British parliamentarian: Helping Syria weapons is not worth

In the UK, they are ambiguous of the abolition of the embargo for the supply of weapons of the Syrian opposition. Even in the ruling conservative party there is no unity about this. The split is also observed among the countries of the European Union.

The British military expert, a member of the Parliament from the Conservative Party and a member of the intelligence and security committee , Julian Lewis , acts criticizing the embargo in the British media. Assessing the situation in Syria in an interview with Radio Liberty, he expresses fear that the victory of the opposition may be the victory of Al-Qaeda's supporters:

-The main concern is that the removal of the embargo for the supply of weapons to Syria can contribute to the fact that the chemical weapon in Syria will fall into the hands of al-Qaeda. This initiative of our government, which France joined, seems rash to me. The fact is that in Syria, the regime of Bashar al-Assad, which I consider criminal, is opposed by thousands of supporters of Al-Qaeda-the worst enemy of the West and democratic

values. Their groups are included in the armed forces of the opposition. And if the opposition defeats, then the extremist Islamic groups included in it will gain control over the chemical weapons at the disposal of the Syrian government, including neuro-paralytic gas. I must say that many of my colleagues in the conservative party are concerned about this. It is impossible to supply with a weapon only the moderate wing of the opposition, as William Hayig offers. Here an analogy suggests itself with the calls of our Laborists in 1917 to help the Russian revolution. “It is necessary to help only moderate forces-Social Democrats, and not to extremists-Bolsheviks,” they called then. We know what this led to: all the help was captured by the Bolsheviks who came to power. I'm afraid that something similar can happen in Syria. As an alternative to the removal of the embargo, I would offer negotiations on the conclusion of a truce - without preliminary conditions. The importance of this initiative is also that it can combine the positions of Russia and the West, in which interests coincide in this.

- What is the mood of the British parliamentarians about this?

- If it comes to voting in parliament, then I do not think that the decision will be in favor of the government. I do not see much enthusiasm among parliamentarians in connection with the removal of the embargo. Many of them are seriously concerned about its possible consequences. William Heig is stipulated that while our government has no plans to supply weapons to Syria. Nevertheless, many parliamentarians are terrified by the atrocities committed by both aspects of the conflict.

- In the countries of the European Union there is also a split about this. The decision to remove the embargo was not at all unanimous ...

- Many European Union countries are worried about the prospect of being involved in the next military conflict. They can be understood. Humanitarian and any other help is justified when democratic forces sharing Western values participate in one of the parties to the conflict. But in this case, we are talking about the fact that both sides of the conflict are extremely far from democratic ideals and make mass crimes equally.

- Russia has already stated that the removal of the embargo could damage the upcoming international conference in Syria in Geneva, which Russia and the United States agreed on, and accused the UK and France of double standards. How would you appreciate the Russian position in this matter?

- I want to emphasize a certain coincidence of Russian and Western interests in the political and diplomatic decision of the Syrian conflict. Russia is interested in the conclusion of a ceasefire in Syria, as he wants to preserve the current Syrian regime, no matter how criminal he is, as his client. The West wants, first of all, to stop bloodshed. I am alarmed by the statement of the British government that it intends to propose at a conference in Geneva the idea of a peaceful transfer of power to Syria into the hands of the opposition. It is assumed that certain changes in the Syrian government in favor of the opposition should occur. (At the moment, the Syrian opposition refuses to take part in these negotiations. - Approx. Ed. ) However, one of the two: either you finish the truce, or require a peaceful transition of power. It is impossible to simultaneously achieve both. It should be borne in mind that the Civil War in Syria is also the confrontation of two different branches of Islam - Alavites and Sunnis. This conflict has implicitly matured there for decades. Like any religious war, it is distinguished by fanaticism and irrational considerations. Hence the bloody excesses and the mass death of the civilian population. It would be unrealistic to expect that these people will peacefully agree. The Russian position from the very beginning of the Syrian conflict has not changed much. And it does not surprise me that Russia considers the Syrian regime friendly and insists on its preservation. There really is a certain similarity and proximity between them. Bashar al -Assad depends on the position of Russia in the UN Security Council. Russia's supply to Syria of the S-300 anti-aircraft systems can become a catalyst for the start of supplies to the West of the Syrian opposition weapons. Not to mention the fact that this destabilizes the whole situation in the Middle East, if we keep in mind the inevitable reaction to this Israel. And since bloodshed continues, the only alternative, in my opinion, could be the conclusion of a truce between the warring parties. Otherwise, the murders will continue.

- Despite the existing embargo of the European Union, the rebels in Syria are widely supplied by Türkiye and a number of Gulf of Persian. So the embargo essentially did not work ...

- It does not seem to me that the rebels are lacking in small arms. It is in abundance. An increase in its supplies will not change the balance of power in this conflict. The Syrian army has overwhelming superiority in heavy weapons, it prevails in the air. I don’t know what kind of weapons they intend - if they really intend to supply UK and France to the rebels. I do not think that we are talking about airplanes, helicopters and tanks that the Syrian opposition is unlikely to be able to use due to the lack of qualified personnel. I am convinced that no, even very massive, supply of rebels with a weapon will create an advantage in their favor. Only the direct intervention of the armed forces of Western countries can destroy the Assad regime. I do not think that the EU and the United States will decide on this after the Libyan Civil War lessons. However, the current balance of power in the Syrian conflict is not known to anyone for certain. This can be found out only with the help of intervention in the conflict of the third party.

- The Syrian opposition has already stated that the removal of the embargo was belated. Her representative called this step insignificant. What explains this reaction?

- I see in this indirect recognition that the vector of the struggle against the Assad regime is not inclined in favor of the opposition. In my opinion, the main problem of this conflict is and was not to supply the rebels with a weapon at the right time, but to make the right decision. I do not think that the decision made now was correct.