US "threats" appear to be the sticking point for Syria and Russia

[bigtree]

_______________________________

Steve Rosenberg ‏@BBCSteveR 17m
From Russian translation of Assad's interview, sounds like he's demanding US stops its "threats", before Syria fulfils plan completely


Jake Tapper ‏@jaketapper 13m
Assad tells Russian TV: "This bi-lateral process is based, first of all, on the United States stopping its policy of threatening Syria."


Assad Demands End to U.S. 'Threats'
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324576304579071000750747312.html

Assad says Russian diplomacy, not US threat, is key to solving crisis
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/12/20450539-assad-says-russian-diplomacy-not-us-threat-is-key-to-solving-crisis

Obama Pledges to Consider Syria Plan, While Keeping Threat of a Strike
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/09/obama-will-pledge-consider-syria-compromise-tonights-speech/69268/

[Catherina]

1. A few more details

Syria will start handing over information on its chemical weapons to international groups a month after it signs the Chemical Weapons Convention, President Bashar Assad has told a Russian TV channel.

Damascus has agreed to a Russia proposal to put its chemical weapons stockpiles under international control.

“Syria is handing over its chemical weapons under international supervision because of Russia,” Assad said in an interview with state-run news channel Rossiya-24. “The US threats did not influence the decision.”

...

“I believe the agreement will come into force a month after the signing and Syria will start submitting data on its chemical weapons stockpile to international organizations. These are standard procedures and we are going to stick to them,” he said.

“It doesn’t mean that Syria will sign the documents, fulfill the obligations and that’s it. It’s a bilateral process aimed, first of all, at making the US stop pursuing its policy of threats against Syria,” Assad said, adding that a lot would also depend on the extent to which Russia’s proposal is accepted.

...

http://rt.com/news/assad-syria-russia-proposal-773/

[bigtree]

3. that looks like their bottom line

. . . withdraw the threat or no deal.

Our president says the threat is essential to any deal being accepted.

[snappyturtle]

5. Two days ago I wrote an OP about the "threats".

Here's is a 1:47 video of Putin saying as much...at the end.
It was very troublesome to me.

[Catherina]

8. Thanks Snappyturtle

I forgot about that video and was going to look for an article. You just saved me a lot of trouble.

[bigtree]

10. you just have to know

. . . underlying any Russian negotiation with the U.S. is an insistent self-interest. Who knew Russia would have a sticking point to their diplomacy . . .?

[snappyturtle]

11. Yes, I'm aware. I was really taken back by Putin's

remark in the video. I felt like he had gotten the ball
rolling in a good direction and then pulled the rug...
or threw the POTUS under the bus and right back to
the 'red line' corner. Not good.

[Catherina]

7. Russia made that clear days ago, the minute they started on this proposal

I think there are too many wretched warhawks, like McCain, involved who have a long history of Russia hate and need to be removed from these discussions. Hawks like McCain and the Democrats who are aligned with him are doing everything they can to get their war on. Even something as simple, as prudent as Russia's request to have the IAEA analyze risk of Syria nuclear disaster became an irresponsible dick-waving fight.

I wish our president would cut those neocons out of any discussions, stop sending them to represent us in the Middle East and stop consulting with them. When the Egyptian Revolution started, the first people Obama called to the White House for consultations were hard-core neocons. I couldn't believe it. I even had a thread about it ( [link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x314348|Neocons meeting with Obama at the White House today over Egypt] ) at the time because I was so appalled. Those are the last, the very last people who should be involved in any of this.

[David__77]

2. You don't get something for nothing.

Syria will have its demands, and does actually have some leverage to back it up. The US can do what it wants, but not without consequence.

[bigtree]

4. I'm almost certain

. . . the administration already realizes this.

[ProSense]

6. Crisis diplomacy 101: the Kerry-Lavrov Syria meeting

Crisis diplomacy 101: the Kerry-Lavrov Syria meeting
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023652871

The threat of force isn't going to be taken off the table.

[bigtree]

9. gunboat diplomacy against a nation which hasn't directly threatened us

I am under no illusion that the threat of force will be 'taken off the table' by the administration.

[geek tragedy]

12. Putin: Assad to turn over chemical weapons, but if he doesn't we should do nothing.

Putins' game pretty clearly is to protect Assad and play for time.

Which is fine so long as we dont' get involved in that mess, but let's be clear that this isn't an attempt on his part to actually deal with the chemical weapons issue.

[David__77]

13. I'm good with it: "if he doesn't we should do nothing"

I'm not convinced that this is also the perspective of a lot of people in DC.

[geek tragedy]

14. I'm fine with the US doing nothing, but let's not pretend that Putin takes the issue

of Syria's use of chemical weapons seriously, or that this is about making the UN a centerpiece of international cooperation.

[bigtree]

15. kick