Syria: Russia welcomes British vote against attack on Damascus

Beautiful Moskva river in August, Moscow, Russia
Beautiful Moskva river in August, Moscow, Russia

Syria: Barack Obama met again with his national security team.

While a new statement from Washington says that the U.S. President Barack Obama met again with his national security team in terms of Syria and the information allegedly comes from a US official, the other side in Moscow has published the statement that Russia welcomes the vote against an attack on Syria by the British parliament.

Advertisment

However, what the information about a new meeting of U.S. President Barack Obama with his national security team in regards of a potential military strike against Syria means remains to be seen. At least, it is still the situation that Russia, Iran, and other nations such as Germany, Poland and Italy reject a military attack on Syria.

According to the information that is currently available and based on an allegedly official from Washington who gave the information under the condition of anonymity, the U.S. President Barack Obama already met his National Security Council at the White House in regards of Syria today.

The recent Russian statement says that Moscow welcomes the UK vote against a military offensive on Damascus by the British parliament. According to the official statement and the remarks of the senior foreign policy adviser of the Russian President Vladimir Putin, Mr Yuri Ushakov, Moscow is very happy about the British parliament’s rejection of a military attack against Syria.

Vladimir Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, also said that the vote by the British parliament shows the growing public understanding of the risks of such a military move against the Syrian government in Damascus.

Yuri Ushakov added that the result of the vote by the British parliament against the participation in a military offensive against Syria would reflect the opinion of the majority in the UK and other European countries.

For Putin’s senior foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, this seems that the majority of the people are starting to understand the potential dire consequences of such scenarios. Ushakov said, for example, that it seems to him “that people are starting to understand how dangerous such scenarios are.”

The Russian senior foreign policy adviser, Yuri Ushakov, also stated in his new remarks after the vote against a military offensive on Syria by the UK parliament, that a military strike on Damascus without the approval and support from the UN Security Council (UNSC) would only inflict a great damage to the international system, which is mainly based on the central role of the United Nations (UN) and its Charta.

Russian Flag
Russian Flag

The foreign policy adviser of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin added that such actions of bypassing the UNSC (UN Security Council) will bring a great damage to the major principles of the central role of the United Nations (UN) and the international system.

Already earlier today, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr Gennady Gatilov, has yet again underlined Moscow’s rejection of any resolution at the UN Security Council that would pave the path for a military strike against Syria.

Advertisment

8 Comments

  1. This was a preliminary vote – They will vote again and again, until the “correct” decision was made!

    • Hi, Jim, welcome to the forum. The vote was on a non-binding resolution, and several of the MPs were absent at the time of the vote. Mr. Miliband extracted the promise from Cameron to not exercise the ‘royal prerogative’ of committing to engagement of UK forces without another vote of the House of Commons, but Cameron strikes me as a slimy S.o.B. who couldn’t be trusted with his own kids’ lunch money. In my opinion, Obama and Cameron have both been paid for their obedience to orders, and they better come through, or else. That’s just my opinion, of course.

  2. This is all insane! The U.S. is concerned about the use of gas of a country (Syria) against it’s own citizens – and, which side is actually using the gas has not yet been really confirmed – yet, the US. totally dismisses their near indiscrinant use of lethal Drone strikes against predominantly innocent men, woman and children in other countries.. We should not be policing the world? The real question is; who should be policing the U.S.?
    This not about what is truly right or wrong, or concern for any moral principles, but about power and national self-interest.
    Syria is in a civil war, as we were about 150 years ago. When Great Britain threatened to intervene Washingon warned them that any intervention would be considered as an act of war.
    Do you not think that if there was a civil war here in the U.S. the U.S. government would not use whatever is necessary to protect itself against a
    popular uprising – including the use of gas? If not, think again!!!

    • Given hat the US has the largest stocks of C/BW and anti-personnel mines upon the planet, and those stocks are not being sold to anyone else, you know that the government is saving the stuff for use against its own citizens. While it’s true that UN cannot, or will not, assign any ownership to chemical weapons, there is no logical reason why the Syrian government would use CW on its own citizens, especially since SAA is working its way through town and clearing the neighgorhoods one by one. The rats are getting their butts kicked, royally, and are desperate, besides the fact that the rats are nothing but murdering thugs. Also, US special forces and CIA are reported to be active in the Damascus environs, so that makes three more probable culprits than the Syrian government. Anyway, Obama and Cameron have their orders so there’s not much doubt that the missiles will fly. No telling where it will end, or if it will, ever.

    • Be patient, Bobby, be patient. Russia is supremely steamed, with a military that is, probably equal to our own or maybe superior, by this time. Wait for it.

Comments are closed.