Syria peace talks failure spurs U.S.-Russia recriminations

Comments (25)
njglea wrote:

The U.N. Commission of Inquiry should arrest and prosecute mass-murderer Assad and his regime right now for war crimes against innocent Syrian citizens – the same people who paid the taxes to buy the military weapons being used against them. This mass-murder must stop. Russian and Chinese officals will have blood on their hands if they try to block the investigation and arrests.

Feb 17, 2014 9:51am EST  --  Report as abuse
jlamo wrote:

Thank you for your input @njglea, The UN will definitely take your comment under consideration lol jk

Feb 17, 2014 10:46am EST  --  Report as abuse
newlygrad wrote:

The conflict in Syria is actually a war between US and Russia using their respective agents on third country soil. Why not the big powers talk directly and everything solved.

Feb 17, 2014 10:57am EST  --  Report as abuse
TruWorldPeace wrote:

Comparing Russia and the U.S., Russia has proven to be the more sensible voice of the two. With America’s long history of deceit and murder, why should we even pay attention when John Kerry goes around the world running his mouth??

Feb 17, 2014 11:29am EST  --  Report as abuse
izrahim wrote:

The United States invaded Iraq under false pretensions and Afghanistan before that and then went onto Libya with terrorists who murdered Kadaffi and following that eyed Syria thinking that it was a piece of cake, little did they know that the Syrians would stand up for their own country and do all in their power to safeguard their country from these foreign terrorists.Its almost three years now that this war, and it is a war thats been going on. Mr. Kerry is rather new to international politics and should bare in mind that president Putin is no novice and has already out smarted him on various occasions otherwise the US would have already attacked Syria if it was not because of president Putin’s master move. However if push comes to shove and the US decides to attack Syria it would also have to deal with Iran together with Russia and others as the geopolitical stakes are extremely high where both sides would have to go for broke.I also would like to point out that the American public in the first instance was against a war on Syria but their minds can be changed through the propaganda machine when necessary.

Feb 17, 2014 12:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
riposte wrote:

Russia must be laughing, at the wests’ machinations….they and iran thwart all movement, that doesn’t favor assad…they and the Iranians, beef up his forces, while the west does almost nothing, but talk..

Feb 17, 2014 12:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
willich6 wrote:

The ‘good news’ is that obama/kerry have called for ‘new strategies’ on Syria; the old ones worked so well that it might be time to roll out ‘Red Line 2′ – ‘The Sequel’… They could even get their hollywood pals to make it into a punchy media release that could make the nightly news – ‘fairy tales come true – it could happen to you’…… then our ‘overworked’ prez could go back out to Palm Springs for another 3 day golf outing……….

Feb 17, 2014 12:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xcanada2 wrote:

As we know, the US supports arms shipments to the rebels both directly through Turkey and Jordan, and in indirectly through its failure to exert any influence on its client state, Saudi Arabia. Obviously, Syria is part of the US strategy for hegemony in the Middle East. Who knows (except possibly the CIA) where the Syrian democracy movement is coming from. From past experience, it seems likely that it is largely a CIA operation even from the beginning.

At this point, the US/Saudi Arabia/Turkey have succeeded in building up a Takfiri and Al Qaeda type terrorist operation against the legitimate government of Syria. Obviously this bad for virtually every interested party, except those who live off conflict. On the other hand, Assad and the Syrian government, certainly with Russian and Iranian help, are slowly overcoming the malevolent terrorist forces. Regardless of the question as to whether America had any right to interfere in Syria, America should, in the best interests of the American and Syrian people, exit from Syrian affairs, and use their influence to stop Saudi money and arms going in to Syria.

When the civil war in Syria is stopped by the Syrian government, then their can be a reassessment by the Syrian people, to see how they want to move forward. At the moment, it is clear to almost all the world that what is needed by the Syrian people is peace and order.

