Quantcast
Channel: Syria
Viewing all 4970 articles
Browse latest View live

Celebrities Are Finally Speaking Out On Syria — Bashing And Applauding Obama On Twitter

$
0
0

Barack Obama Kerry Washington Usher

Until recently, most celebrities were staying quiet on the subject of Syria.

TV legend Ed Asner told The Hollywood Reporter he believes it's because "A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama."

While notorious anti-war protester celebs like Sean Penn and George Clooney have remained silent, only Madonna and rapper Azealia Banks spoke out (loudly) on their social media accounts.

Until now.

After President Barack Obama addressed the nation on Tuesday to discuss the United States' potential military involvement in Syria, many celebrities finally spoke out on Twitter.

Here's what they had to say.

The skeptics:

The supporters:

The undecided:

SEE ALSO: Here's Which Celebrities Are Speaking Out On Syria — And Why Most Are Staying Silent

And: Obama Answers 5 Big Questions About Syria

Join the conversation about this story »


110,000 DEAD IN SYRIA: Here's A Look At Who Has Been Killed

$
0
0

AP13012314092

The Syrian war has been going on for 2½ years.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) — which relies on a network of activists, doctors and lawyers throughout Syria — says that 110,371 people have been killed so far, and there is no end in sight.

Here's a breakdown of some of SOHR's numbers:

  • At least 40,146 civilians have been killed (including nearly 4,000 women and more than 5,800 children).
  • 21,850 rebel fighters have been killed.
  • 27,654 army soldiers have been killed.
  • 17,824 pro-regime militia and 171 members of the Lebanese Shia group Hezbollah have been killed battling on the Syrian army's side.
  • 2,726 unidentified people have died.
  • As of July, about 5,000 people are killed each month.

ZaatariHere are some more numbers that give an idea of how devastating the conflict has been:

  • Syria's population is 22.4 million.
  • There are currently 2,027,124 Syrian refugees.
    •  More than 120,000 people currently resides at the Zaatari camp in Jordan, which makes it the fourth most populous place in the country.
    • There are 519,676 total refugees in Jordan while there are 463,885 in Turkey and 731,675 in Lebanon.
  • If current trends persist, more than 3 million Syrians would have left their country by the end of 2013.
  • Another 5 million Syrians have been displaced inside the country, which means that nearly one-third of the country has been displaced by the war.
  • At least 42,332 people have been detained in the conflict.
  • Millions more have been traumatized.

All-in-all, these numbers will continue to rise as the military stalemate across the country persists.

Currently all eyes are on the situation surrounding Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, which is considered the third largest in the world (behind the U.S. and Russia).

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry says that the Assad regime has 1,000 tons of various chemical agents.

SEE ALSO: The Russian Plan Of Removing Syria's Chemical Weapons Mid-War Is A 'Nightmare'

Join the conversation about this story »

US Meeting With Russia To Make Sure This 'Disarm Syria' Thing Isn't A Joke

$
0
0

AP12112903258

GENEVA (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew into Geneva on Thursday to hear Russia's plans to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons and avert U.S.-led military strikes, an initiative that has transformed diplomacy over a two-and-a-half year old civil war.

U.S. officials said Kerry would insist any deal force Syria to take rapid steps to show it is serious about abandoning its chemical arsenal, senior U.S. officials said ahead of Kerry's talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Among the first steps Washington wants, one U.S. official said, is for the government of Bashar al-Assad to quickly make a complete, public declaration of its chemical weapons stockpiles as a prelude to allowing them to be inspected and neutralized.

The eleventh-hour Russian initiative interrupted a Western march to war, persuading President Barack Obama to put on hold a plan for military strikes to punish Assad for a poison gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians on Aug 21.

Syria, which denies it was behind that attack, has agreed to Moscow's proposal that it give up its chemical weapons stocks, averting what would have been the first direct Western intervention in a civil war that has killed 100,000 people.

In the past Syria had not confirmed that it held chemical weapons. It was not a party to treaties that banned their possession and required disclosure, although it was bound by the Geneva Conventions that prohibit their use in warfare.

The U.S. official, briefing the media on condition of anonymity ahead of Kerry's talks with Lavrov, said the aim was "to see if there's reality here, or not" in the Russian proposal. Kerry and a contingent of experts plan to hold at least two days of talks with the Russians on the plan.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin, long cast as a villain by Western leaders for supplying Assad with arms and blocking Security Council efforts to dislodge him, took his case to the American public, penning an op-ed piece in the New York Times in which he argued against military strikes.

Putin argued that intervention against Assad would further the aims of al Qaeda fighters among the Syrian leader's enemies.

There were "few champions of democracy" in Syria, he wrote, "but there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all types battling the government.

U.S. intervention would "increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism," Putin argued. "It could undermine multi-lateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law out of balance."

BLUEPRINT

U.S. officials said they hoped Kerry and Lavrov could agree on a blueprint for Syrian disarmament whose main points would be adopted in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

The five permanent veto-wielding powers of the U.N. Security Council met in New York on Wednesday. Britain, France and the United States want the Security Council to include tough consequences if Assad is seen to renege.

An initial French draft called for delivering an ultimatum to Assad's government to give up its chemical weapons arsenal or face punitive measures.

The Russian initiative offers Obama a way out of a threat to use force which is deeply unpopular among Americans exhausted by the 2003 invasion of Iraq and still embroiled in the longest war in U.S. history in Afghanistan.

Obama had asked Congress for authorization for strikes but faced a tough fight persuading skeptical lawmakers in both parties of the case. That vote is now on hold.

The sudden pull-back from the brink is a blow for the rebels, who have listened to Obama and other Western leaders declare in strong terms for more than two years that Assad must be removed from power, while declining to force him out.

Assad's forces have pressed on with offensives in Damascus suburbs, including those that were the targets of the August 21 gas attack, in the days since the Russian initiative emerged.

Rebels say the offensive, including the first airstrikes in the capital since before the August 21 chemical weapons attacks, are Assad's way of demonstrating that he is emboldened by the West's failure to act.

In a reminder of the mounting atrocities in Syria, a report by a U.N. commission of inquiry documented eight mass killings, attributing all but one to Assad's forces. It said Assad's forces almost certainly committed two massacres in May that killed up to 450 civilians.

EXPERTS

Kerry is accompanied by a large retinue of experts in anticipation of detailed talks on how to turn the Russian offer into a concrete plan along the lines of disarmament accords between Washington and Moscow since the days of the Cold War.

"What we are seeking ... is the rapid removal of the repeated use of chemical weapons by the regime. And that means a rapid beginning to international control" over the stockpiles, said a second senior official travelling with Kerry.

