Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama warned that if there was a threat that Damascus would use chemical weapons or even move it from the stores, then military intervention in Syria would be real. In Damascus, Obama's statement is called a "pre-election move", in Beijing it is called "dangerously irresponsible", while in Moscow this reaction is considered to be "highly likely."
Meanwhile, according to the deputy director of the Belgian Center for European Studies, Roland Froydenshteyn, "Obama did not promise military intervention. He said that we were not planning a military intervention, but there were a few scenarios that nevertheless could not be ignored. But if Assad decides to use chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction against the civilian population of Syria, it will change the situation, according to Obama. Mass media have interpreted this as a signal that perhaps the U.S. considers a military scenario of the situation. Let's still stick to what specifically Barack Obama said; his words are not so dramatic. I believe that the situation in Syria is really very dramatic: a year and a half of civil war, according to estimates, 20,000 people killed. Many more were wounded and injured. There are huge number of refugees in Turkey, and perhaps a million Syrians who are still in Syria, but they had to run away from areas of military action. Diplomatic solutions have not yielded any results. I think the only option is to persuade Assad to step down."
Froydenshteyn cited three reasons for the current situation in Syria: "The first one is the legacy of colonialism. The second one is decades of the brutal regime in Syria. And the third reason is the "Arab Spring", which marked the beginning of the protests in the region. The people demanded an end to the brutal dictators. After Friday prayers, people coming out of mosques marched to the demonstration, and the military of the Assad regime attacked people. In March 2011, there were no armed opposition, which would come out to the streets, armed conflict or anything. People just went to the peaceful demonstration. Now the situation is much more complicated; there is a civil war. This is not Egypt, this is not Libya, the situation is much worse. We are not talking about military intervention ... Catherine Ashton and others clearly ruled out the possibility of military intervention by the European countries. "
Meanwhile, during the debate on the situation around Syria there are a lot of claims to Russia, the president of the Society of Friendship and Business Cooperation with the Arab countries, orientalist Vyacheslav Matuzov says: "" Russia toughens its position"," Russia says "no" in the Security Council, "" Russia faces 130 or more states at the UN General Assembly, "" Russia must, must, must ... "... Russia must nothing. Russia takes the position that it should take. But the fighting parties in Syria have to do a lot. Because it is not a struggle between Russia and someone in the Middle East. It is a struggle between the Syrian opposition and the Syrian legally recognized government. And Russia can take a particular position, depending on how it sees the development of the situation in that country. As I now see the statements of the officials - the President, the Foreign Minister – Russia has a completely different view on the origin of the crisis, on the course of its development and the evaluation of those forces which are fighting among themselves in the Syrian territory. So I would like to draw attention to what Kofi Annan said in his farewell address to the UN Security Council: he sees the solution for Syria in the agreement between Russia and America. If Russia and America cannot agree, there cannot be any political solutions of the Syrian conflict. I think that these are not the words of our Foreign Minister; these are the words of Kofi Annan, who is loyal to Americans, the UN, and the peace process,.
What position Russia takes? Russia takes a principled position. A firm commitment to the principles distinguishes the Russian position. I will not repeat the words of Lavrov, who has repeatedly talked about Russia's commitment to the UN Charter, which categorically prohibits not only military but also political, diplomatic, informational interference in the internal affairs of the state. And now we hear from Washington words of this kind: "The President of Syria should resign." Why should he do it? According to the official position of the United States of America or of Europe? Or according to the people of Syria? Saying that the Syrian people overthrow its government is a falsified reality, and for this reason, Russia persistently raises the question of restraining from unreliable sources that provide information about what is happening in Syria, and creating an objective body, which would inform the Security Council about the real situation. There was the mission of Kofi Annan, the mission of the Arab League observers, the UN observers. Who raised the issue of the completion of this mission? They say it is the decision of the Security Council to stop the international observers. I would like to see the number of this decision of the Security Council. Such a document does not exist. But all the media in the world speak on the decision of the Security Council to stop the observer mission. Why? Because the observer mission gave a relatively objective picture. Those who put the task not of political settlement in Syria but of overthrowing the government of Bashar al-Assad were not happy with the activity of the mission.
Russia does not support Bashar Assad or the Syrian regime, but there is a gross violation of international law, under the pretext that since 1991, the world has become unipolar, and that now there is no reason to refer to the international law, to treaties or to the UN Charter, and there is now one force which dictates the order. I think that this is an erroneous view. When we hear the argument coming from Washington - all the other voices are the consequence of the statements of Washington – everybody is harmoniously arranged in a single column. These are the following statements: we should help arming the Syrian opposition. Recall that now there are only political demonstrations, the crisis is not at the stage of the fighting - we hear the statements about the need to supply arms. U.S. in this respect is the vanguard. It says that the weapons will be available through other countries. We have nothing to do with this, we do not supply anything, while arming the opposition groups is under way in a number of Arab countries in the Persian Gulf by the group that are not associated with the Syrian National Council, Islamic extremist groups, many elements of the "Al Qaeda. " People come from Afghanistan, from Libya. One of the military leaders of the "Al Qaeda", who was in the American prison, in the Libyan prison, now is one of the leaders of the Libyan opposition forces; now he and his men are fighting in Syria. According to official sources - not even official, these are the figures of the French media - in Syria, there are some 6,000 people from the "Al-Qaeda." The question arises: who is fighting with the Syrian government? Is the government at war with the political opposition or with the people of Syria? Or is it at war with the people who, tens of thousands today, invade the Syrian territory via Lebanon? The Lebanese government has seized the ship stuffed with weapons for the rebels. The question arises: while the negotiations in Geneva are underway, when Russia suggests stopping military confrontation to both sides of the conflict and has the greatest impact on the Syrian government to ensure that the Syrian government has not used armed forces against its political opponents - this time, under the auspices of the political opponents, there is a massive supply of fighters, mercenaries, including Islamic extremists, to Syria.
Do the Western countries want to overthrow the Assad regime or to achieve a political settlement at all costs? If they want to achieve a political settlement - Europe and America will collaborate with Russia. But if they want to overthrow the regime, the price for this can be very high. The Syrian army today amounts to 300 thousand people. And despite all the talks about sectarian controversies between the Sunni and the Alawites, if there had been only one Alawite group that defended the interests of their community there, the conflict would have ended a year ago. "
