Putin Doesn’t Rule Out Supporting Strike on Syria
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that his country does not rule out agreeing to a military operation in Syria, provided Damascus' responsibility for using chemical weapons is proven.
However, he noted that Russia would only back military action in Syria with United Nations approval.
In an interview with the Associated Press and Russia's state TV network Channel 1, the Russian president stressed there is still no “exact information” about what exactly happened in Syria, or even that chemical weapons were used at all.
“It’s still not clear whether chemical weapons or simply some kind of harmful chemical substances were used,” Putin said, as cited by RIA Novosti.
He stressed it was necessary to await the conclusions of the UN inspection team that was sent to Syria at the end of last month to investigate the sites of alleged chemical weapons attacks.
The Russian president described video footage of dead children allegedly killed by the chemical attacks as “horrible,” but said the footage did not provide any answers to his questions about who was responsible. He claimed the video could have been produced by militants linked to al-Qaeda, “which has always been noted for its brutality.”
Putin said if the UN analysis revealed “clear proof” that the Syrian government was responsible for a chemical weapon attack, Russia “would be ready to act in the most decisive and serious manner,” but stressed that military action could only be taken against Damascus following a joint decision by the UN Security Council.
“Any other methods to justify use of force against an independent and sovereign state are unacceptable, and can only be qualified as aggression,” he said.
Putin also confirmed that Russia has supplied some components for S-300 air defense missile systems to Syria, but has suspended completion of those deliveries.
“If we see that they [Syria] are taking some steps related to the violation of existing international standards, then we’ll consider how to act in the future, including supplying sensitive weapons in certain regions of the world,” he said, according to RIA Novosti.
Syrian rebels were caught in Turkey with Sarin gas, some Hizbollah soldiers have been treated in hospital after been attacked by Sarin gas maybe both sides are using chemical weapons.
The Radical Syrian rebels have killed a free syrian army general recently and are ethnically clensing the Kurds from northern Syria.
The Assad regime are really bad and so are the rebels.
US and other war mongers deal with the complete situation not with just a part of it..
A question asked to Obama in St Petersburg
Instead of bombing Assad why not give him the opportunity first, to sign the treaty that bans the holding of chemical weapons and then he would be accountable for any violation like the other signatories… This way Syria’s CW’s would be non-existent or if they did default on their agreement, the world would act together against them.
We need to teach him a lesson for using CW’s on his people..
So in other words… no compromises just do the normal American thing by bombing first and then work out the consequences afterwards…
At present there are only four countries that hold stocks of chemical weapons.
So Israel almost certainly has a nuclear arsenal (and likely a stash of chemical weapons also) - and just what is your point? Should the existence of a state be determined by the rules of cricket if it is attacked from the outside? Their neighbours in the region are not exactly hospitable and nor do some of them appear to have thought processes which have evolved much past the Neanderthal.
I'm rather fascinated by your vague "military intelligence": first of all you say "Israel has 100 atomic bombs" then "Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons.." - is this "information" courtesy of Aleksandr Soft-shoe and his KGB handlers or just conjured out of thin air?
Assad killing his own people is unacceptable and deserves to be both stopped and punished - just as much as the actions of Putin and the numerous other tin-pot dictators in rickety Third World regimes. However, the behaviour of other states also needs to be scutinised and the spread of medieval mumbo-jumbo needs to be halted in the interests of our common humanity and the progress of our species. So far, the strategy appears to actually DO something but without risking weaponry falling into the hands of kamikaze jihadists - apart from going against his principles of allowing himself the privilege of having people killed when it suits him even Putin can't whinge too much about that...
Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them.It is one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity").Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguity as to whether it means it will not create, will not disclose, will not make first use of the weapons or possibly some other interpretation of the phrase.The "not be the first" formulation goes back to the Eshkol-Comer memorandum of understanding made between Israel and the United States on the 10th March 1965, which contained Israel's written assurance for the first time that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Israel has refused to sign the NPT despite international pressure to do so, and has stated that signing the NPT would be contrary to its national security interests.