The U.S. delegation will present the Russians with U.S. spy services' assessment of the scope of Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure, believed to be among the world's largest, said the first U.S. official.

Inspecting, securing and neutralizing chemical weapons in the midst of an ongoing civil war that has killed over 100,000 people will be a stiff challenge, officials acknowledge.

"It is doable, but difficult and complicated," the first U.S. official said.

(Writing by Peter Graff)

Join the conversation about this story »

The White House Isn't Taking The Bait On Vladimir Putin's Lecture In The New York Times

$
0
0

Barack Obama Vladimir Putin

The White House is sticking on message in response to a New York Times op-ed from Russian President Vladimir Putin — one that challenged the U.S.'s claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is responsible for using chemical weapons on his own people, and lectured about the dangers of "American exceptionalism." 

"President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad's chemical weapons to international control, and ultimately destroying them. The world will note whether Russia can follow through on that commitment," a senior administration official told Business Insider in an email.

Putin's op-ed, in which he wrote that he wanted to "speak directly to the American people and their political leaders," caused quite a stir immediately after it was published Wednesday night. 

Among other things, Putin wrote that there was "every reason to believe" the chemical-weapons attack on Aug. 21 was perpetrated not by the Syrian government, but by rebel forces. Of course, the White House has presented evidence that says the attack was carried out by the Assad regime — and that it killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

And the last paragraph of Putin's op-ed slapped President Obama for a statement he made during his address on Syria Tuesday night, during which he said that America is "exceptional" because it is willing to act when no one else will to prevent human atrocities.

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," Putin wrote.

Join the conversation about this story »

SENATOR: 'I Almost Wanted To Vomit' When I Read Vladimir Putin's Op-Ed

$
0
0

Bob Menedez Putin

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said he "almost wanted to vomit" after reading Russian President Vladimir Putin's terse New York Times op-ed Wednesday night.

Menendez said he received an email at dinner about Putin's op-ed.

"I almost wanted to vomit," Menendez told CNN Wednesday night. "I worry when someone who came up through the KGB tells us what is in our national interests, and what is not. It really raises the question of how serious the Russian proposal is."

In the op-ed, Putin wrote that there was "every reason to believe" the chemical-weapons attack on Aug. 21 was perpetrated not by the Syrian government, but by rebel forces. The White House has presented evidence that says the attack was carried out by the Assad regime — and that it killed 1,429 people, including 426 children.

And the last paragraph of Putin's op-ed slapped President Obama for a statement he made during his address on Syria Tuesday night, during which he said that America is "exceptional" because it is willing to act when no one else will to prevent human atrocities.

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation," Putin wrote.

Putin's op-ed comes as Secretary of State John Kerry is traveling to Geneva, Switzerland, on Thursday to discuss a diplomatic solution on Syria with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

Here's the clip:

SEE ALSO: The White House responds to Vladimir Putin's op-ed

Join the conversation about this story »

Assad Confirms Chemical Handover Plan, Says US Threat Had Nothing To Do With it

$
0
0

assad putin russia syria

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Syria decided to cede control of its chemical weapons because of a Russian proposal and not the threat of U.S. military intervention, Interfax news agency quoted President Bashar al-Assad as saying in a Russian television interview.

"Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The U.S. threats did not influence the decision," Interfax quoted Assad as telling Russia's state-run Rossiya-24 channel

Assad also told Rossiya-24 that Syria would submit documents to the United Nations for an agreement governing the handover of its chemical arsenal, state-run Russian news agency RIA reported on Thursday.

Rossiya-24 did not immediately air the interview and it was not clear when it was recorded.

The reports came hours before Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerrywere due to meet in Geneva to discuss the proposal, which Lavrov announced on Monday, and Moscow's plan for implementing it.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said the initiative will not succeed unless Washington abandons plans for potential air strikes to punish Assad for an August 21 poison gas attack which U.S. President Barack Obamablames on Syrian government forces.

Syria, which denies it was behind that attack, has agreed to Moscow's proposal that it give up its chemical weapons stocks, averting what would have been the first direct Western intervention in a war that has killed more than 100,000 people.

(Reporting by Thomas Grove, Writing by Steve Gutterman, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

Join the conversation about this story »

In 1999, Vladimir Putin Wrote A NYT Op-Ed With A Very Different Take On Military Intervention

$
0
0

Vladimir Putin Russia 1999

The big talk of today is Russian President Vladimir Putin's surprising (and to some people, sickening) New York Times op-ed that stands against U.S. military intervention in Syria.

But this isn't Putin's first op-ed for the Times. Back in 1999, when he was still prime minister (Boris Yeltsin was still president at this point), Putin defended Russian military intervention in Chechnya.

The contrast between the two op-eds is stark. Today, Putin is making a "Plea for Caution," but back in 1999 he was telling America "Why We Must Act."

In 1999, Prime Minister Putin argued that Russia has been forced into an "antiterrorism campaign" in the breakaway Russian republic after a series of apartment bombing attacks. Putin compared Russia's "accurately targeted strikes" to U.S.-backed bombing of the former Yugoslavia. "Our commanders have clear instructions to avoid casualties among the general population," he writes.

The backstory is that Chechnya had broken away from Russia after the first Chechen war during the chaotic post-Soviet 1990s. Putin, then a rising star in Moscow, had made reclaiming the effectively independent Chechnya a priority. What began as military strikes in 1999 evolved into a notoriously bloody conflict that would become known as the Second Chechen War, with separatist insurgents fighting until 2009.

Official estimates suggest the death toll could have been as high as 160,000, with huge numbers of civilians left injured, displaced, or dead. It's a very murky period of Russian history — there has been a long-running, and not completely incredible, rumor that the FSB (the successor agency to the KGB) engineered the apartment bombings as a "false flag" to garner support for Putin and a new war in Chechnya.

In 2013, the Russian leader's opinion seems to have changed. "No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect," he writes.

Despite the differences between the two op-eds, there's also one telling similarity. Both 2013 and 1999 Putin are clearly very worried about Islamic terrorism. In Syria, "there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government," Putin writes in 2013. In 1999, Putin was warning the readers of The New York Times that the Islamic terrorists he was fighting in Chechnya were financed by Osama bin Laden. If you remember this is two years before the September 11 attacks in the U.S., that does seem a little prescient.

There's also another factor: While Putin's 1999 op-ed may be framed in terms of military intervention, it may be better to think of it as Putin justifying a central government using extreme force to put down a rebellion. Think of it that way, and it's easy to see why Putin sympathizes with Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

Join the conversation about this story »

Putin and Assad Have Presented The West With An Impossible Ultimatum

$
0
0

assad putin

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Russian news agency RIA Novosti that Syria will not fulfill a chemical weapons initiative unless the U.S. stops threatening to strike Syria and "ceases arms deliveries to terrorists."

