Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

Putin 'does not rule out' approving Syria strike with evidence Assad used poison gas

www.reuters.com

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia did not rule out approving a military operation in Syria if clear evidence showed Damascus had carried out chemical weapons attacks, but said any attack would be illegal without U.N. support.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.zerohedge.com
www.abc.net.au

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Syrian chemical weapons official has defected from Assad regime
Super Missile Cruiser "Moskva" with Destroyers And Frigates heads for Syria

Honestly, i have no idea how this is going to unfold. With the news just in that Russia's Misslie Cruiser 'Moskva' along with a couple of Destroyers, Frigates and allegedly even one (or more) nuclear Submarines is heading for Syria, the whole affair becomes ever more uncertain.

What happens if evidence is presented, that the 'World Community' can only consider unequivocal. So far the Russian Government remains unconvinced, that the Assad regime has indeed attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Is a military strike against Syria justified if backed up by UN mandate (which would have to include Russia's and China's approval)?

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Okay .. that got my attention. This is different. I don't know if Putin is trying to appear reasonable and open minded but really has no intention of bombing Syria (Syria, which is the biggest purchaser of Russian made arms in the world) or if he is sincere. Putin is a politician and the leader of a major world power .. so you never know.

If he really said that, it could be a big mistake on his part.

Kind of like Obama's 'crossing the red line' comment was a mistake.

Anyways ... it's interesting.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
What happens if evidence is presented, that the 'World Community' can only consider unequivocal. So far the Russian Government remains unconvinced, that the Assad regime has indeed attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Is a military strike against Syria justified if backed up by UN mandate (which would have to include Russia's and China's approval)?

Such evidence will never be presented, if you go by the fact that Kerry has already used a fake photograph to try to sway people's opinions. The American people do not want to do this. Personally, I have not seen direct evidence linking Assad to these attacks. The simple fact that the rebels have terrorist organizations fighting alongside them (which is not to say that they even want their help, but who really knows), further complicates things.

It will be just like they did yesterday...oh...the "real" evidence is going to be shown at a classified hearing. A hearing the American people will never see. 30-50 years later, when it's de-classified, we will find out that what was said, wasn't even enough to move us to war.

Russia said what it said, because they know there is no such evidence. They are calling Obama's bluff.

reply to post by Catacomb

Russia said what it said, because they know there is no such evidence. They are calling Obama's bluff.

Very much possible. I post the declassified portion of the U.S. Intelligence Assessment here again. It's even less than the last time around, but the same pattern is emerging, including the 'defected chemical weapon specialist', now in Turkey to provide his first hand account. The weirdest thing that could happen would be a joint US-Russia military action.

For the people in Syria i hope, that the rest of the world community does everything in its power to pressure all involved parties into seize fire and to start a immedate process to find a non-violent solution. One can always hope.

Ahead of tomorrow's ever-so-friendly G-20 meeting in St. Petersburg - where the US Secretary of State hopes that "the Kremlin has a change of heart," - Russia's President Putin just raised the rhetoric. As Reuters reports:

PUTIN ACCUSES U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY OF LYING TO CONGRESS ABOUT AL QAEDA'S ROLE IN SYRIA CONFLICT
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN SAYS U.S. CONGRESS HAS NO RIGHT TO "LEGITIMISE AGGRESSION" AGAINST SYRIA
With the Moskva sailing into the Med along with many many others, it seems as Obama just admitted during his Sweden press conference, [on Putin:] "We've kinda hit a wall on additional progress"

www.zerohedge.com...

Originally posted by Catacomb

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
What happens if evidence is presented, that the 'World Community' can only consider unequivocal. So far the Russian Government remains unconvinced, that the Assad regime has indeed attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Is a military strike against Syria justified if backed up by UN mandate (which would have to include Russia's and China's approval)?