Estimates as to the size of the Israeli nuclear arsenal vary between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads, with most estimates at less than 200 warheads. It is estimated that the Israel nuclear deterrent force has the ability to deliver them by intermediate-range ballistic missile, intercontinental ballistic missile, aircraft, and submarine-launched cruise missile
Since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, 100,000 people have been killed by all kinds of weapons, used by both sides in the conflict. Recently between 340 and 1400 people allegedly have been killed by the use of chemical weapons. The US says that a “ red line” was crossed when chemical weapons were used and it's a threat to the world’s security.. Also, it is inhuman to kill people by using chemical weapons.
All over the world countries have stockpiles of chemical weapons, should they be attacked now to make the world safer?
Israel has 100 atomic bombs that it has never declared it has or ever been asked to by the world. Also, their actions up to date have been unpredictable in dealing with any crisis. Shouldn’t they comply with the treaties concerning the proliferation of nuclear weapons and aren’t they more of a threat to world security than Syria?
So where is the logic in all of this and who’s really pulling Obama’s strings?
That's a pretty good list of the actions of the Soviet Union, both in the past and today, Shoe-shine. While what is happening in Syria, and elsewhere in the world, is a real mess, we certainly don't need any demented sermons from Vlad the Two-Faced and his slimy apologists.
The US seems to be trying not to act in its usual naive "why doesn't everyone love us?" manner but I believe it is trying to behave in a serious and creditable way; Russia, as usual, is simply cynically play-acting to bolster its own interests in the region (although how or why anyone who hasn't been bought with Russian gold or threats would pay any attention to the interests of a washed-up bunch of Commie gangsters is a mystery to me).
Putin's main objective, as usual, is to uphold the fine democratic principle of a totalitarian regime reserving the right to oppress and slaughter its own people (and those of neighbouring "republics") whenever some crazy despotic Führer needs to maintain his own grip on power....
Peter, let me clarify something:
1. it's NOT ok for the state to kill its own people;
2. it's NOT ok for the "rebels"--both Syrians and foreign mercenaries--to kill civilians in Syria (btw, "rebels" killed MORE, much more civilians than Assad);
3. It's a civil war, Peter, war in which the civilians (who have received the real chance to "appreciate" the horrifying barbarism, killings, tortures, rapes, medieval Sharia "version" implanted just by the "rebels"), yes, right now the civilians, the ordinary Syrians, more and more support just the lesser evil: Assad. And it's not OK to intervene, to bomb them for that;
4. Today Syria is been thrown back on the decade, the expected USA' missile attacks will throw Syria back on the century, the massive destructions will be inevitably accompanied by heavy human losses, chaos, despair,
waves of refugees, slaughter of Alavites and Christians, increasing unstability in Syria, in neighboring countries, in the whole region....It's not OK, Peter;
5. Irak, Afghan, Lybia....perfectly demonstrated: [supposedly] good intentions of Western Powers pave the road [of those "salvable" by the West] to Hell.....It's not OK. Enough, may be? Enough to dip the whole States into the Stone Age, enough to spit on the International law, enough to act in contravention of the UN, enough to exercize -in the own sole discretion - the functions of the God on this sinful earth...
I mean, Peter, that the coming missile Attack on Syria is A CRIME, and the Attacker is the International War Criminal.
What a sham, only talk to take the edge off his stance for the sake of the G20 summit he is host to. He ties his co-operation to security council support for action which he knows will never happen as China and he himself (for Russia) will always veto action.
Hi, Pan.....The humble hope on Your re-appearence on the Forum helps me ;-).....Well, Your "SA-SHENKA" shows that You know Russian far better than I know English and consequently You know what "Конченый Педераст" means. It's not about Nobel Peace Prize Laureat Barak, it's about Mr. John Carry, who-while the recent debates in the Congress-replied to the question of a congressman "Is there Al Qaeda [fighters] in Syria?", yeah, he HONESTLY replied: "NO, there is no AL Qaeda in Syria"....So, what's Your idea about English equivalent to "Конченый Педераст"? "A bit not honest person", may be?