The statement, no doubt coordinated with the Kremlin, attempts to put Washington (and France) in a bind: Either cancel any plans to potentially attack Syria, as well as arms shipments to rebels, or say goodbye to the diplomatic solution to the crisis.

The ultimatum is remarkable given that the White House contend that the diplomatic opening was a "clear result of the pressure" brought by Obama's threat of force, and America's strategy in Syria involves training and arming vetted Syrian rebels.

Furthermore, the "diplomatic solution" of securing and destroying a massive WMD stockpile in an active war zone is unprecedented and arguably impossible— and that's assuming Assad is actually willing to give up all 1,400 tons of chemical weapons Syria has procured over decades to deter Israel.

Nevertheless, Syria is taking the first steps of the chemical disarmament process: Assad said Syria will apply to theChemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production and use of the weapons, and thenreveal where its chemical weapons are stored and other details a month after signing the convention.

After that, the process would involve passing a U.N. Security Council resolution as well as ensuring operational and technical hurdles, both of which U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are discussing right now.

France, meanwhile, "remains determined to punish the use of chemical weapons" by Assad's regime and insists that any U.N. Security Council resolution should have a threat of force if diplomacy fails.

And U.S. Senate lawmakers are working on a resolution that would authorize strikes against Syria if diplomatic efforts fail. Voting could start next week.

All in all, Assad's offer is a deft move because it makes it look like the only thing restricting the diplomatic solution is American aggression. But it's also unacceptable for the West since it would sap the opposition while giving Assad every reason to stall while the war grinds on.

During that time Assad would not be accountable for using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians (not to mention ruthlessly bombing them), which is exactly what Assad and Russia would want since they both deny that chemical attacks by the Assad regime ever happened.

SEE ALSO: The Russian Plan Of Removing Syria's Chemical Weapons Mid-War Is A 'Nightmare'

Join the conversation about this story »


Vladimir Putin's 21 Most Provocative Quotes

$
0
0

Vladimir Putin

Never mind Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s diabolical dictator: Consider this combustible quote on Wednesday from Syria’s staunchest ally, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, writing in The New York Times, about why he believes the U.S. must renounce the threat of striking Syria if a diplomatic solution on the chemical weapons crisis is going to work:

“A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism."

RELATED:  WOULD YOU BUY A USED CAR FROM PUTIN THE ‘PEACENIK’?

Syria has said it would give up chemical weapons, as suggested by the Russians and after Secretary of State John Kerry floated the idea earlier this week – while President Obama remains cautious about whether such an initiative will succeed and vows to keep U.S. military forces ready.

RELATED:  VLADIMIR PUTIN:  INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY

While the world waits and wonders, here’s a roundup of other classic Putinisms as spoken by the inimitable Russian leader, 60, the former KGB agent who in May 2012 was elected to a new six-year term as president after previously serving as president and prime minister. While these comments may sound strange, provocative and downright hostile to the West, make no mistake: Blustery statements like these have made Putin a folk hero in Mother Russia: 

  • “Russia doesn't negotiate with terrorists. It destroys them."

  • “Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage him in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?” (spoken in 2004)

  • “There is no such thing as a former KGB man.”

  • “Their [the U.S.’s] defense budget in absolute figures is almost 25 times bigger than Russia’s. This is what in defense is referred to as ‘their home — their fortress.’ And good for them, I say. Well done!” (spoken in 2006)

  • “A country in which the people are not healthy physically and psychologically, are poorly educated and illiterate, will never rise to the peaks of world civilization.”

  • “The demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.”

  • “Opposition can be useful. Every opposition movement is good and useful if it acts within the law… If there are people who act outside the law, then the state must use legal means to impose law in the interests of the majority. That’s the way it’s done in the U.S. and that’s the way it’s done in Russia.”

  • “America’s development began with a large-scale ethnic cleansing, unprecedented in human history.” 

  • “Russia needs a strong state power and must have it. But I am not calling for totalitarianism.”

  • “We shall fight against them, throw them in prisons and destroy them.” (referring to Chechen separatists in 1994)

  • “No one should pin their hopes on a miracle.” (spoken in 2000, during his election as president)

  • “You must obey the law, always, not only when they grab you by your special place.” (spoken in 2003)

  • “If you want to become an Islamic radical and have yourself circumcised, I invite you to come to Moscow… I would recommend that he who does the surgery does it so you’ll have nothing growing back afterward.” (spoken in 2009)

  • “Mr. McCain fought in Vietnam. I think that he has enough blood of peaceful citizens on his hands. It must be impossible for him to live without these disgusting scenes anymore. Mr. McCain was captured and they kept him not just in prison, but in a pit for several years. Anyone would go nuts.” (spoken in 2011)

  • “I’d rather not deal with such questions, because anyway it’s like shearing a pig – lots of screams but little wool.” (spoken on June 25, 2013, about not wanting to deal with the U.S. over the Edward Snowden NSA surveillance leaks)

  • “History proves that all dictatorships, all authoritarian forms of government, are transient. Only democratic systems are not transient. Whatever the shortcomings, mankind has not devised anything superior.”

  • “Russia will not soon become, if it ever becomes, a second copy of the United States or England – where liberal values have deep historic roots.” 

  • “Our aims are absolutely clear: They are a high living standard in the country and a secure, free and comfortable life.”

  • “The democratic choice Russian people made in the early 90s is final.”

More From The Fiscal Times:
US Military Scrapping Billions Of Dollars Worth Of Gear In Afghanistan

The 7 Worst States To Live In The Future

10 Weapons You Won't Believe Are Legal

Join the conversation about this story »

Congressional Sources Cast Doubt On Number Killed In Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

$
0
0

AP365467426254 (1)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the most precise and dramatic details cited by the Obama administration as proof that Syrian forces used chemical weapons in an August 21 attack was the death toll, which an official U.S. government assessment put at 1,429 people, including 426 children.

The number, first released by the White House on August 30, was underscored by Secretary of State John Kerry in a fiery indictment of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing videos of what he said were victims of the attack, which Syria denies.

"Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate. The United States Government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children," he said.

Some U.S. congressional sources are now casting doubt on those figures.

Three congressional sources told Reuters that administration officials had indicated in private that some deaths might have been caused by the conventional bombing that followed the release of sarin gas in suburban Damascus neighborhoods. This disclosure undermined support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike Syria, they said.

A White House spokeswoman referred all questions about the death toll numbers - including a request for comment on whether controversy about the numbers was undermining support on Capitol Hill for administration policy - to intelligence agency spokespeople.

