Questions w/PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN 9.10.2013, regarding Syria..

Posted by our combined` effect our combined` effect
Comments on the chemical weapons situation in Syria
September 10, 2013, 21:00 Novo-Ogaryovo, Moscow Region

Tags: foreign policy, Syria

Add to blog Direct link Vladimir Putin commented on the chemical weapons situation in Syria. Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office Vladimir Putin commented on the chemical weapons situation in Syria.
September 10, 2013
 Full captionFull caption|||Minimise
Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office Photo: the Presidential Press and Information Office| Vladimir Putin commented on the chemical weapons situation in Syria.|Novo-Ogaryovo, Moscow Region|September 10, 2013|| 

please see updates on twitter;

QUESTION: Mr President, everybody’s talking about Syria, chemical weapons and bringing Syria’s chemical arsenal under international control. We have just received a report from Washington saying you discussed this matter with President Obama at the G20 summit in St Petersburg. Is it true? Did you talk about this? And if so, whose idea was it, President Obama’s or yours? And how realistic do you think this proposal is?

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is a well-known fact that Syria has a chemical weapons arsenal, and Syrians have always regarded it as a counterbalance to Israel’s nuclear stockpile.

Russia’s position on the issue is well-known: we are against the proliferation of any weapons of mass destruction, including both chemical and nuclear weapons.

Given the current situation in Syria, this issue is particularly pressing, and we did discuss this matter on the margins of the G20 summit in St Petersburg.

In fact, the matter of bringing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has long been a subject of discussion by experts and politicians.

And, like I said, the US president and myself also talked about this on the margins of the summit.

We agreed to step up these efforts and instruct the Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister to work together and see if they can achieve some progress in this regard.

On September 9, we heard US Secretary of State John Kerry saying in a public statement in London that the US thinks this is extremely important for the resolution of the Syrian crisis. We, too, think this is a serious matter which requires thorough consideration.

With the foreign minister of Syria currently on a visit to Moscow, our Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov talked to him, and he then talked to his country’s leadership, and we hear that Syria responded positively to this proposal.

Not only do we think this is a viable option, but we really hope that our friends in Syria take this responsible decision and agree not only to bring their chemical weapons under international control but also to have them destroyed, and we hope Syria joins the international convention banning chemical weapons.

I think this will be a big step forward in resolving the Syrian crisis. Of course, all of this will only mean anything if the United States and other nations supporting it tell us that they're giving up their plan to use force against Syria.

You can’t really ask Syria, or any other country, to disarm unilaterally while military action against it is being contemplated.

We will work together with Syrians and our US partners, and, like I said, I hope this will be a big step forwards towards a peaceful resolution to the Syrian crisis.


our combined` effect states;

we need sensitivity in our peace negotiations + Israel needs to end their nuclear ability as well. + it is wrong for US to support them the way we do, fragmentally while Syria proposes them as a threat or at least in case + that is their reasoning for having chemical weapons.

it is hard her in US not getting the transparency of this larger picture. this is why we should continue to work at getting rid of ALL weapons of mass destruction.

for this is crazy to see the resources spent within all to have to be burdened by this, then to see US give what they do to both for humanitarian means, etc. not to mention exchange of weapons from all.

we refuse to support the use of any weapons, against another human being..

rather we need sensitive natural human reality brought to the present as we stop paralleling these discussions, due to being on different waves of thinking, not being sensitive to the other person for where they are in the present.

look at Ambassador Susan Rice, how insensitive she speaks now on whitehouse page;

I did not see her prior in these negotiated discussions, but we should take a review of this so as to make better dialog with more respectful sensitive people toward Assad now to work thru this for the better of all. + perhaps this sensitivity has yet to be from US.

if aware please share for us.

thank you, kara