Russia emphatically opposes war on Syria. Throughout months of conflict, it’s gone all out to prevent further escalation.
With China, it vetoed three Security Council resolutions to do so. Putin and Obama represent opposing doctrines.
Putin supports peace and stability. He believes nation-state sovereignty is inviolable. He affirms UN Charter and other fundamental rule of law principles.
Obama thrives on violence. He supports America’s divine right of intervention. He’s circumventing Congress.
Putin harshly criticized America earlier. He did so forthrightly. In February 2007, he addressed the 43rd annual Munich Conference on Security Policy.
He pulled no punches calling US foreign policy “very dangerous (in its) uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.”
US imperialism “overstep(s) national borders in every way.”
”(U)nilateral illegal actions have not resolved any single problem. They have become a hotbed of further conflicts.”
”We are seeing increasing disregard for the fundamental principles of international law.”
”No one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them.”
”Of course, such a policy stimulates an arms race. The dominance of force inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction.”
Putin addressed America’s responsibility for a “unipolar world.” He called it one “in which there is one master, one sovereign.”
”And at the end of the day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.”
“We are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.”
America deplores democracy. It does so at home and abroad. It’s intolerant of what it claims to support.
On August 31, Russia Today (RT) headlined: “Putin: US should present Syria evidence to Security Council,” saying:
Putin called claims about Syria using chemical weapons on its own people “utter nonsense.” He challenged America to come clean. Present verifiable evidence. Put up or shut up.
“If there is evidence it should be shown,” he said. “If it is not shown, then there isn’t any.”
He called Washington’s tactic a clear “provocation.” It “bas(es) its proposed strategy of an attack on Syria on the premise that President Bashar Assad’s government forces have used chemical agents..,” said RT.
“Russia finds the accusations unacceptable.” Putin said Syria never used chemical weapons.
“As far as this incident is concerned,” he added, “it is well-known that the Syrian government turn(ed) to the world community with a request to inspect, what it thought (were) cases of using chemical weapons against civilians by militants.”
“Unfortunately, that did not happen.”
Washington “want(s) to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict,” he stressed.
He strongly opposes America and coalition allies attacking Syria. Doing so without Security Council approval constitutes a serious international law breach.
It doesn’t matter. It’s longstanding US policy. It’s coming. It could happen straightaway.
Putin told Obama he should consider the potential fallout. He should “take into consideration the suffering of innocent civilians,” said RT.
He stressed the timing. It follows impressive Syrian military successes. Insurgents are being routed effectively.
“Syrian government forces are advancing, while the so-called rebels are in a tight situation, as they are not nearly as equipped as the government,” Putin said.
“What those who sponsor the so-called rebels need to achieve is simple – they need to help them in their fight and if this happens, it would be a tragic development.”
Obama wants the battlefield leveled. Ideally he wants insurgents given a strategic advantage. He intends cruise missile diplomacy to do so. So-called token strikes belie what’s planned. Shock and awe’s coming.
Four US destroyers are poised to attack. Earlier reports said a fifth was on its way. They’re armed with hundreds of cruise missiles.
They range from 1,000 pound warheads to hugely destructive, deep-penetrating bunker-buster power.
They’re conventionally and nuclear armed. US warplanes supplement them. They operate from Turkey and Jordan. So do its submarines and two aircraft carriers – USS Nimitz and USS Harry S. Truman.
Britain bowed out. France is America’s main coalition strike partner. It plans unleashing its own firepower. Its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier’s in the western Mediterranean. Its Raffale and Mirage warplanes operate from UAE’s Al-Dhahra airbase.
According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Aleksander Lukashevich:
“Any unilateral use of force without the authorization of the UN Security Council, no matter how ‘limited’ it is, will be a clear violation of international law, will undermine prospects for a political and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Syria and will lead to a new round of confrontation and new casualties.”
Washington’s threats come “in the absence of any (clearly verifiable) proof.” Nothing shows Syrian responsibility for chemical weapons use.
“Instead of executing the decisions of G8?s summit in Lough Erne and subsequent agreements to submit comprehensive report from experts investigating possible cases of use of chemical weapons in Syria to the UN Security Council, in the absence of any evidence, we hear threats of a strike on Syria,” Lukashevich added.
Even US allies urged waiting for UN inspectors to present their “unbiased picture of what really happened and decide on further steps in terms of the Syrian crisis,” he stressed.
Putin opposes military force. He wants nothing done contrary to international law. He supports diplomatic solutions.
US attack plans are set. On Friday, Obama claimed otherwise. He lied saying:
“The world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the law against the use of chemical weapons.”
“As you’ve seen, today we’ve released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.”
“This follows the horrific images that shocked us all. This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale.”
“This kind of attack threatens our national security interests by violating well-established international norms against the use of chemical weapons by further threatening friends and allies of ours in the region, like Israel and Turkey and Jordan.”
“And it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future and fall into the hands of terrorists who might use them against us.”
“I have not made a final decision about the various actions that might be taken to help us enforce that goal.”
“But, as I already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options.”
“In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long term campaign, but we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria but others around the world understand that the international community cares about this chemical weapons ban.”
War is Obama’s option of choice. Mass killing and destruction follow. So does horrific human suffering. It happens the same way every time.
It bears repeating. Advancing America’s imperium alone matters. Unchallenged global dominance is sought. It’s pursued by ravaging one country after another. Humanity may not survive the onslaught.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”