"The Intelligence Community has a high bar for its assessments but it is virtually impossible to achieve 100 percent certitude," said Shawn Turner, chief spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "That's not the way intelligence works.

"We are extremely rigorous in our methodology and we are constantly challenging ourselves to be more exacting," said Turner. "We have been thorough in our discussions with Congress about our methodology and I'm not aware of any concerns."

One of the congressional sources said that administration officials in closed door briefings said they could not rule out that some victims included in the U.S. death toll were killed either by conventional explosive parts of rockets which carried poison gas or in the artillery barrage the United States says followed the gas attack.

A second source, who is sympathetic to White House policy, said caveats administration officials attached to the 1,429 death total were of sufficient magnitude to cause the source to avoid citing the figure.

A third source said that administration officials confronted pointed questions from members of Congress about the accuracy of the numbers and acknowledged that they "couldn't be sure" about the cause of death for some people counted as victims of chemical poisoning.

An administration official familiar with the briefings denied that there had been any doubts as to how the 1,429 bodies were counted; a second official asserted that Capitol Hill officials had heard what they wanted to hear because so many legislators were opposed to Obama's plan.

Administration sources told Reuters that they relied on a valid intelligence methodology to make the death estimate. An official said that it involved analyzing video pictures of victims, then eliminating from the fatality total any live person, any dead body with visible injuries and shrouded bodies showing blood spots.

Classified intelligence tools then were used to confirm the provenance of the videos and to ensure that bodies were not counted twice, the official said. The official noted that U.S. intelligence had more resources to gather information than human rights or other non-governmental groups, which had smaller death tolls.

"Nobody who has looked at the intelligence thinks this number is way off," a senior U.S. official said.

"That's what the number was that day. We know 1,400 people were killed. As we get new information, the number could change," the senior U.S. official added.

French intelligence says deaths from the gas attacks could be as high as 1,500, but it reported confirmed deaths from video evidence of 281. Estimates of gas attack deaths by British intelligence, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and non-governmental group Doctors without Borders fall within a range of 322 to 355.

The congressional sources said that some members of Congress asked to see raw intelligence gathered by U.S. agencies. But thus far, the administration has provided only reports summarizing intelligence from human informants, electronic eavesdropping and satellite images.

The Syrian government has denied launching any gas attack, although it has acknowledged it has such weapons and is in talks to give them up.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

The United States first cited the 1,429 death toll in a four-page document released by the White House, calling it a "preliminary assessment." Administration officials said that estimate was based on intelligence analysis and never meant to be fixed in stone. Moreover, they expect the ultimate toll will be higher.

In recent days, the administration has avoided the precise figures of the early days.

On September 9, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice also rounded down the figures, saying that "more than 1400" were killed, including "more than 400 children."

In his speech to the nation on Tuesday night, Obama said that Assad's forces had "gassed to death over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children."

A White House official called it a "stylistic thing". "It's accurate and not meant to signal any walking away from the assessment's figure," the person said.

Paul Pillar, formerly the top Middle East expert for U.S. intelligence, told Reuters the United States should have rounded the figures from the start.

"The administration did not help its case by providing a number that misleadingly implied a degree of precision that would be nearly impossible to achieve amid a civil war," he said.

(Reporting By Mark Hosenball; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Peter Henderson and Tim Dobbyn)

Join the conversation about this story »

Now It Looks Like The White House May Have Overestimated Syrian Gas Deaths

$
0
0

AP12110404363

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One of the most precise and dramatic details cited by theObama administration as proof that Syrian forces used chemical weapons in an August 21 attack was the death toll, which an official U.S. government assessment put at 1,429 people, including 426 children.

The number, first released by the White House on August 30, was underscored by Secretary of State John Kerry in a fiery indictment of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, describing videos of what he said were victims of the attack, which Syria denies.

"Instead of being tucked safely in their beds at home, we saw rows of children lying side by side sprawled on a hospital floor, all of them dead from Assad's gas and surrounded by parents and grandparents who had suffered the same fate. The United States Government now knows that at least 1,429 Syrians were killed in this attack, including at least 426 children," he said.

Some U.S. congressional sources are now casting doubt on those figures.

Three congressional sources told Reuters that administration officials had indicated in private that some deaths might have been caused by the conventional bombing that followed the release of sarin gas in suburban Damascus neighborhoods. This disclosure undermined support for President Barack Obama's plan to strike Syria, they said.

White House spokeswoman referred all questions about the death toll numbers - including a request for comment on whether controversy about the numbers was undermining support on Capitol Hill for administration policy - to intelligence agency spokespeople.

"The Intelligence Community has a high bar for its assessments but it is virtually impossible to achieve 100 percent certitude," said Shawn Turner, chief spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "That's not the way intelligence works.

"We are extremely rigorous in our methodology and we are constantly challenging ourselves to be more exacting," said Turner. "We have been thorough in our discussions with Congress about our methodology and I'm not aware of any concerns."

One of the congressional sources said that administration officials in closed door briefings said they could not rule out that some victims included in the U.S. death toll were killed either by conventional explosive parts of rockets which carried poison gas or in the artillery barrage the United States says followed the gas attack.

A second source, who is sympathetic to White House policy, said caveats administration officials attached to the 1,429 death total were of sufficient magnitude to cause the source to avoid citing the figure.

A third source said that administration officials confronted pointed questions from members of Congress about the accuracy of the numbers and acknowledged that they "couldn't be sure" about the cause of death for some people counted as victims of chemical poisoning.

An administration official familiar with the briefings denied that there had been any doubts as to how the 1,429 bodies were counted; a second official asserted that Capitol Hill officials had heard what they wanted to hear because so many legislators were opposed to Obama's plan.

Administration sources told Reuters that they relied on a valid intelligence methodology to make the death estimate. An official said that it involved analyzing video pictures of victims, then eliminating from the fatality total any live person, any dead body with visible injuries and shrouded bodies showing blood spots.

Classified intelligence tools then were used to confirm the provenance of the videos and to ensure that bodies were not counted twice, the official said. The official noted that U.S. intelligence had more resources to gather information than human rights or other non-governmental groups, which had smaller death tolls.

"Nobody who has looked at the intelligence thinks this number is way off," a senior U.S. official said.

"That's what the number was that day. We know 1,400 people were killed. As we get new information, the number could change," the senior U.S. official added.

French intelligence says deaths from the gas attacks could be as high as 1,500, but it reported confirmed deaths from video evidence of 281. Estimates of gas attack deaths by British intelligence, the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and non-governmental group Doctors without Borders fall within a range of 322 to 355.

The congressional sources said that some members of Congress asked to see raw intelligence gathered by U.S. agencies. But thus far, the administration has provided only reports summarizing intelligence from human informants, electronic eavesdropping and satellite images.

