Moscow pulls away from Kerry-Lavrov deal on Syrian chemical disarmament. Assad gets to keep his WMD
DEBKA
Russian leaders finally picked apart the Kerry-Lavrov understanding for Syria’s chemical disarmament – less than a week after it was unveiled in Geneva last Saturday. Thursday, Sept. 19, they slapped down a string of coordinated obstructions. One knockout blow came from President Vladimir Putin, who commented dryly that he could not be 100 percent certain that the plan for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons would succeed. “But everything we have seen so far in recent days gives us confidence that this will happen. I hope so,” he said.
To dispel that hope, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu followed up with a denial of any plans to destroy the Syrian chemical stocks on Russian soil.
Then, in an interview to Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad, in sync with Moscow, asked mockingly: “It [the destruction of poison chemicals] is very detrimental to the environment. If the American administration is ready to pay this money and take the responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the United States, why don’t they do it?”
Since Russia and the US are the only countries with the industrial-scale capacity to destroy chemical munitions, and their import is banned under US law, Assad’s chemical arsenal is safe.
In fact, Germany alone has offered to send a small number of chemical experts to Syria, No one else is ready to oversee the complicated dismantling and removal of an estimated 1,000 tons of dangerously poisonous materials, pay for the operation or accept the materials on its soil.
US Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing his understanding with Sergey Lavrov slipping away, made a desperate attempt to save it. He called a news conference at the State Department Thursday to declare that it was essential the deal be enforced with a binding resolution and that the UN Security Council act on it next week, when the UN General Assembly holds its annual meeting in New York.
Kerry did not indicate how the US administration would react if the deal fell through or whether the US military option would be revived.
But it was already clear that his deal with Lavrov was going nowhere, even to the few Obama sympathizers who had hailed the president for finally managing to get Moscow on board for a solution of the Syrian war and the removal of Assad’s chemical arsenal.
The Syrian ruler calmly told Fox meanwhile that his government was willing to get rid of its chemical weapons but it would be a very complicated operation that would take about a year or more and cost around $1 billion.
After analyzing his comments, Western intelligence experts told DEBKAfile they had reached two conclusions:
1. That Assad drew a distinction between his operational chemical arsenal and the stockpiles of those weapons. He is apparently willing to let the first category go, but determined to keep the stocks.
2. His manner was confident verging on cocky, showing he felt certain that he would not be deprived of his chemical capabilities for coming out on top of the Syrian civil war.
He had no qualms about denying his forces were responsible for the Aug. 21 attack on districts east of Damascus, fully backed by the perseverance of Russian officials in pinning the blame on the rebels.
As excerpts of his Fox interview were aired, Assad received Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov in Damascus at the head of a large Russian delegation of military and intelligence officers. He used the occasion to complain that he was caught in a cruel vice between al Qaeda and US pressure and expressed the hope that Moscow would be able to “draw a new map of global balance.”
As the Kerry-Lavrov deal falls apart, it turns out to have been less an agreement and more a loose compilation of limited understandings on the Syrian chemical question, which left unresolved sharp, fundamental disagreements between Washington on Moscow on how it should be handled, particularly at the UN Security Council.
None of this has stopped President Obama from selling the proposition to the American public and the world that the US-Russian accord for the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons was a triumphant breakthrough for his administration’s diplomacy, which opened the door to an agreement for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue as well.
@ Eric R.:
India is hampered by its significant Muslim problem, while in Pakistan Muslims have no 2nd thought when it comes to kill non-Muslims. Indians do not even respect their women!!!
Japan, Australia and Canada are natural allies for IL.
Whatever criticism you might have of Putin and Russia one thing is clear. Russia will follow its’ own self interests. Its’ self interest is served now by allying itself with Syria. Its’ foreign policy is rational whereas ours is completely irrational. Where is the rationality in believing we can lob a few missiles into Syria without causing terrible blowbacks. Syria is not a naughty child to be punished by a spanking. Unfortunately, Obama has allied this country with our worst enemy,the Muslim Brotherhood. Russian foreign policy is understandable.Ours is not.
Eric R. Said:
The Islamic terrorists had their own version of selekzia. They reportedly informed Muslims they could leave so they could kill non-Muslims! The Jews aren’t their first and only targets. The incident in Kenya has illustrated just brutal Islamic terrorism is in our world.
Laura Said:
Israel should not be captive to the interests of any Great Power! Israeli subservience to America is a big problem. Trading that for Israeli subservience to Russia will not solve Israel’s quandary. Israel must develop true independence and Israel’s new-found energy independence gives the Jewish State the means to attain it.
Comment to Mr. Harris still in moderation….
Religion of pieces strikes again – in Kenya:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4431794,00.html
It should be noted – much to the Kenyan’s credit – that this happened because they have been one of the few nations in the world to actually go on the offensive against these Jihadist savages.
@ ArnoldHarris:
You are a fool. This is the country that has been arming Syria with WMD’s and is arming Iran with nuclear weapons, has stated Israel should be rid of its nuclear weapons. But you still think Israel should form an alliance with these Russian snakes? So you think Moscow will care about Jewish national interests? If you think its bad that Israel depends on America, it will be a thousand times worse to be dependent on Russia. Your absurd pro-Russian bias has blinded you to reality. I’m sick of your nauseating love for Russia and putin.
ArnoldHarris Said:
Arnold,
I agree that as America becomes a largely third-world socialist dump in the next 10-15 years, it is time for Israel to broaden its horizons. However, I would not put too many eggs in the Russian basket. By almost all accounts, Putin is not anti-Semitic, has helped to suppress anti-Semitic sentiment in Russia, and has helped revive Jewish life in Russia. While I will give him credit for all these things, I would not call him a philo-Semite. He will work with Israel to the extent he finds it useful. He will discard it when it gets in the way of his interests – kind of the mafia notion of “Nothing personal, just business.” (Krauthammer called him a mafia don with nukes). And while he has tried to suppress Jew-hatred in Russia, it is nevertheless still there.
Israel has to think of itself as an Asian nation, and tie itself to Asian states. And I am thinking not so much of China as I do India. India has a growing navy (now the largest in the Indian Ocean), the world’s third largest standing army, and its high-tech strengths play well to Israel’s strengths. While the dominant, socialist-oriented Congress Party has never liked Israel, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is more sympathetic, and they are expected to win big in the upcoming national elections, with Narendra Modi, Goveror of Gujarat state and strongly anti-Islamist, expected to become Prime Minister. India is big enough and powerful enough now to be able to work closely with Israel and not be bullied by the Gulf States.
Having an Indian naval frigate dock at Eilat would send a strong signal to a lot of players – Russia, the USA, China, the EU and Egypt. This should be pursued with far more zeal on the part of Israel than cozying up to Putin.
All the more reason why Israel would be better off developing closer relations with Putin/Lavrov and putting distance between the Jewish state and Obama/Kerry. Dependability of the Russians may well be questionable. But Israel’s experiences since 1948 clearly show that dependability of the USA in regard to Jewish national interests is not questionable at all. Because zero always equals zero and never has any other value.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The Russians made fools out of Obama and Kerry and humiliated them!
And these are the folks Israel wants to rely on to guarantee its security when they cannot even stand up to Moscow on Syrian weapons of mass destruction? Dream on.
By the way Diskin and Dagan are quite silent days. Gee, I wonder why!