Such evidence will never be presented, if you go by the fact that Kerry has already used a fake photograph to try to sway people's opinions. The American people do not want to do this. Personally, I have not seen direct evidence linking Assad to these attacks. The simple fact that the rebels have terrorist organizations fighting alongside them (which is not to say that they even want their help, but who really knows), further complicates things.

It will be just like they did yesterday...oh...the "real" evidence is going to be shown at a classified hearing. A hearing the American people will never see. 30-50 years later, when it's de-classified, we will find out that what was said, wasn't even enough to move us to war.

Russia said what it said, because they know there is no such evidence. They are calling Obama's bluff.

Exactly! Putin knows, like we do, that the Obama administration has no credible evidence. Hence why you heard mention of the 'classified' briefing so many times yesterday. If they had compelling, concrete evidence there would be no need to truly classify it... and there are ways to draft up intel reports to show what you have found without revealing your sources.

Putin is positioning himself to become the leader of the world if the US goes rogue and attacks Syria without the UN and legal justification.

I can hear his speech now about the "Axis of Evil"... US, UK, Israel...

Putin is simply more clever than Obama.

Putin is trying to get the Americans to the UN table so they can see the evidence(because they have none ) or veto the move, this is not about turning against Syria, Putin's argument has always been any action in Syria without UN approval is illegal.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Okay .. that got my attention. This is different. I don't know if Putin is trying to appear reasonable and open minded but really has no intention of bombing Syria (Syria, which is the biggest purchaser of Russian made arms in the world) or if he is sincere. Putin is a politician and the leader of a major world power .. so you never know.

If he really said that, it could be a big mistake on his part.

Kind of like Obama's 'crossing the red line' comment was a mistake.

Anyways ... it's interesting.

Why would it be a big mistake?

I could find no better way to try "fix" the Syrian situation than evidence being proven that Assad's regime has broken some of the most important laws governing this planet, if Russia is willing to help then that will add a lot of weight to any military intervention.

That is basically what I'm reading right?

That Putin says he will allow military intervention in Syria if said crimes are proven, maybe if that happens we will see Russian help in this. I know, I know... The Cold war, Commies and the Russians are never to be trusted. But all I keep seeing is Russia playing the political game by the rules.

Then you have the NWO conspiracies(off topic I know), isn't all the top dogs supposed to be in on it? What exactly is the game here politics or something more sinister?

Maybe I need education on this.

This would buy about 3 more weeks of time (wait for reports to come in, analyze them, draw conclusions). There is always going to be room for doubt though, minus a picture of one of Assad's men pushing the button. I'm sure Obama will use his persuasion skills and charm to win Putin over at the summit. I don't see us doing anything, even if the house approved it today, before this summit is over.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat

Honestly, i have no idea how this is going to unfold. With the news just in that Russia's Misslie Cruiser 'Moskva' along with a couple of Destroyers, Frigates and allegedly even one (or more) nuclear Submarines is heading for Syria, the whole affair becomes ever more uncertain.

What happens if evidence is presented, that the 'World Community' can only consider unequivocal. So far the Russian Government remains unconvinced, that the Assad regime has indeed attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. Is a military strike against Syria justified if backed up by UN mandate (which would have to include Russia's and China's approval)?

www.reuters.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 4-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: .-

There is another possibility for the Russian deployment that people are ignoring...


IF the US is on the bomb wagon when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, then why cant Russia do the same should it be shown the rebels were behind the attack?

in for a penny, in for a pound...

While I doubt the rebels are behind the attack, one never knows.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


the problem is asking for proof.

truth has become the enemy itself.

shame on the empire of the fed.

PNAC published in 1997, called for regime change in 6 countries by force. Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon & Jordan.

reply to post by Xcathdra


I doubt it, 9 times out of ten the Russians are there because of the likelihood of a regional war and Iranian involvement.