The Syrian government has denied launching any gas attack, although it has acknowledged it has such weapons and is in talks to give them up.

PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT

The United States first cited the 1,429 death toll in a four-page document released by the White House, calling it a "preliminary assessment." Administration officials said that estimate was based on intelligence analysis and never meant to be fixed in stone. Moreover, they expect the ultimate toll will be higher.

In recent days, the administration has avoided the precise figures of the early days.

On September 9, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice also rounded down the figures, saying that "more than 1400" were killed, including "more than 400 children."

In his speech to the nation on Tuesday night, Obama said that Assad's forces had "gassed to death over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children."

White House official called it a "stylistic thing". "It's accurate and not meant to signal any walking away from the assessment's figure," the person said.

Paul Pillar, formerly the top Middle East expert for U.S. intelligence, told Reuters theUnited States should have rounded the figures from the start.

"The administration did not help its case by providing a number that misleadingly implied a degree of precision that would be nearly impossible to achieve amid a civil war," he said.

(Reporting By Mark Hosenball; Editing by Marilyn W. Thompson, Peter Henderson and Tim Dobbyn)

Join the conversation about this story »

What Putin Understands That Most Americans Don't

$
0
0

Vladimir Putin Russia

Here is a reaction to the Putin op-ed on Syria, and resulting flap, from a reader who was born in the Ukraine, came to the U.S. as a child, and is now an American citizen living in California. I think it is worth reading. 

The highlighting in his message is by him in the original. If I were boiling what he says down to a sentence it would be: Americans who are on a high horse about Putin's hypocrisy or effrontery should try to imagine how this episode looks in the rest of the world's eyes. And (a second sentence) understanding that reaction matters, since U.S. pressures on Syria are based on the assumption that we are defending international norms and borderless human yearnings for decency. Please check out his assessment in full. 

I've seen a lot of hurrah-ing on two points in the past few days. The first has been that we appear to have (accidentally) avoided involving ourselves in a campaign in Syria. Which is reason for joy. The second has been a kind of dismissal of Putin, particularly of his op-ed in the Times, and its shallowness.

The second instinct, I think, is a mistake. I want to take a second to point out what was obviously bogus about what Putin wrote. He obfuscated Russian interests in Syria, he ignored times Russia found it imperative to fight with, let's say, Georgia, despite a lack of Security Council support. And he intentionally confuses making the UN Security Council powerless by ignoring it (military action) and making it powerless by ensuring that it just doesn't touch any nations with which you are allied (veto).

This is understood. However, beyond this critique, what Putin understands and what I'm sure the Obama administration understands, is the Russian President is arguing from a flank supported by and playing to much of the world. And for us, at least, that should be unacceptable. 

The narrative in America is that Putin is a strong-man oppressing his people, in line with a sophisticated Assad, and that this is what maintains his power. When a former oligarch or recent opposition runs, ostensibly against Putin's party, as in the recent mayoral campaign, and they lose, we say that they secretly won and it was rigged anyways. And the assumption is always that Russia has stacked the votes.

This may surprise American readers, but being a cynic that dispatches your political opposition is not necessarily a position that lacks popular support in Russia. Avoiding debt, side-stepping recessions and having massive oil reserves is actually a pretty great way to assure your long-standing popularity. What makes Putin dangerous is that he's not hanging on by any threads in his country. He is not lying in fear of a populist uprising. He may not be understood this way by Americans, but Russians, with their own history, understand him quite well as largely the most successful apparatchik since Khrushchev, both in keeping with his own interests and with Russia's.

As we examine whether or not Obama was playing chess, we should also examine whether or not, in this instance, he played against a superior opponent. And we must then assess the damage this game did. Because Putin wasn't writing to United States citizens, even as that was the premise. He was writing globally. He was writing for a world that is quite willing to accept the narrative of Americans quick to rush into war, quick to disrespect the Security Council, quick to disregard international law. And he is writing from a position of an alternative power.

He is making his case, a case that the world will not understand as Americans understand it. He has protected his interest in Syria under the banner of advancing an international interest. He has established, further, a precedent. That the United States does answer to the council, that it cannot act unilaterally and that our nation can be made to suffer a geopolitical consequence. If you were a country in the Middle East, whose protection would you want right now?

I brought up Khrushchev not incidentally. I currently view our recent impasse as very similar to the Vienna Summit. Americans are quick to hand-wave the foreign apparat, but slow to realize what just happened. We got duped into having a fight we didn't want to have. We wanted limits on Assad's power, and we now have significant limits of our own by way of this precedent.

I believe it is quite possible that we were playing a long game, but in this instance, I believe our opposition was playing a longer one. That this, while a temporary strategic success, will come out to be a failure of realpolitik.We should have been as prepared for Putin as it appears he was for us.

A related reaction from another reader:

As an admirer of Mr. Obama I nonetheless agree with his critics that he has bungled Syria policy, isn’t sure what he wants, and his Secretary of State has made poor arguments delivered with hyperbole reminiscent of the 2nd Bush administration.

And yet…

By punting to Congress he has strengthened the Republic

And now chance words from the annoyingly pious Mr. Kerry might bring a negotiated solution

Perhaps the first requirement for being a great politician is a vast store of good luck. 

Also check out this parallel assessment from What Would Vannevar Blog.

Update: Also please take a look at this remarkably unsparing analysis from my long-time Atlantic colleague Robert Kaplan, on the ways in which -- despite the obvious differences -- the Syrian situation can be compared to Iraq.

More from The Atlantic:

The hidden fear in Putin's op-ed

How Obama is an extremist

The problem with focusing on chemical weapons

Join the conversation about this story »

KERRY: Syria Peace Prospects Ride On Chemical Weapons Talks

$
0
0

kerry lavrovKerry says the future of Syria peace talks depends on outcome of chemical weapons deal

GENEVA (AP) — U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Friday that prospects for a resumption in the Syrian peace process are riding on the outcome of U.S.-Russian talks aimed at securing Syria's chemical weapons arsenal that lurched into a second day.

As American and Russian chemical weapons experts huddled in a Geneva hotel to haggle over technical details that will be critical to reach a deal, Kerry and Lavrov met a distance away with U.N.-Arab League envoy Lakdar Brahimi to examine political developments and plot a new international conference to support the creation of Syrian transitional government.

Kerry, flanked by Lavrov and Brahimi, told reporters at the U.N. in Geneva after an hour-long meeting that the chances for a second peace conference in Geneva "will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here ... on the subject of the chemical weapons."

Brahimi also met privately with Kerry at a Geneva hotel on Thursday to explore ways to resume international negotiations last held in Geneva in June 2012 aimed at ending the Syrian civil war.

