Translated material
The object of the agreement
The Saudi newspaper Al-Vatan placed a caricature: Uncle Sam takes Bashar Assad a bomb with a chemical filling, and he calmly leaves for his bloody affairs with a Russian missile in his hand. Caricaturist is right: solving the problem of Syrian poisonous substances will not save the Syrians from death. This week, the BBC showed a large plot about Syrian children who became victims of air bombing. A government plane (Russian -made) flew in and threw a bomb on school. But what is especially terrible: it was clear in the frame that the bodies of children were covered with white foam, which could not be removed from the skin. It turned out that this is an especially savage variety of Napalm, the application of which is prohibited by international agreements against civilians. The opposition has no aircraft, so it is exhaustively clear who committed this crime. But such atrocities are happening throughout Syria. So without chemical weapons there is something for President Assad and his generals to send the defendants to the Hague to the bench.
Nevertheless, those who believe that the Russian-American agreement is more wrong than benefit than benefits. Firstly, Damascus loses the temptation to easily and quickly “solve” the civil war in its favor; Military experts say that the large -scale use of poisonous substances would allow Assad to defeat the opposition, while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Secondly, Syrian chemical weapons carry an existential threat to Israel; After the Syrian chemical disarmament, a new large -scale war in the Middle East becomes less likely. And the Hezbollah, having lost the Syrian chemical "umbrella", will be forced to behave more modest. Thirdly, the Russian-American agreement and a resolution of the UN Security Council created the most important precedent: the world dictators will think many times before deciding to use weapons of mass defeat against their own population. It turns out that Russia and China will not necessarily come to the rescue.
And the fourth is the main thing, probably. What was the practical alternative? Suppose incredible: the US Congress would allow the US military to strike. What would he be? If symbolic, then this would not affect the course of the Civil War. If, on the contrary, 60 days of intensive bombing really followed to destroy the infrastructure of the army of Bashar al -Assad, then his regime would most likely fall. But the situation would develop in a sharp, unpredictable way. The most likely outcome is chaos and a new round of civil war, this time between the Syrian opposition and the foreign recruits of Al-Qaeda and its allies. In such conditions, the chemical weapons in the hands of jihadists would be practically inevitable, and they would be ready to apply it without long thoughts. I would have to enter the ground forces into Syria. With serious consequences. At the same time, Russia, apparently, would consider active interference on the side of the dying regime of Assad, and a new cold war could begin in the world. And there could be no question of any resumption of contacts between Washington and Tehran in such a situation. There would be no hopes for a peaceful settlement of the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian president of Rouhani would be forced to submit to his conservatives, who did not want a detachment with the West.
But the impact Congress would almost certainly not allow. And what, in this case, leave a chemical attack in El Guute without any consequences? Impossible! Chemical disarmament of Syria is a necessary condition, but not at all sufficient to stop the civil war. This is by no means stopping. It is necessary to strengthen the pressure on Damascus, force Assad to stop actions against his own people. Strengthen the help of moderate opposition. And no even partial rehabilitation of Assad’s regime can be discussed. He is an object, not the subject of the agreement. If Russia continues to protect it, then it will lose the little that remains of its authority in the Arab East.
Andrey Ostalsky - London political commentator, orientalist
Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editors of the RS .
Nevertheless, those who believe that the Russian-American agreement is more wrong than benefit than benefits. Firstly, Damascus loses the temptation to easily and quickly “solve” the civil war in its favor; Military experts say that the large -scale use of poisonous substances would allow Assad to defeat the opposition, while killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Secondly, Syrian chemical weapons carry an existential threat to Israel; After the Syrian chemical disarmament, a new large -scale war in the Middle East becomes less likely. And the Hezbollah, having lost the Syrian chemical "umbrella", will be forced to behave more modest. Thirdly, the Russian-American agreement and a resolution of the UN Security Council created the most important precedent: the world dictators will think many times before deciding to use weapons of mass defeat against their own population. It turns out that Russia and China will not necessarily come to the rescue.
And the fourth is the main thing, probably. What was the practical alternative? Suppose incredible: the US Congress would allow the US military to strike. What would he be? If symbolic, then this would not affect the course of the Civil War. If, on the contrary, 60 days of intensive bombing really followed to destroy the infrastructure of the army of Bashar al -Assad, then his regime would most likely fall. But the situation would develop in a sharp, unpredictable way. The most likely outcome is chaos and a new round of civil war, this time between the Syrian opposition and the foreign recruits of Al-Qaeda and its allies. In such conditions, the chemical weapons in the hands of jihadists would be practically inevitable, and they would be ready to apply it without long thoughts. I would have to enter the ground forces into Syria. With serious consequences. At the same time, Russia, apparently, would consider active interference on the side of the dying regime of Assad, and a new cold war could begin in the world. And there could be no question of any resumption of contacts between Washington and Tehran in such a situation. There would be no hopes for a peaceful settlement of the problem of the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian president of Rouhani would be forced to submit to his conservatives, who did not want a detachment with the West.
But the impact Congress would almost certainly not allow. And what, in this case, leave a chemical attack in El Guute without any consequences? Impossible! Chemical disarmament of Syria is a necessary condition, but not at all sufficient to stop the civil war. This is by no means stopping. It is necessary to strengthen the pressure on Damascus, force Assad to stop actions against his own people. Strengthen the help of moderate opposition. And no even partial rehabilitation of Assad’s regime can be discussed. He is an object, not the subject of the agreement. If Russia continues to protect it, then it will lose the little that remains of its authority in the Arab East.
Andrey Ostalsky - London political commentator, orientalist
Opinions expressed under the heading "Law" may not reflect the point of view of the editors of the RS .