Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

US and Russia agree on Syria probe

MOSCOW

Lavrov and Tillerson

Sergey Lavrov and Rex Tillerson meet in Moscow and have agreed that a U.N. probe is now necessary following the chemical weapons attack in Syria on April 4.

The United States and Russia have agreed to work together on an international investigation of the Syrian chemical weapons attack last week. Amid a fierce dispute over Syria and retaliatory American missile strikes the two sides appear to be striving in salvaging ties. At the heart of the dispute is who was responsible for the use of banned chemical gases against innocent civilians. Washington blames Russia’s ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad, while Moscow says Syrian rebels are responsible.

After a day of intense discussions with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the former Cold War foes agreed a U.N. probe of events in northern Syria on April 4 was necessary. More than 80 people were killed in what the U.S. has described as a nerve gas attack that Assad’s forces undoubtedly carried out. Russia says rebels dispersed whatever chemical agent was found, which the Trump administration calls a “disinformation campaign”.

The outcome of those discussions came after Russian President Vladimir Putin met the top American diplomat for almost two hours to see if they could rescue relations between the world’s mightiest military powers. Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election also hovered over the first face-to-face encounter between Putin and a Trump administration Cabinet member.

“There is a low level of trust between our two countries,” Tillerson said candidly.

He said working groups would be established to improve U.S.-Russian ties and identify problems. He said the two sides would also discuss disagreements on Syria and how to end the country’s six-year civil war.

The most immediate dispute concerned culpability for the chemical weapons, though broader disagreements over everything from Ukraine to Russia’s support for once-fringe candidates in European elections are among other contentious points.

Steeped in geopolitical intrigue, the meeting between Putin and Tillerson wasn’t formally confirmed until the last minute, following days of speculation about whether the Russian would refuse to grant the former oil executive an audience. Putin’s decision to host Tillerson signalled Moscow’s intent to maintain communication with the U.S. even as the countries publicly bash each other with louder insinuations and forced rhetoric.

The men know each other well from Tillerson’s days as Exxon Mobil CEO. Putin had even granted Tillerson a friendship honour.

Standard
Government, Middle East, Syria, United Nations, United States

U.S. launches strikes against Syria

SYRIA

Assad

Syrian President Bashar Assad speaks during an interview with Croatian newspaper Vecernji List in Damascus.

The U.S. has launched cruise missiles against Syria, a day after President Trump said a chemical weapons attack that killed 86, “crossed many, many” lines.

Why did the U.S. attack?

Back in 2013, President Obama set a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar Assad. The regime proceeded to use the weapons to kill 1,400 civilians, but Obama did not attack — a move Trump and other Republicans widely criticised as making America look weak.

In the wake of that episode, Assad agreed to turn over his stockpile of chemical weapons. This week’s chemical attack clearly violated that pledge. Trump called the attack — which killed at least 86 people, 27 of them children —  “a disgrace to humanity” and “truly one of the egregious crimes.”

How did the U.S. attack?

The cruise missiles were fired from a U.S. Navy vessel in the Mediterranean Sea. The missiles hit multiple targets, including the airfield which serves as the base for the warplanes suspected of carrying out the chemical attack.

The plan for the attack followed one devised in 2013 after Obama set his “red line.”

Has the U.S. struck Syria before?

The U.S. has been bombing Islamic State targets in Syria since 2014, but this was the first strike against the Syrian regime. This also marked the first conventional assault on another country ordered by President Trump.

Why did the U.S. attack from ships?

Tomahawk missiles can travel 1,500 miles to strike their target. So, the U.S. Navy was able to launch the attack from the Mediterranean Sea, avoiding the need to get permission from any host country to launch the strikes.

What are the risks of attacking the regime?

One potential concern is the safety of US Special Operations troops in eastern Syria who are advising local ground forces in their fight against the Islamic State. There are fears Assad could counter by targeting the U.S. troops. The strikes also effectively open a new front in America’s 16-year war in the Middle East.

Bunker

Damaged hardened aircraft shelters at the Syrian airbase following US airstrikes.

Airfield

Digital satellite image of the US target zone.

Tomahawkjpg

59 Tomahawk missiles were fired by the US military fleet in the eastern Mediterranean towards the Al-Shayrat airbase near Homs in Syria.

Standard
Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

Moscow is colluding with Syria’s Assad

SYRIA

Idlib

Syria conflict: ‘Chemical attack’ in Idlib has claimed the lives of 72 people. More casualties are expected.

Last September, President Barack Obama expressed doubt as to whether the United States could expect Russia to help end the bloody insurrection and civil war in Syria. In a speech that Mr Obama gave, he claimed that there were ‘gaps of trust’ between the two governments. Some seven months on, those gaps have become chasms. The very notion that the Russians could be entrusted to act responsibly over one of the most volatile regions in the world now appears fanciful.

Every iota of evidence from the recent ghastly atrocity in Syria’s rebel-held Idlib province indicates that the forces of President Bashar al-Assad committed war crimes. The Russian version of events – that an airstrike hit a rebel armoury, releasing toxic agents and nerve gases – has been roundly dismissed by every serious political actor.

According to Britain’s ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, the attack ‘bears all the hallmarks’ of Assad’s regime. It is believed that a nerve agent, sarin nerve gas, was used in killing dozens of innocent people.

Mr Rycroft says there is no intelligence to suggest rebel groups can access the sort of chemical weapons that appear to have been used in the strikes.

The suspected chemical attack has so far claimed 72 lives, with the death toll likely to rise as rescue and aid workers search for survivors. All the while, Russia has opposed a UN resolution drafted by Britain, France and the US which condemns chemical attacks in Syria and urges the government’s co-operation in an investigation.

Many will believe that Russia’s stance is little short of collusion, and for all the frustration that is being felt in the UN at present, it is imperative that more pressure is brought on Moscow as well as the Chinese to ensure Assad makes good on his previous pledge to give up his chemical weapons stockpile.

Standard