Russian Foreign Minister Slams US ‘Threats’ Against Syrian Army

Donate

Russian Foreign Minister Slams US 'Threats' Against Syrian Army

Reuters/Francois Lenoir

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has slammed US threats to use force the Syrian Army adding that the situation “is rather alarming as it directly affects Syria’s sovereignty.”

“As you know, there have been not only threats, but a fact of using force in this area [Al-Tanaf],” Lavrov said, according to the Russian state-run news agency TASS. “I believe this situation is rather alarming as it directly affects Syria’s sovereignty. Certainly, these issues need to be solved, and our troops are doing this now.

Lavrov added that the effort is now underway through a channel set up between the Russian Aerospace Forces and the US-led coalition.

Thehe sides will reportedly discuss the results a next meeting on the Syrian crisis, which is due to take place soon in Astana.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • sagbotgamot

    US last card. their paid mercenaries ISIS/Daesh is a total failure now they have to do it directly.

    • Bob

      True whilst ISIS failed to dislodge the Syrian armed forces and state leadership – they did succeed in occupying large swathes of Syrian provinces that US ultimately wants to control and created a big buffer zone between Iraq and Syria. It was the US sponsored FSA who dismally failed – to ‘liberate’ the ISIS controlled territory and put it under US proxy occupation as the script was mean to play out. But yeah – the US has certainly got to point of having to directly threaten SAA forces.

      • Stephen

        ISIS are USA Special Operation Forces or SOF. FSA is not so good as ISIS (SOF) in covert operations. Mostly FSA consists of Syrian but ISIS not. ISIS have more power and highly get paid than FSA fighters.

        • christianblood

          ISIS is also very highly motivated to fight to the death because of their ultra fanatical religious ideology.

        • Thegr8rambino

          Makes me so happy to see them (us,uk,is rah el,Saudi) fail miserably in life lol

      • John Whitehot

        imho the point of having ISIS was to have “bad” islamists that would had been destroyed by the “good” ones (The FSA – put the word “Free” in something and you have the US
        and some EU public support). So the FSA, the saint martyrs of Syria, would had rightfully ruled over the country after removing the evil Assad and the evil ISIS (although in the latter case ISIS would probably just retreat into their sewages after firing some blanks, or even put up FSA uniforms and step into their files).

        The country would had been in-chaos undefinitely anyway, as Israel does not like stable, peaceful muslim countries. Syria was even more undesirable in its form, as it was a country where a multitude of different peoples with different religions, lived in peace and did not hate each other. I sincerely hope it will return like it was.

        • NeoLeo

          Spot on. Reminds me of the movie ‘W.’ when Dick Cheney says something like- “Our exit strategy from Iraq? There is no exit. We stay.” Perpetual war, just like in Afghanistan. And that’s why they created both ISIS (the ultimate bad guys), and FSA (friendly natives, media darlings, someone to be ‘saved’ from ISIS).

          I guess the plan was – ISIS fanatics (useful idiots actually) take Damascus, remove Assad, then the US arm and support ‘democratic forces’ to liberate the country from these evil, evil dudes. No one objects of course, and they have someone to bomb for many years to come, holding both Iraq and Syria as hostages.

        • NeoLeo

          Spot on. Reminds me of the movie “W.” when Dick Cheney says something like “Our exit strategy from Iraq? There is no exit. We stay.” Perpetual war, just like in Afghanistan. That’s why they created both ISIS (the ultimate bad guys) and FSA (friendly natives, media darlings, someone to be saved from ISIS)

          I guess the plan was – ISIS fanatics (useful idiots actually) take Damascus , remove Assad, then NATO/U.S. arm and support ‘democratic forces’ to liberate the country from those evil, evil dudes… No one objects, of course, and they have someone to bomb for many years to come, holding both Syria and Iraq as hostages.

        • Thegr8rambino

          Me too, me too

    • Concrete Mike

      They Will fail, thé economy is artificial, the us currency is based on Saudi oil output. Remove that, us$= kaput.

      They know as well as we do. They dont have à chance…

      • John Whitehot

        the problem is that they are not going to let that happen peacefully.

    • Real Anti-Racist Action

      I think they were always planning to do it directly. The point of ISIS was to inflict between 40%-60% casualties to Israelis enemies. Now that this has been accomplished, they are ready to take out the remaining resistance against Israel.
      Soon Israel plans on owning all of the Golan Heights.

  • paul

    The more I observe the behavior of western politicians the more convinced
    I become that a conflict between Russia and the us is the only possible
    outcome. By this I mean either the us is stopped by force or else
    they will win because of capitulation. Only force will stop the west.
    Without it the result will be a perpetual western hegemony.

