Sunday, August 19, 2012

Lavrov worries about US intentions for Syria

Found this interview with Sergei Lavrov interesting, particularly on the Geneva meeting and an upcoming  meeting at the UN. This may give us insight into what direction the Syrian situation is going with the new mediator, the Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahim. Interview originated here

You can read the interview entirely at the link, just an excerpt below

Sky News Arabia: Still, the United States has said that it does not rule out the use of a substitute for a no-fly zone.
 Lavrov: The United States never rules out anything.

Sky News Arabia: Do you have any information on the United States’ movements outside of the framework of the UN Security Council?
Lavrov: The United States has already announced that it will move outside the framework of the UN Security Council and it is a the position that is incomprehensible to us because they announced it a few days after the Geneva meeting which led to the formation of a working committee that issued a statement detailing Annan’s six point plan and which was approved unanimously. But when we started the discussion about it in the Security Council, we were ready for approval, literally without adding amendments, but it became clear that our partners were not ready for it. They tried to interpret the statement as if it was a mandate to bring down the regime and excluded it from the negotiations, which is not what was included in the statement at all. It stated in clear, simple English the need to stop the violence by all sides and for the government and the opposition to propose names of negotiators to come together to reach consensus on a transitional body comprising representatives of government and opposition through consensus by the Syrians themselves.
I think that what we hear from Washington and some other capitals about the death of the Geneva statement is irresponsible for it is the most consensus that has been reached on Syria with the participation of the West, the United States, the Europeans, Russia, China, leading Arabi countries and Turkey. To say now the statement is dead means that there are those who are looking for any pretext to declare there is no prospect for peaceful settlement and to resort to military action. This is what worries us and it is the road to a major disaster in the area.

Sky News Arabia: You have called for a meeting of the Security Council. How can this step be interpreted? Is it an attempt to revive what was reached in Geneva?
 Lavrov: What was reached in Geneva was not buried by anyone. At least we did not bury it. Nor did we hear that the European countries or China backtracked. This is also the case for the Arab States and the Turks. The United States declared that a page has been turned on this agreement; something that lacks any basis or factual reality is that the Geneva statement contains all the necessary factors for the transformation of the dispute into a political discourse – that requires not just for the Syrian parties to hear this call but also for foreign actors to convey because they have different degrees of influence on the parties in Syria. Those who attended the Geneva meeting and also Saudi Arabia and Iran, which did not attend, should send the same signal to all the Syrian players who are fighting each other now.
If we were all ready to do so the situation would be completely different situation. An Arab observer mission was set up last year, but for unknown reasons the mission was terminated. And now the international observer mission is coming to an end and will be replaced by a UN mission in Damascus. All this is in addition to the attempts to bury the Geneva statement alive and reinforces the impression that there are those looking for an excuse to prove the futility of finding a political and justifying and legitimizing military intervention! We in fact want to hold a meeting in New York for the permanent representatives of all the countries that attended the Geneva meeting in addition to Saudi Arabia and Iran to say yes, we were in Geneva and we held fair and constructive negotiations and we ended up with a unanimous position still retains its purpose and we are ready to apply it to the ground. The U.S. State representative sought clarifications about the meeting to which she was invited, saying her country is not aware of what is being talked about. I say that everyone knows everything and U.S. officials do not have to pretend they are not aware, which is not in fact not the truth. At least we gave an answer without hesitation to those who asked about the meeting, but if some have tried to wriggle out of this, it means either that they were not sincere in Geneva or they changed their minds now. They should talk about it openly!

Sky News Arabia: Besides that, does Russia plan on presenting an initiative to solve the Syrian crisis alongside what you have planned on doing during the Security Council?
Lavrov: We adhere to a clear, traditional line to resolve all crises – the need to arrive at collective positions which are implemented unanimously and that is what happened in the Security Council with the adoption of the Annan plan and committed ourselves to Geneva statement as external players to pressure all Syrian parties to implement this plan. Here are all the initiatives. Our goal is not to create initiatives that provoke a storm, such as establishing no-fly zones or safe areas. We do not seek to satisfy domestic public opinion. Our goal is to understand the essence of the dispute which can only be done on a consensual basis and collectively as was the coordination in Geneva. Our efforts today are to apply what was been agreed in Geneva.