Lavrov said it was "very unfortunate that for a long time that the Geneva communique was basically abandoned."

Kerry and Lavrov announced they would meet again in New York toward the end of the month to try to fix a date for second conference.

When the talks began Thursday, Kerry bluntly rejected a Syrian pledge to begin a "standard process" by turning over information rather than weapons — and nothing immediately. The American diplomat said that was not acceptable.

"The words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough," Kerry declared as he stood beside Lavrov. "This is not a game."

The talks were the latest in a rapidly moving series of events following the Aug. 21 gas attack on suburbs in Damascus. The U.S. blames Syrian President Bashar Assad for the use of chemical weapons, although Assad denies his government was involved and instead points to rebels engaged in a 2-year-old civil war against his government.

President Barack Obama began building a case for support at home and abroad for a punitive military strike on Assad's forces, then changed course and asked Congress to give him explicit authority for a limited strike. With the campaign for lawmakers' building to a vote — one that he might well lose — Obama said Tuesday he would consider a Russian proposal calling for international control of Assad's chemical weapons and their eventual destruction.

Obama dispatched Kerry to Geneva to hammer out the details of the proposal even as he kept alive the possibility of U.S. military action.

"We believe there is nothing standard about this process at this moment because of the way the regime has behaved," Kerry said on the opening day of talks. The turnover of weapons must be complete, verifiable and timely, he said, "and, finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn't take place."

Lavrov seemed to contradict Kerry's negative view of Assad's offer to provide details on his country's chemical arsenal beginning 30 days after it signs an international convention banning such weapons. Syria's ambassador to the United Nations said that as of Thursday his country had become a full member of the treaty, which requires destruction of all chemical weapons.

The Russian said the initiative must proceed "in strict compliance with the rules that are established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons." That suggests Russia does not agree with the U.S. that this is an exceptional case and that Syria should face tougher standards than other countries.

"We proceed from the fact that the solution to this problem will make unnecessary any strike on the Syrian Arab Republic, and I am convinced that our American colleagues, as President Obama stated, are firmly convinced that we should follow a peaceful way of resolution to the conflict in Syria," Lavrov said.

The distrust in U.S.-Russia relations was on display even in an off-hand parting exchange at the news conference. Just before it ended, Kerry asked the Russian translator to repeat part of Lavrov's concluding remarks.

When it was clear that Kerry wasn't going to get an immediate retranslation, Lavrov apparently tried to assure him that he hadn't said anything controversial . "It was OK, John, don't worry," he said.

"You want me to take your word for it?" Kerry asked Lavrov. "It's a little early for that."

They were smiling at that point. Shortly after making their opening statements, the two went into a private dinner.

Assad, in an interview with Russia's Rossiya-24 TV, said his government would start submitting data on its chemical weapons stockpile a month after signing the convention. He also said the Russian proposal for securing the weapons could work only if the U.S. halted threats of military action.

At a meeting in Kyrgyzstan of an international security grouping dominated by Russia and China, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that Syria's efforts have demonstrated its good faith.

"I would like to voice hope that this will mark a serious step toward the settlement of the Syrian crisis," Putin said.

Even as diplomacy took center stage, word surfaced that the CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following Obama's statement in June that he would provide lethal aid to the rebels.

White House National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said the administration could not "detail every single type of support that we are providing to the opposition or discuss timelines for delivery, but it's important to note that both the political and the military opposition are and will be receiving this assistance."

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said the CIA has arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry such as rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that have been arming the rebels. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.

Loay al-Mikdad, a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, told The Associated Press that his group expected to receive weapons in the near future.

Join the conversation about this story »

Wall Street Journal: Elite Syrian Army Unit Scattering Chemical Weapons Sites

$
0
0

syria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An elite Syrian unit that runs the government's chemical arms program has been scattering the weapons to dozens of sites across the country, potentially complicating U.S. plans for air strikes, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The newspaper, citing unnamed U.S. officials and lawmakers briefed on the intelligence, said on its website on Thursday that a secretive military group known as Unit 450 had been moving the stocks around for months to help avoid detection of the weapons.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies and Middle Eastern officials still believe they know the location of most of the government's chemicalweapons supply, the Journal said.

But "we know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemicalweapons are," one official was quoted as saying.

The United States and its allies say Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces carried out a chemicalweapons attack in a Damascus neighborhood on August 21 that U.S. officials say killed about 1,400 people, including 400 children. Assad and Syrian ally Russia blame rebel forces.

The United States and Russia began high-stakes talks on Thursday on Moscow's plan for Syria to surrender its chemicalweapons as Damascus formally applied to join a global poison gas ban.

The talks were part of a diplomatic push that prompted President Barack Obama to put on hold plans for U.S. air strikes in response to the suspected attack.

The United Nations said it received a document from Syria on joining the global anti-chemicalweapons treaty, a move Assad promised as part of a deal to avoid U.S. air strikes.

Syria's civil war has killed more than 100,000 people since 2011.

The Journal quoted a senior U.S. official as saying that Washington estimated that Damascus had 1,000 metric tons (1,102 tons) of chemical and biological agents, "although there might be more."

After traditionally storing most of its chemical and biological weapons at a few sites in western Syria, the government started dispersing the weapons about a year ago, officials said.

They added that the United States now believed the arsenal had been moved to up to 50 sites in the west, north, south and east of the country.

No decision had been made whether to target commanders of the small unit, made up of officers from Assad's Alawite sect, the paper said, quoting a senior U.S. official.

There were also no plans to bomb chemicalweaponssites directly because of the potential risk that poisons could be dispersed to civilian areas, officials told the paper.

(Writing by Peter Cooney; Editing by Mohammad Zargham)

Join the conversation about this story »

Here Are All The Reasons Why The Syria Chemical Weapons Agreement Won't Work

$
0
0

syria

On Friday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any international peace deal ending the civil war now relies on Russia's proposal to place Syria's chemical weapons arsenal under international control. 

But there are a bunch of obvious stumbling blocks to the lofty ambitions, including:

1) Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would not follow through with the Russian proposal unless the U.S. "stops threatening, striving to attack [Syria] and also ceases arms deliveries to terrorists.”

• The White House considers the threat of force integral to diplomatic efforts, and the U.S. strategy of training and arming vetted rebels is unlikely to end.

2) Moscow rejected U.S. and French demands for a binding U.N. Security Council resolution including "very severe consequences" for Syrian non-compliance.

• On Thursday State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said: "The threat of military action is still on the table."

• France "remains determined to punish the use of chemical weapons" by Assad's regime and insists that any U.N. Security Council resolution should have a threat of force if diplomacy fails.