    • John Whitehot

      I’d say the same. But I wouldn’t discount surprises. I know I’m stressing this, but after all, we don’t really know much.

  • Hrky75

    I’m surprised that Syria/Russia didn’t capitalize on Al Tanf bombing incident more. A clear cut example of US wiping it’s behind with half a dozen international laws, the concept of national sovereignty and the UN charter. Also I keep expecting Chinese diplomacy to score some points on the issue. US diplomacy uses every opportunity to make a scene even when they have no arguments, like with the CW incidents – blow up some children photos and cry a river of crocodile tears. Lavrov should stop just reacting to US provocations and start taking initiative…

    • John Whitehot

      perhaps there is the will of not crying crocodile tears like USrael, because in the end, the more you behave opportunistically and unethically you lose credibility.

      • Hrky75

        I’m not talking about opportunism and being unethical – I’m talking using legitimate opportunity and undisputed facts to expose the real nature od Syrian war. Regular US troops are occupying a part of sovereign Syrian territory, are preventing Syrian forces to take control of it and even called in for air strike claiming they were defending themselves. First thing that comes to mind is Gleiwitz incident and Hitler claiming self defense on Sept 1 1939. It seems to me like a diplomatic slam dunk. On the other hand US has to invent incidents and force the issue with next to no facts – and they never miss an opportunity to do so and score points.

        • Ronald

          Completely agree , at least Lavrov said something , but it should be followed up by comments from others . Egyptian Pres., Cuban etc.

        • Ma_Laoshi

          I used to think l like this. But to reply to your point: Russia should voice its protest *where*? Putin haters and Putin fans seem curious united in ascribing to Vlad some superpowers which he in fact does not possess. Putin does not control the NATO press; jews do. There are facts; there are no “undisputed” facts if one side is willing to dispute them, and has the megaphone to amplify its lies. The objective facts which you refer to don’t matter in the media; they do matter on the battlefield, where this will all unfortunately need to be resolved.

          • John Whitehot

            Can you elaborate on how “The jews control the medias” is a fact?
            Because it’s a subject I’d like to see clearly.

          • Ma_Laoshi

            For instance, something like 90% of Canadian media is in the hands of three jewish families. CNN CEO is Mr. Zucker, NYT opinion page is Mr. Rosenthal I believe. And so on and so forth. Nothing mysterious about it really; especially print business is of dubious profitability in the internet age so it gravitates to rich folks with an agenda to push. Russian oligarch emigres fund of lot of stuff in Europe, though their animus is more anti-Putin than pro-Israel. “A position of power is not surrendered without a struggle.” Someone lied us into Iraq, and I doubt it was the Buddhists.

            Saw an extensive list somewhere recently. But does it even matter here: my point was that Russia has no say in what gets elevated to objective truth in the NATO press, and they might as well stop trying to please those interests.

          • John Whitehot

            Russia really should do the fuck it wants without worrying about NATO interests. The day you act because of NATO interests, no matter which way, it’s the day you have a less independent policy.

            And the fact that Russia acts independently of NATO is much likely the reason why NATO is so hysterical and some folks keep bitching about Lavrov.

          • Hrky75

            I can understand that China, like Russia plays double or even triple game – but they also need to define their red lines. For the last 40 years Chinese diplomacy stubbornly defended the concept of national sovereignty and non interference in internal disputes – in the UNSC and in bilateral relations. And not for any altruism on their part but because it protected Chinese interest. US under Obama promoted ridiculous idea that air strike and drone attacks are not the act of war – the world and China included remained silent. Trump administration introduced a notion that US forces (and probably IDF but no one else) can claim self defense while attacking regular Syrian army on Syrian soil while being there illegally according to UN charter – China remains silent. Chances are that next probable target for this kind of interpretation of national sovereignty will be somewhere in the Pacific – and then Chinese will cry foul and the rest of the world will ignore it…

          • Ma_Laoshi

            For China, the US is its main customer, as well as a geopolitical bully. So at least a double game. But this lack of urgency in stopping the Empire’s out-of-control bulldozer means that said Empire is still getting away with a lot.

        • goingbrokes

          Russia is playing a more subtle game. US & co are holding Tanf because they can. But if there is no political point to it, it remains a statement of military power and nothing else. Outrageous but not important in the long run. Like Trumps missile strike – militarily “strong”, politically stupid and self-defeating. Put USAF out of action near Raqqah and the operation ground to a halt. Trump was then told in no uncertain terms that he will no longer take military decisions. So Tanf is all Pentagon, again pure military and politically backward – posturing, no vision, trying to keep bands of insurgents going. This sort of thing is completely demoralising US special forces personnel. It seems that the war will just move around Al Tanf and after a while it becomes an irrelevancy. Gains for US = 0.00.