Sky News Arabia: In your opinion, what can the successor of Kofi Annan accomplish in solving the Syrian Crisis, and after appointing Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the former Algerian diplomat, what can Al-Ibrahimi given that Al Assad’s government refuses to stop the violence?
Lavrov: Everyone refuses to stop the violence and one of the most important points in the context of the Geneva statement talks about the need for an end to violence by the government and the opposition. Our western partners are evading this agreement and violating commitments they have made. They are now calling for the Syrian government to stop military actions of one side and pull armed elements and military machinery from Syrian cities. Only after that they be prepared to ask the opposition to stop military action!
Let us assume that the regime declares an exit from all cities and withdraws all its forces – and this is something that is not necessary – do you think that the opposition will hand in its weapons after that?! The opposition will take over those cities and put them under its control as happened during the autumn with the attempt to implement the Arab plan. The matter is not linked to our objectives or to advice we give Assad. Rather, the matter is not realistic from the perspective of any politician or any military operation. And when they talk about the need to disarm the Syrian regime, the goal is not to calm the situation or save the lives of civilians, but rather regime change in breach of the principles of the United Nations charter. So when we talk about what should be done by Kofi Annan successor, it should be noted that the strength of his mission will be less than the task of the observers – their number was a few dozen – and there are plans to divide them into military observers, politicians and a third group to help in the implementation of humanitarian initiatives and the delivery of aid. I doubt the ability of the members of this mission to visit the Syrian cities or get out of Damascus due to the ongoing violence, so it is clear they will focus on political actions and statements that allow the start of political dialogue – but this is subject to the success in stopping the violence and not the success of the person, Lakhdar Ibrahimi, despite his experience and wisdom – just as in the past it did not depend on the international observers who oversaw the cease-fire announced last April. We propose a halt, similar to a ceasefire, under the responsibility of external actors who have influence on the government and armed opposition groups. If we are successful in the political process it is necessary to collectively pressure all armed opposition groups to ceasefire and convince them to quickly appoint negotiators send them to a location agreed by everyone to start agreeing on a transition body and determine the fate of key laws including the constitution and of course preparing for elections.

I find Lavrov's interview quite frank. I wonder why? PR before the meeting at the UN? Attempting to pressure the NATO/GCC nations and their terror mercs?


  1. Good post,sis.pls stop by blog see first,second page..btw I did great on interview.over hour and a half..went by too quick for me.ill be doing another one very soon,then if you like ill have them host you after.. :)

    1. Btw u saw my last 2videos on syria?

    2. Was it in English? Can we listen anywhere on line ?
      You weren't nervous?
      I would have been.
      I will check your videos out

  2. While you find Lavrov's interview quite frank I find his comments quite stupid.

    Lavrov quotes:
    *Annan’s six point plan and which was approved unanimously.
    * Our western partners are evading this agreement and violating commitments they have made. They are now calling for the Syrian government to stop military actions of one side and pull armed elements and military machinery from Syrian cities. Only after that they be prepared to ask the opposition to stop military action!

    Six Point Plan (point 2)
    *commit to stop the fighting
    *To this end, the Syrian Government should immediately cease troop movements towards, and end the use of heavy weapons in, population centres, and begin pullback of military concentrations in and around population centres.
    *Similar commitments would be sought by the Envoy from the opposition and all relevant elements to stop the fighting

    So apparently Lavrov agreed to a plan which called for a unilateral Syria government pullback and then later objected to it. Stupid, no?

  3. Also -- Why doesn't Lavrov demand a stop to Western/GCC support of the anti-government forces, instead of worrying about US future intentions?