3) Assad said that Israel "is the first [country] that should" ratify the the Chemical Weapons Convention.

• Both Syria and Israel have signed the agreement. Israel refuses to ratify as long at its neighbors can threaten the country with chemical weapons.

4) The Russian proposal relies on trusting Assad to give up all 1,000-plus tons of chemical weapons, which are one of the Syrian military's three primary strategic assets.

• The Wall Street Journal reports that Syria's elite Unit 450 — which is in charge of securing, mixing, and deploying chemical munitions — "has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track."

• According to Middle East expert Mike Doran, "Assad will never under any condition truly relinquish his [chemical weapons]. He is a proven liar on issues such as this."

5) The plan entails the unprecedented task of securing and destroying what is considered the world's third largest chemical weapons stockpile during an ongoing civil war.

• One senior administration official told the New York Times that securing chemical arms in a war zone “just the first nightmare of making this work.”

• Cheryl Rofer, who supervised a team responsible for destroying chemical warfare agents at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, told Foreign Policy that the disarmament work "is simply too dangerous to do while people are shooting at each other." A ceasefire in the 30-month conflict is very unlikely if not impossible to enforce.

The process in Syria would be "exceedingly difficult" because, even with ceasefire, the destruction and deactivation of those weapons would take years and require tens of thousands of troops to protect inspectors.

The negotiations have paused U.S. plans for a strike in retaliation to an August 21 chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians. Assad and Putin deny the Syrian government carried out the attack but have not presented any evidence to the contrary.

Assad said “Syria is transferring chemical weapons under international control because of Russia” and that “the U.S. threats [of force] hadn’t influenced” his government’s decision.

However, that claim is belied by other comments by Assad.

"It is a bilateral process aimed principally at making the US cease pursuing its policy of aggression against Syria and proceed in compliance with the Russian initiative," he told Russiya 24 TV before listing his demands.

All in all, agreeing to the terms of Russia and Syria would sap the opposition while giving Assad every reason to stall while the war grinds on.

For these reasons (and others) the military wing of the Syria's main opposition group flatly rejected Russia's proposal, and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said he believes it is "doubtful that the promises regarding chemical weapons will be met."

SEE ALSO: Putin and Assad Have Presented The West With An Impossible Ultimatum

Join the conversation about this story »


UN SECRETARY GENERAL: Syria Report Will Be 'Overwhelming' And Confirm Chemical Weapons Were Used

$
0
0

assad

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that a U.N. report due out Monday will be "overwhelming" and confirm that chemical weapons were used during an Aug. 21 attack.

"I believe that the report will be an overwhelming, overwhelming report that chemical weapons (were) used even though I cannot publicly say at this time before I receive this report," Ban said at a U.N. meeting, according to Reuters. 

He did not specify whether the report will finger the Assad regime for use of the chemical weapons in the attack, which occurred in the suburbs of Damascus.

All published evidence points to Assad, including the rockets that are believed to have delivered the poison gas.

The U.N. cheif added that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has committed many crimes against humanity."

Ban's comments come as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry meets for the second day in Geneva, Switzerland, with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to iron out a potential diplomatic solution. Several major obstacles remain.

Join the conversation about this story »

Dictators Never Looked So Good

$
0
0

putin

Vladimir Putin is saving the United States from another Mideast military intervention. Bashar al-Assad promises to ‘thin the herd’ of jihadists and hold Syria together. And Egypt’s new strongman, General Abdal Fattah el Sisi, says he is sorting out the Muslim Brotherhood.

Leaders described as “repressive” sound eminently reasonable. They promise to bring order to chaos without dirtying American hands. Putin’s op-ed article in the New York Times on Wednesday was the latest example.

Written with the help of the American public relations firm Ketchum, the piece provoked a dizzying array of reactions. Here’s one fact check by Max Fisher of the Washington Post. Here’s a take down from Human Rights Watch. And the New Yorker posted this hilarious Andy Borowitz mock Modern Love column by the macho former KGB officer.

The views Putin expresses are seductive. Some of his criticisms of American power are legitimate. American unilateralism — from Iraq to drone strikes to National Security Agency surveillance — undermines President Barack Obama’s credibility on striking Syria.

But in the end Putin’s opinion piece matches his Russia. It is appealing on the surface but hollow at its core. Throughout, Putin lies by omission. In other spots, he lies flat-out. Here are two examples that would make Orwell proud.

Putin presents himself as the pacifist and Obama as the militarist. He argues that American cruise missile strikes will “result in more innocent victims” and that the U.S. increasingly relies “solely on brute force.” He makes no mention of the vast amount of weaponry Russia has shipped to Assad over the last two years. Or the 2008 military incursion Russia carried out into Georgia without the approval of the UN Security Council.

The Russian president then portrays the entire Syrian opposition as jihadists. He says there are “few champions of democracy in Syria” and ”more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes fighting the government.”

No mention is made of Assad’s decision to fire on unarmed demonstrators when the uprising against him began. Nor does Putin say that government forces committed eight of the nine mass killings recently investigated by the United Nations. Finally, citing no evidence, he claims that “there is every reason to believe” that the rebels carried out the August 21st chemical attack outside Damascus.

The issue, though, is not a tendentious op-ed. It is the state of Putin’s Russia. While he declares himself a defender of “international law” in Syria, Putin’s government systematically violates international law at home  – from jailing political opponents, to imprisoning independent journalists to advocating laws that legalize homophobia.

I briefly visited Moscow in May, while covering Secretary of State John Kerry’s first trip to Russia. Western diplomats and Russian analysts painted a bleak portrait of Russia’s future. In a globalized economy where innovation, foreign investment and transparency are key to growth, Putin is suffocating all three.

Putin’s relentless centralization of economic and political power has created a one-dimensional economy dependent on oil revenues. The random court cases brought against Putin rivals have prompted Russian and foreign investors to flee. They pulled $1.2 billion from Russia-focused equity funds this spring, Reuters reported, citing Putin’s failure to enact long-promised economic reforms.

In Egypt, there are clear parallels. Gen. Sisi is promising stability, playing on nationalist sentiment and crushing all potential rivals, from Islamists to liberals to journalists. Ursula Lindsey reported in the New York Times Thursday that an ultra-nationalist “cult of Sisi” is emerging in the country.

“Of course, this obfuscates some uncomfortable facts,” Lindsey wrote. “Having shaped the country’s economy and politics for the last 60 years, [the Egyptian military] is one of the institutions most responsible for Egypt’s corruption and decline.”

Signs are emerging that the brutal crackdown Sisi launched two months ago that killed 1,300 Muslim Brotherhood members may backfire. Last week, the country’s pro-military interior minister narrowly survived a bomb attack. If elements of the group have radicalized, a full-scale insurgency could emerge in Egypt.

