weapons in terms of their destructive potential.
 
nyong said:
Chemical weapons are horrible and inhumane, but cannot even begin to compare with nuclear weapons in terms of their destructive potential.
Click to expand...

VX, IUPAC name O-ethyl S-[2-(diisopropylamino)ethyl] methylphosphonothioate, is an extremely toxic substance that has no known uses except in chemical warfare as a nerve agent. As a chemical weapon, it is classified as a weapon of mass destruction by the United Nations in UN Resolution 687. The production and stockpiling of VX was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.
Click to expand...
Believe me these are not trivial weapons.
 
Woorloog said:
The moment the current regime of Syria uses chemical weapons, they're dead. Seriously, they will be slaughtered as soon as they're caught.
Just a feeling.
That said, i wouldn't be surprised if they use them anyway.

What's with Russia being constantly against intervention? Are they just afraid of the US getting a greater influence over the Middle East if the US intervenens and helps establishing a new goverment for Syria?
Or is Russia doing business with the current Syrian goverment?
Click to expand...

Both. I did a report on Syria for a geopolitics course last semester but I don't have the exact figures on me right now.. but essentially Russia lost A TON of money from lost sales to Libya, and they don't want it happening again with Syria. Arms sales are a relatively significant part of their revenue, and Syria is a huge part of that revenue now that Libya is a no-go.

Then there's the whole we don't want more US influence in the ME (China is with Russia on this point).
 
MagniHarvald said:
Both. I did a report on Syria for a geopolitics course last semester but I don't have the exact figures on me right now.. but essentially Russia lost A TON of money from lost sales to Libya, and they don't want it happening again with Syria. Arms sales are a relatively significant part of their revenue, and Syria is a huge part of that revenue now that Libya is a no-go.

Then there's the whole we don't want more US influence in the ME (China is with Russia on this point).
Click to expand...

Ah. I can agree with Russia with the latter part but... Of course it is about money first and foremost.
At least it ain't about oil this time.
 
Salvadora said:
I understand this point of view but the fact that they have WMD's for a fact is difficult to ignore for any nation.
Click to expand...

Do we know that Syria has WMDs right NOW?

Because Iraq had them at one time and even used them on their own people. And I thought I read a few years back that after Saddam Hussein was captured, he said that the UN had crippled his WMD programs but they still wanted people to think there was the possibility they had them, especially Iran, in case Iran decided to start some shit with them.
 
bill0527 said:
Do we know that Syria has WMDs right NOW?

Because Iraq had them at one time and even used them on their own people. And I thought I read a few years back that after Saddam Hussein was captured, he said that the UN had crippled his WMD programs but they still wanted people to think there was the possibility they had them, especially Iran, in case Iran decided to start some shit with them.
Click to expand...
In July, the Syrian government admitted that it had chemical and biological weapons and might use them in case of any "external aggression". But it insisted they would "never be used in the Syrian crisis, no matter what the internal developments".
Click to expand...
I'd say that was pretty much conclusive
 
Salvadora said:
The US is the most powerful nation in the world
Click to expand...

Everyone cries about the US being world police but suddenly they have to go stop shit in Syria?

(This isn't really the thread for this, sorry. I just find it a little odd)
 
Tomat said:
Everyone cries about the US being world police but suddenly they have to go stop shit in Syria?
Click to expand...

I don't know who you mean by 'everyone' but the US generally represents the western world in some cases. Obama himself said that the deployment of chemical weapons represented a 'red line' so it isn't us putting words in his mouth. The U.K & France & Turkey would intervene if it came to it.
 
The Russian/Chinese way of handling this situation has turned out to be a total failure. Doing nothing has allowed Al-Assad's goons to kill thousands over months and months. Syrian jets are taking potshots at hospitals, which is shameful. To me this has proven that the newly emerging eastern powers are not ready to lead and act decisively in world events.

America and NATO at least get these things settled and ended rather then allow them to go on and on.
 
Woorloog said:
What's with Russia being constantly against intervention? Are they just afraid of the US getting a greater influence over the Middle East if the US intervenens and helps establishing a new goverment for Syria?
Or is Russia doing business with the current Syrian goverment?
Click to expand...
Putin only cares about his business. Uncertainty in the Middle East equals higher oil prices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Syria has fallen
2
70
5K
Joramun replied
American YouTuber Sabbatical falsely imprisoned in Russia
30
2K
Mr Reasonable replied
Russia fines Google $20.5 decillion dollars
Business 
40
3K
Soodanim replied
Jonathan Majors Sentenced to 52-Week Domestic Violence Intervention Program
News  2
90
8K
AJUMP23 replied
In the Dark Knight Franchise: Does Bruce have any defense against embezzlement (spoilers for the Dark Knight series)
17
1K
Raven117 replied
Top Bottom