    1. "Why doesn't Lavrov demand a stop to Western/GCC support of the anti-government forces"

      What difference would that make?

      Other then giving the media ever greater opportunities to twist "Russian Demands" into some sort of communist/terroristic threat?
      You can't see the 1000's of stories with the headlines or some variant of ....

      "Russia demands the US stop aiding the rebels in their fight for freedom"

      Have you missed the mind controlspin on the bogus "pussy riot" psyop?

  4. The West with their (P)GCC lackeys are in a panic mode. Their gamble on a massive attack on the Province of Latakia (with huge support by German and British intelligence) proved a failure. The presumption was that the people would rise up and support the FSA, in fact the direct opposite occurred the FSA were cleared by local militia (Sunni, Armenian, Christians), local police and army units. Iran has a naval base in this province. This post was set up to monitor British (Cyprus) and NATO (off shore Mediterranean) communications, from the rout the FSA and it's Libyan backers received it looks like the Iranian intelligence might have broken the secure encoded communication between NATO, Israel and the FSA rats. This whole area is very important to the occupation of Syria, it has failed miserably.

    1. I agree. Have been looking into this Cypress team NATO sigint facility and wondering also how they could manage to fail given that level of support.

  5. Hey Hans
    I have missed whatever happened in Latakia, but, am well aware of the base in Latkia(security provided for by Iran)

  6. I was very nervous,but had hundreds of files om my desk...i was ready as could b.format was basicaly six questionswich they tsll u in hours advance before starting..after those are dealt with,you present whatever else you wish..yes its in english..soon as its up ill send it to you...

    1. That would be great NYS
      Look forward to hearing it!!

  7. Linda Juniper ‏@LindaJuniper
    The authorities arrested a woman who was trying to plant an explosive device in front of an amusement park in Salamyah #Hama #Syria

  8. Thierry Meyssan on the recently rescued syrian journalists

  9. Obama To Assad - Do Whatever You Need To Do

    Yesterday I asked if the specter of an Islamist lead Syrian would stop wholehearted U.S. support for the insurgency.

    The answer came just a bit later in an Obama press conference. To a question about Syria's alleged chemical or biological weapons, Obama answered:

    “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria. It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us,” said Obama. “We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.”
    He added: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

    While the reporting in the U.S. interpret that as a threat of force against Syria the real meaning seems different to me.

    Obama's answer is mainly a message to the Turks and to the Syrian government.

    The Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu had earlier suggested that Turkey would start to support refugee camps in a safe zone within Syria should the number of refugees in Turkey exceed 100,000. Obama just let him know that the U.S. would not support such a move. His only red line are Syria's strategic weapons. And those only when "a whole bunch" of those are involved. An arbitrary number of refugees in Turkey is not a red line and Turkey would be very alone if it were to act on that:

    With the reluctance of European countries and NATO to get the ball rolling, the United States has become the only power on which Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia agree to lead a potential multilateral military campaign.
    At this point the unwillingness of Washington to militarily engage in Syria is the most important hurdle before the plans of Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia can be realized.

    The Syrian government had already pledged to not use its strategic weapons aginst the insurgency. From its view Obama's answer is a free pass to use all other powers it has against the insurgency. Even massive use of air power, a main military advantage the Syrian government has over the insurgents, is no longer a red line.

    The insurgents understood that message:

    Obama’s comments were greeted with derision by Syrian activists on the social-networking sites Facebook and Twitter. They accused him of threatening intervention only when Israel was at risk.
    One Twitter user compared Obama to Russian President Vladimir Putin, one of the Syrian regime’s few foreign allies: “Both blabber about ‘red lines,’ have kept Assad afloat in blood-soaked power.” Another tweet, from a user called SyriaTime, said the president’s warning so late in the crisis is akin to saying, “Sure, genocide is fine.”

    The U.S. is for now mostly out of the game and without the threat of U.S. military involvement Syria is now free to do whatever it takes to shut down the insurgency