Yes, Obama has waffled on both Egypt and Syria. He has repeatedly contradicted himself on national security. And the concept of “American exceptionalism” is clearly repugnant to other nations.

But Putin’s defense of Assad – one of the most cynical exercises in statecraft in decades — does not make him a visionary. Nor does it make Russian-style authoritarianism a model for the Middle East.

There is nothing complicated or altruistic about Putin’s strategy in Syria. He is defending Assad in order to preserve his key ally in the Middle East and his own rule in Russia. Putin sees Syria as the latest in a long line of American interventions that has toppled rulers. Dismissing protests against himself and other autocrats as CIA plots, he probably fears he may be next.

As 100,000 people have died, Putin has used obstruction at the United Nations — not deft diplomacy — to elevate his standing in the world. He has spread false conspiracy theories and glossed over Syrian government war crimes to again make Russia a player on the global stage.

Difficult questions need to be asked about U.S. interests in the Middle East.  Fostering thriving, stable democracies should be our objective. But quickly achieving that ideal is not possible. In each nation, different approaches are needed.

The Arab Spring has shown that rushed transitions to democracy can devolve into chaos, where jihadists can thrive. But we should not be fooled into thinking that authoritarianism is a long-term answer to the complex dynamics roiling the Middle East. It creates stability in the short-term — and stagnation and decay over time.

The path to democracy in the region is long, complicated and deeply unnerving. But it should remain our ultimate goal.

SEE ALSO: 13 Objectively True Statements From The Vladimir Putin Op-Ed

Join the conversation about this story »

Vladimir Putin Is 'Basking In The Glory Of Having Flipped The Diplomatic Bird' To America

$
0
0

putin tea

Vladimir Putin had had enough.

The Russian president spent far too long absorbing criticism from the United States on everything from human rights to his country’s foreign policy.

It’s no wonder, then, that the former KGB spy and his country’s most popular politician is basking in the glory of having flipped the diplomatic bird to the United States.

It began as a surprise proposal by Russia earlier this week to place Syrian chemical weapons under international control that stole the wind from American sails and positioned Moscow as the proactive peacemaker in the crisis.

Then came Putin’s controversial “plea” in The New York Times on Wednesday, which argued that a US strike would destabilize the Middle East and fan the flames of terrorism.

It was a punch straight to the American gut, during one of President Barack Obama’s most vulnerable moments.

All part of Russia’s strategy.

Having shouted from the sidelines since the beginning of the Syrian crisis, Russia had found itself in a situation disconcertingly similar to the one it faced over Libya in 2011 and in the Balkans in the late 1990s.

Its calls against Western intervention rebuffed, it stood by and watched NATO planes bomb Slobodan Milosevic into submission and Libya into chaos.

Between those two campaigns, Moscow witnessed with alarm the toppling of pro-Kremlin regimes in Ukraine, Georgia and other former Soviet republics where so-called color revolutions succeeded with help from US-funded democracy assistance programs.

The Kremlin has since incorporated anti-American sentiment as a key component of its domestic political strategy. Especially since Putin’s re-election last year, it has trumpeted its view that Russia’s identity and proper place in the world is separate from the West and at odds with its liberal values.

Russia’s state-enforced nationalism has been shaped by everything from legislation reinforcing “traditional sexual relationships” to Putin’s stated ambitions to cobble together the remnants of the former Soviet Union to create the Eurasian Union — an eastern answer to the EU.

Russia has broadcast its defiance in various ways since Putin’s return. American-funded NGOs have been harassed or forced into closure. US Ambassador Michael McFaul has become an object of derision among state journalists and some Russian officials. Pro-Kremlin commentators have appropriated the term “Gosdep” (short for “State Department” in Russian) in diatribes against Russia’s opposition.

Now, with a US president weakened by lukewarm public support and an uphill congressional battle over a potential missile strike in Syria, the Kremlin saw a perfect opportunity.

In Thursday’s opinion piece, Putin rejected US attempts at unilateral action, saying any intervention must be sanctioned by the UN Security Council, where Moscow has used its veto to block numerous resolutions.

“The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not,” he wrote.

Then came the kicker.

“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation,” Putin wrote. “There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy.”

Much of the Russian political establishment has fallen into line, taking aim at the American “exceptionalism” invoked by Obama during his address earlier this week to the public.

More from GlobalPost: Putin likes it both ways

“The logic is this: the ‘exceptionalism’ of a nation mean exceptional rules,” tweeted Alexei Pushkov, the outspoken chairmen of Russia’s parliamentary committee on international affairs, on Friday. “That doctrine embodies political racism and separates the US from the rest of the world.”

Putin’s editorial swipe has paid off, angering American lawmakers — themselves split over the prospects of a Syrian strike — from both sides of the aisle. Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told CNN the piece had almost made him vomit.

Others had starker assessments, including one unlikely source: the real estate magnate Donald Trump, who called the op-ed “a masterpiece for Russia and a disaster for the US.”

“He is lecturing to our President,” he wrote Thursday on Twitter. “Never has our Country looked to [sic] weak.”

Join the conversation about this story »

John McCain Prepares To Troll Vladimir Putin In A Russian Newspaper

$
0
0

John McCain

On Thursday night, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) joked to CNN's Jake Tapper that he would love to write an op-ed for Pravda, a Russian publication, to respond to Russian President Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times on Wednesday.

Now, that looks like it's becoming a reality.

Dmitry Sudakov, the English editor of Pravda,told Foreign Policy on Friday that McCain would be "welcome" to write an opinion piece for the newspaper. McCain's spokesman, Brian Rogers, confirmed that he will submit a piece. 

"Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already," Sudakov told Foreign Policy. "We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain."

Putin's op-ed in the Times caused a stir in the U.S., especially for its challenge to American "exceptionalism"— which Putin called "dangerous." Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it made him "want to vomit."

It's not likely that McCain will face as fair-minded of a staff as Putin found with the TimesPravda is associated with the Communist Party of Russia. Here's a look at the sidebar of its website right now:

Pravda

Join the conversation about this story »

US AND RUSSIA AGREE ON SYRIA CHEMICAL WEAPONS DEAL

$
0
0

Barack Obama Vladimir Putin

Washington and Moscow have agreed a deal to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Saturday after talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

"Providing this framework is fully implemented it can end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people but also their neighbours," Kerry told reporters at a joint press conference with Lavrov, after wrapping up three days of negotiations in Geneva.

"Because of the threat of proliferation this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world," he said.

"The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its commitments... There can be no room for games. Or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime," he added.

Join the conversation about this story »

Viewing all 4970 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>