Originally posted by all2human
Putin is trying to get the Americans to the UN table so they can see the evidence(because they have none ) or veto the move, this is not about turning against Syria, Putin's argument has always been any action in Syria without UN approval is illegal.

edit on 4-9-2013 by all2human because: (no reason given)

I would say this pretty much sums up putins statement

and when the Federation of Russia veto and the USA attack then the USA and her allies will be Breaking International law

Riouz

Added
Don't get me wrong there will be Evidence of chemical weapons used but none 100 % proof of who delivered them

All Putin had to do was abstain from voting on the UN Security Council, citing relations with Syria, the same way any judge would recuse themselves in a case where there is an association with the accused.

Putin's UN stonewalling led to escalation, which is good for the arms trade business his country does with Syria. He protected his interests to sell more arms then, and that is all this delay tactic is now. The longer the Civil War drags out, the longer Russia stays in business with Syria. Putin fears a weakened Assad from US strikes would cause him to fall, ending the lucrative arms trade.

In the end Putin won't directly intervene, they may prop up civil wars elsewhere in the world more heavily to compensate Syria's removal from the arms trade market once Assad falls.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Yeah, because the US always "recuses" itself whenever isreal or saudi arabia or any of its other buddies are on the chopping block...... Why expect any other country to not stick with its allies? Hypocritical nonsense right there.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


It has a lot more to do than arms trade, the Russian's stand to lose billions to a proposed pipeline through Syria servicing Europe,which would break their dependence on Russian gas, they will lose a strategic ally essential to Iran's survival, they risk losing their port in Tartus (although not that important) they can lose power and influence in the region on all political levels, they risk NATO influence on their neighbor , oil rich Azerbaijan.

reply to post by TinfoilTP


Interesting. So you are arguing that Putin is only protecting an ally and trade partner from unilateral military action. He would probably agree with you on that part, and he would probably also point out to you that his memory is not as short as yours.

Russia’s intention in all of this is to avoid making the same mistake it made with Libya, said Klimov, who has traveled to Syria during the civil war there to assess Russia’s options. In 2011, the Kremlin — then led by Putin’s more liberal protégé Dmitri Medvedev — was a lot more sympathetic to the international outrage against Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi, who was then trying to crush his own violent rebellion. The U.S. and its allies convinced Medvedev not to block a U.N. resolution against Gaddafi, allowing it to pass a vote in the U.N. Security Council.

As Putin sees it, that resolution was taken way beyond its stated purpose of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya — it also opened the door for a full-scale military intervention. Under the U.N. mandate, the U.S. and NATO began flying bombing raids against Gaddafi’s military convoys, which were then moving toward the rebel-held city of Benghazi with the express aim of “cleansing” its revolutionary populace. After fending off that assault, NATO airpower continued to provide the rebels with a clear military advantage.

Within weeks, Gaddafi’s army was routed, his convoy was bombed from the air while fleeing the Libyan capital, and the dictator himself was captured hiding in a drainpipe in his hometown. A video of rebels beating, insulting and finally killing Gaddafi soon appeared on YouTube. Putin was furious over this turn of events — seeing it as a blatant violation of Libyan sovereignty and a betrayal of Russia’s willingness to trust the West’s intentions. He has not gotten over the slight. “What we really do not want is to allow the same mistake as with Libya,” Klimov said, “when we believed we were getting one thing and got something totally different.”

Read more: world.time.com...

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by TinfoilTP

 

Yeah, because the US always "recuses" itself whenever isreal or saudi arabia or any of its other buddies are on the chopping block...... Why expect any other country to not stick with its allies? Hypocritical nonsense right there.

Putin is showing he wants to come out of this conflict being on the winning side.
He loves winners, probably wearing his Super Bowl Ring.
All Obama has to do now is offer Putin a way out to save face and he can sit on the deck of his missile Cruiser as it lobs missiles onto Assad's regime in joint strikes with US forces.
This photo opportunity will be grander than any of his bare chested hunting expeditions.

reply to post by talklikeapirat


Think you are giving Putin too much credit, these people do not care about human life or respecting the law it is about advancing their interests wherever/whatever they may be.