Presently, it is clear that the US has not given up on its regime change operation. The US government, through their Syrian “democratic” clients at the “peace” negotiations, have been making unrealistic demands; this is just as the Syrian government states. The US representatives in Syria—Takfiris, Al Queda types, and “democratic” forces– are strongly losing on the ground. And it appears that the majority of Syrians support the Assad government: that is how it is winning. US infliction of more terrorists and civil war on the Syrians is, at this point, terrible, unfeeling, shameful and despicable.

Feb 17, 2014 12:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
deerecub1977 wrote:

How do they not expect a tragedy during the Olympics while we stick our nose all over the world.

Feb 17, 2014 1:12pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@newlygrad: Or, is the conflict between factions in Syria who are trying to entangle Russia, the USA and other foreign powers, to suit their own purposes/requirements?

Feb 17, 2014 1:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@TruWorldPeace: What exactly are you referring to?

@Izrahim: Gaddafi’s people got tired of him and Gaddafi openly threatened to send his army to murder anyone who politically opposed him. Do you have a better argument?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25979532

Feb 17, 2014 1:26pm EST  --  Report as abuse
TruWorldPeace wrote:

@matthewslyman

Remember the weapons of mass destruction that we were supposed to find in Iraq? Or the no-fly zone that was supposed to protect civilians in Libya?? They were trying to play the same game in Syria, only that Syrians stood their ground to defend their country and Russia refused to be duped again.

How many innocent civilians have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Vietnam, Hiroshima…. you name it! All this under the fancy banners of “liberty”, “freedom”, “democracy”….

Feb 17, 2014 2:38pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Inspired43 wrote:

Why is US on one hand trying to show that it is sponsoring the negotiations for peace, when on the other hand it is providing lethal weapons to the FSA alias Al Nusra alias ISIS alias Al Qaeda…Is providing weapons to these terrorists more important than providing humanitarian aid to Syrian people who are actually suffering?

How is the possible that USA, SAUDI ARABIA and Al-Qaeda have same agenda of removing Assad from power? I thought that Al-Qaeda was the greatest enemy US had and the US has spent trillions of dollars in fighting them in Afghanistan, when in reality their birth place is Saudi and they are sponsored by Saudi…Majority of the guys involved in 9-11 were Saudi Arabian and still US thinks Saudi Arabia is its staunchest ally… If Al-Qaeda is against Assad then shouldn’t that mean that Assad is right? Doesn’t the people know that Syria is much more democratic than staunchest US allies like Saudi and Qatar? Doesn’t the people know that Syria has freedom of religion and freedom for women unlike American Ally Saudi Arabia, where women can’t wear the clothes they want and can’t even drive a car.

The world now knows that in reality these fighters are not farmers and shopkeepers fighting for freedom but in reality these are terrorists. In one of the articles from the highly desperate propaganda spreader “Reuters”, the journalist was saying that farmers are fighting this war against Assad. How can farmers with no training fight so well against a well trained Syrian army and why do the farmers need to behead the people they kill.

Feb 17, 2014 2:47pm EST  --  Report as abuse
appel20 wrote:

Red Wine Magazine
There are fashion magazines. There are food magazines. There are religious magazines. And, there are news, opinion, and health magazines. But have you ever seen a food, fashion, health, news and opinion magazine in a Christian format? We haven’t either. Welcome to Red Wine Magazine, where we invite you to taste the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God the Father. Today’s Christians are living life, trying to succeed, stay well, and perhaps have some fun and fashion in the process. We hope you enjoy Red Wine Magazine. Let’s journey together as we find what is good in life, with God’s grace and guidance.
Go to :>> http://www.redwinemag.com/

Feb 17, 2014 3:03pm EST  --  Report as abuse
appel20 wrote:

Red Wine Magazine
There are fashion magazines. There are food magazines. There are religious magazines. And, there are news, opinion, and health magazines. But have you ever seen a food, fashion, health, news and opinion magazine in a Christian format? We haven’t either. Welcome to Red Wine Magazine, where we invite you to taste the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit and God the Father. Today’s Christians are living life, trying to succeed, stay well, and perhaps have some fun and fashion in the process. We hope you enjoy Red Wine Magazine. Let’s journey together as we find what is good in life, with God’s grace and guidance.
Go to :>> http://www.redwinemag.com/

Feb 17, 2014 3:04pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@TruWorldPeace: What has changed? Russia was against the Iraq wars, 2011 Libyan Civil War, and now régime change in Syria (internally instigated by various factions, before anyone else got involved). Everyone accepts that Iraq once had WMD (in merely transpired after 2003 that the Iraqi account of destroying their WMDs as per their international obligations, was the correct one).

Looking back at history, I think there have been times when the USA/UK have been right, and times when Russia/China has been right (and other times altogether, like Vietnam). Prior to 11th September 2001, western media consistently portrayed Chechen terrorism in the Caucausus as a reaction to Russian-instigated political repression! How does that viewpoint look now, from our current perspective? Pretty ill-informed (even though most people in the west are still totally clueless about Russian history!)
I suppose it should be expected that neither “side” would be right all the time; when both sides mostly just support whichever side happens to be purchasing their weapons systems… Those weapons contracts appear to come with a diplomatic “UN Security Council get-out-of-jail-free” insurance-policy attached, with disclaimers only for very serious misadventure (like Gaddafi’s clearly murderous threats against his people). We might also fully expect that whichever world power is militarily dominant (currently the USA) would typically be playing the role of “aggressor” in combating the injustices they perceive in the world; whereas whichever world power is 2nd or 3rd-placed would typically be playing the role of moderator/mediator in the UN Security Council. (Conflict is a fact of life, unfortunately; and it would be rather naive of us to suggest that it’s always wrong for governments to get involved in conflicts or to take sides when conflict has already started.)

USA/UK/France etc., didn’t just take carte-blanche from the UN Security Council resolution 1973 on Libya. They took some liberties, as far as they were able. France probably took the most liberties of all out of the western powers, by parachute-dropping weapons to the fighters of Zintan, helping propel their offensive into Tripoli; and by (of necessity due to time constraints) having their fighter planes already en-route to destroy Gaddafi’s heavy armor and artillery positioned south of Benghazi immediately prior to their threatened destruction of that city (the resolution was agreed minutes before the French aircraft opened fire). But by and large, the Western powers are reported to have followed the agreed resolution. Russia successfully moderated Western involvement; for the good of Libya: because now, after all is said and done, they can claim popular ownership of their own revolution (Western power was largely relegated to a supporting/equalizing role in neutralizing Gaddafi’s unfair advantage in heavy armor, artillery and aircraft; thereby democratizing the conflict.) After the Gaddafi clan’s blood-curdling threats to destroy the “rats” (people) of Benghazi; who can doubt that French willingness to take liberties with the newly agreed UN Security Council resolution saved a city full of civilians from genocide?

So out of the madness of conflict and self-interest (with a dash of principle and pride), by some miracle or magic of diplomatic logic; we usually get sanity out of the UN Security Council, which is good for all of us.

Feb 17, 2014 3:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
matthewslyman wrote:

@Inspired43: If my last post doesn’t help answer your question about the strange and unpredictable military alliances we often find ourselves in out of convenience; then perhaps we should all go and read Shakespeare’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. It’s certainly worth keeping a nuanced perspective, and asking ourselves what might become of today’s “freedom fighters” during tomorrow’s conflict!

Is al Qaeda involved? Certainly (they are proud of it). But somehow I’m beginning to think that such labels and brands aren’t much use any more in thinking clearly about these conflicts and evaluating what to do about them. Are there farmers, shop-keepers, medics and professional soldiers fighting on both “sides” of the Syrian conflict, to protect and feed wives and children who are still in Syria? Certainly. We should keep them quite separate in our minds from the foreigners who have gone in there with their own political agenda! I think we need to be careful how we apply those stereotypical labels… It’s a tempting short-cut, but one we can’t afford to take!

