... States would find itself at war with the Syrian government. When the author suggested this scenario to several U.S. colleagues, they could find no arguments against it. In fact, this theory is more plausible than the one which states that Damascus has no chemical weapons. Indeed, the Syrian chemical stockpiles were withdrawn from the country and destroyed, but chlorine is easy to produce if need be. However, this runs counter to both the interests of Damascus and common sense. On the other hand, as we have already mentioned above,...
... all relevant conventions and international agreements.
Russia began its chemical demilitarization in the ‘80s by signing the
Wyoming Memorandum
to become
one of the founders of Chemical Weapons Convention. Russia played a key role in
getting rid of Syrian chemical weapons. Despite financial obstacles, Russia
was able to destroy
its own
arsenal of chemical weapons, the largest in the world, ahead of the extended
deadline.
If the Russian
position is observed during the last year, it could easily be seen ...
... bunkers of the opposition that fled from Douma, including by the way, smoke grenades made in Salisbury, UK. And canisters of chlorine made in Germany.
Now if you read
Le Soir
, there are three Belgian firms under investigation, for providing elements of chemical weapons to Syria, for the opposition.
Good for Belgium, because they investigate. Others don’t.
Yes.
Source:
Euractiv.com
.
... on long-range arms, now the main cornerstone of bilateral nuclear arms control. The Treaty was signed by Presidents Obama and Medvedev in 2010 at a time when ‘reset’ appeared, for a time, to be working.
Recent events — both in Salisbury and in Syria — also show the vital importance that now needs to be given to restoring the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Beyond these specific agreements, both of our countries face a range of common threats, for example from international terrorism, growing instability in Afghanistan, and powerful criminal networks. Working together on these ...
On February 6, RIAC members held a round table discussion at the International Multimedia Center "Rossiya Segodnya " under the framework of «Chemical weapons in Syria: Russia's position and the new US accusations» the format allowed for a contextual review of both internal Syrian and international reactions, political postures and a set of technical conditions around the use of chemical weapons.
On February ...
... Iraq was hiding CWs from international inspectors and refusing to disarm. As we now know, this allegation was false. On the other hand, ten years later in Syria, after the United States, Russia and Damascus signed the "Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons” (September, 2013), all the stockpiles of Syrian CWs were allegedly completely destroyed under the supervision of OPCW within less than twelve months (by mid-2014). As we know now, this assumption was also wrong – the ‘destroyed’ ...
... Syrian regime was responsible for the attack.
Back in 2013 Russia and the U.S. came up with the delicate plan which made Syria to join OPCW and get rid of its chemical weapons stockpiles. By 2016 this mission was accomplished, although accusations of Syrian government using chemical weapons are still here.
REUTERS/Carlos Barria
Senior advisor Steve Bannon stands
between U.S. Deputy National Security
Advisor for Strategy Dina Powell
and Ivanka Trump as U.S. President
Donald Trump delivers a statement about
missile strikes ...
... common approaches, which is the key for the international community.
. . .
No one country can solve problems which are becoming transborder, transnational, common threats and challenges.
President Obama spoke about enforcement of the Syrian chemical weapons agreement that you and Secretary Kerry came up with. Where do you think the U.N.Security Council resolution will end up? Do you see some enforcement mechanism being built into the resolution?
The chemical weapons problem in Syria is first ...
... Lacking any concrete threat of force for non-compliance, it could be used by Syria’s bloody dictator, Bashar al-Assad, to deceive the global community and hold on to his gases nonetheless.
When Russian officials announced their plan for the Syrian government to hand over its chemical weapons stockpiles to the UN for destruction, thus averting an American punitive strike, everybody agreed that it had to be given a chance. Hailed by Russia’s press as a “diplomatic coup”, it did seem a comfortable solution ...
... high. If there was indeed a chemical weapons attack at the capital’s outskirts on August 21, we cannot yet be sure who it really was that pulled the trigger. Logic begs the uncomfortable question: which side would be more willing to carry out a chemical weapons attack against civilians there and then? The Syrian government, while being closely watched by the international community and waited upon to make a fatal mistake, or the Syrian opposition, a loosely composed amalgam of militant groups comprised up to 50% of Islamic extremists and criminals, with ...