Feb 17, 2014 3:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Inspired43 wrote:

US on one hand trying to show that it is sponsoring the negotiations for peace, when on the other hand it is providing lethal weapons to the FSA alias Al Nusra alias ISIS alias Al Qaeda…Is providing weapons to these terrorists more important than providing humanitarian aid to Syrian people who are actually suffering?

USA, SAUDI ARABIA and Al-Qaeda have same agenda of removing Assad from power. I thought that Al-Qaeda was the greatest enemy US had and US has spent trillions of dollars in fighting them in Afghanistan, when in reality their birth place is Saudi and they are sponsored by Saudi…Majority of the guys involved in 9-11 were Saudi Arabian and still US thinks Saudi Arabia is its staunchest ally…

Feb 17, 2014 4:00pm EST  --  Report as abuse
ruhr wrote:

Bringing about an end to the conflict in Syria, and with it President’s Bashar al-Assad’s rule will come to pass only if one of two outcomes plays out. The first is the death of Assad and his family members within Syria, and the other is relocation to a safe haven overseas; Assad should choose the latter.

Gaining the upper hand in Syria will not be an easy task, it is made easier in that by and large Syria is ruled only by Assad; remove Assad and democratic government in Syria may progress.

Removing Assad requires refocusing strategy and tactics to weaken, undermining and erode Assad’s power base. The opposition Free Syrian Army must employ continuous strikes specifically targeting Assad and his support circle to wear down their resistance, restrict their freedom of movement and influence, and bring about their demise.

As for the army and police force, it is important they are won over to the cause of the people and the FSA through coercion and persuasion. In government the FSA will need their support to provide stability and security, and to root out Hezbollah and radical Islamist.

The leadership in the military and police force must be won to the side of the people and the FSA, to this end the FSA must guarantee all parties they will be immune from prosecution and, all threats to their persons, property or status.

As far as possible then direct engagement with members of the army and police should be minimised, but when unavoidable, employ defensive withdrawal measures. However strikes against standing targets and weapon stocks to degrade their capability should continue.

Russia on the other hand is a different ball game; it is in play for political point scoring, and strategic positioning. Russia’s is concerned with maintaining access to its port facilities in Syria, continuing its weapon sales to Syria, and acting as spoiler to the west. Russia’s support for Assad will continue so long as it can influence events in its role as the grey man.

Ironically in this case, Russian would prefer the conflict ends peacefully and retain access to its port facility in Syria.

However, acting in its role as Syria’s ally, Russia was instrumental in leading the initiative to destroy Syria chemical weapons; the effort has stalled. The U.N. Security Council should insist Russia as a good corporate citizen, use its capabilities, which Syria professes it lacks, to implement the agreement within a specified time frame and in the process demonstrate to the world Russia’s neutrality in the conflict.

All of this should not detract from the main goal to end the conflict in Syria, with the FSA installing a governing body pending national elections.

Assad is no fool. He knows all too well continued prosecution of the conflict will end in his death. He has witnessed the history first hand; he is acutely aware the Syria of President Bashar al-Assad is no more, nor can it be resurrected.

In return for his and his immediate family’s relocation to a safe haven outside of Syria, with no right of return, Assad will step down. Remain in Syria and President Bashar al-Assad and his immediate family will perish.

Feb 17, 2014 4:30pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

Not much to add after reading reactions by @Izzrahim and @Excanada2. They have explained everything about the wasington’s deceits in this tragedy.

As for the point of contention that the wording “a transitional government by mutual consent” means that Assad must be excluded from that government, it must be said that there is absolutely nothing in terms of law or basic common sense that supports that claim.

That claim by Hillary Clinton, Kerry, and other US officials which is falsely attributed to the “opposition” is simply a kind of mental/intellectual gymnastic which flies off of the mat of human decency and basic common sense. And the fact that the media do not challenge that nonsensical claim and simply repeat it is one more example that they are in bed with regime change aggressors.

The truth is, in Geneva I Russia rejected the idea of ousting the Syrian president and that was consistent with its repeated UNSC veto.

There is nothing in international law that gives the US and Russia the power to convene in some conference and agree on forcing the president of a sovereign and independent country to step down.

But right after the geneva I conference and under pressure from the neocons’camp in Washigton, Hillary Clinton would storm out and unilaterally declare that even though the conference did not agree on Assad’s fate, the wording “mutual consent” means he must step down because the “opposition” would never accept him.

That’s some kind of sophistry because that meeting specificically assigned to the US the role of convincing the opposition to work with the Syrian government and also to Russia the role of convincing the Syrian government to work with its opposition to reach a peaceful settlement to the conflict and form a government that includes all different segments of society.

Mutual consent doesn’t mean consent by one side in a negotiation but by both sides. So the “opposition” has no right under the agreement to say that Assad must step down because the other side has not consented to that position.

In reality mutual consent concerns only the creation of an inclusive government. It doesn’t concern the presidency and the armed forces which are Assad’s legal, constitutional and legitimate prerogatives. So Assad’s fate is beyond any negotiations by the US and Russia or Syrian officials and “opposition” groups with regard to creating an inclusive government.

The purpose of negotiations between Russia and the US was not to incapacitate ALL syrian institutions but to help warring parties reach a peaceful solution to the conflict and form an inclusive government to lead the transition from an authoritarian system of government to a representative system.

Assad’s fate, and the presidency, should not be decided by the US and Russia backdoor dealings but by the Syrian people through a democratic election.

Why does the US fear a democratic election in Syria?

Feb 17, 2014 4:46pm EST  --  Report as abuse
delta5297 wrote:

Of course there’s recrimination. John Kerry is right, the reality in Syria is that Bashar al-Assad is murdering his political opponents. Russia continues to deny this reality, and as long that’s the case, the peace talks are a waste of time.

Feb 17, 2014 6:51pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Bighammerman wrote:

Another Obama failure. Kerry is inept and needs to leave taking Obama with him before they start another world war. Putin will probably have to fix this too. What a disaster.

Feb 17, 2014 7:07pm EST  --  Report as abuse
kenradke12 wrote:

If or rather when Russia abuses its veto power there will be hell to pay anyhow. This is a humanitarian crises and a stop by force if needed will be warranted. America must step up to the plate and quit being cowards by rejecting the idea of force being that your president Obama is under pressure to meet at the red line and show leadership to the world.

Feb 17, 2014 7:23pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Fromkin wrote:

I am surprised to see Reuters and those it spoonfeeds with propaganda still talk about FSA.

FSA has been described as an army of defectors from the Syrian army fighting for freedom and Democracy. It has been all but defeated and exists no more. Syrian soldiers are not defecting en masse like in 2011. Some former FSA fighters are rejoining the regular Syrian army to fight terrorists.

Syria’s aggressors replaced the defeated and defunct FSA with Al Nusra, ISIL, Islamic Rebel’s Front, etc…all affiliated with Al Qaida.

So where would they recruit new fighters for a new FSA?
From these undisciplined terror groups fighting each others?

Or this is just their new game to magically transform Al Nusra,ISIL, Islamic fighting fronts and other terror groups into the new and improved FSA fighting for freedom and Democracy.

Feb 17, 2014 7:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
oldwatusi wrote:

Syria is in the hellacious mess it is because of an evil President, an equally evil rebel force and a very stupid, inept ignorant solipsistic U.S. President and Sec. of State. It’s hard to overcome power, greed and corrupt leadership – no matter where is comes from. It’s a toss-up as to who is the worse between Assad and the rebels – so why don’t we just “bud out” since it isn’t our civil war to fight.

Feb 18, 2014 10:45am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.