          US government echelons are in complete disarray and an irrational policy pursued today will be replaced by another irrational policy tomorrow. It is the kind of situation where the opponent, in this case Putin and Assad, need to do almost nothing. They can just watch the farce carry on a bit longer and then collapse in its internal contradictions. For US this not about war fighting. For them it is all about being able to make money hand over fist in dirty deals, power brokering and selling weapons. If you expect to make lots of money from war you may expect to have to defend yourself from time to time. You don’t expect to have to defend with your life a small piece of filthy desert that means nothing to you. It just does not compute. Especially when your leadership is an unpatriotic mess where everyone spends their time covering their own asses.

          • Brad Isherwood

            US got the FSA primates to declare their fight is against Assad & foreign militias,
            Which means Shia – Hezbollah, IRGC, PMU.
            US and Israel need this contact tension to support their BS about Iran the Terror
            Enabler.
            US Generals stated they will stay in Iraq after Mosul operations.
            Previous political pressure on Puppet leader in Bugdud to push PMU and Shia Militias
            Out of US operations areas….which saw PMU off on the periphery of Mosul,
            Which gave the PMU the western reaches of Iraq to beat up any ISUS they could catch up with.
            US is also pressuring Russia that Hezbollah and IRGC have to leave Syria.
            Yet the US wants them in Syria as contact point for future conflict.
            The ISUS terrorist will be swapped out for the Iranian boogeyman media show.
            The dumbed down public will buy the Shia Militias terrorist ploy while Jewish
            Controlled media beats the war drums.
            With ISUS ending….the US has no purpose being in Iraq or Syria.
            So…..create the next level of the game.
            Saudi influence in Syria was tumbled when Aleppo was retaken, with
            The Takfiri kooks and Muslim Brotherhood tumbling back into Idlib in defeat with no
            Direction for all their losses over the years.
            Saudis now have a weak position in Lebanon and Syria….they want/need the US
            To get them back in the game.

          • Hrky75

            I agree with most of your comment. Still it doesn’t hurt to point out this duplicity on the diplomatic front. I also agree with people commenting that western MSM is biased and that precious little of the info would actually reach the western public opinion – but it still pays to try…

        • John Whitehot

          the Gleiwitz incident was a false flag operation and The US behave like that pretty much all the time, but as I said, it does damage their credibility to the point of becoming a real rogue country (along with Israel, that perhaps is the only other country that behaves even worse).

          US ethics are broken, they behave like a thug who can beat anybody hence does not care about fulfilling promises, honoring deals or backstabbing “friends”, with an attitude like: “It’s like this, you don’t like it then bring it on and get whooped”.

          It can’t last forever, actually it can’t last much longer than it already has.

          • Hrky75

            I agree completely. I’d just like to see Lavrov point it out regularly…

  • Solomon Krupacek

    Slams.

    slams.

    slams…

    SLAMS!

    stupid. Lavrov, yźou should tell, Russia will defeat its allies and destroy all sources of threatens.

    but you are weak, extremly weak, you are only mop, with which well clean the floor. :(

    • Ma_Laoshi

      Don’t understand this hate directed towards Lavrov–perhaps apart from that it’s his job to have it directed towards him. Good Sergei does not have his own Air Force or missile teams; well never mind that, he doesn’t even have his own power base in Moscow I think. He’s Russia’s chief diplomat carrying out Kremlin policy decided by others, and whose job it is to keep a poker face no matter what garbage the West throws his way. If he starts talking smack without Russian action to back it up, how would that help? The world already has Trump, Little Kim, and a host of European fools; isn’t that enough?

      • Solomon Krupacek

        IF he can not talk normally, there is abdiction for him. I know lot of politics, who did. Lavrov is organic part of core of the russian leaders. He is guilty.

        • John Whitehot

          you don’t know a football from a basketball.

          • Solomon Krupacek

            ou, the wise white hot pepper

          • Solomon Krupacek

            ts ts ts ts

        • Ma_Laoshi

          … and I understand what you are angry about. I can appreciate that Russia is not concerned with “looking tough” or such cowboy nonsense, but the current appeasement only seems to invite more and more aggression. Still, right or wrong, this is Kremlin policy not Lavrov’s personal policy. If Lavrov were to talk differently, do you think the Syrians would be better off?

          • Solomon Krupacek

            Not now, in the beginnig had to clear the situation. momentum of surprise, 100+ airplanes were enough. and after then the russians did nothing, america saw, the russians are half-hearted and step by step built up their presence. now is too late, america is in the house. in the beginning was not necessary hard confrontation. now would be necessary. america is niot cowboy, if clearly tell, that will defeat with all creafts the allied countries. this is absolute normal thing.

            the weak part was always jordan. it woild be enough in october 2015 only 1 time shott on retreating jihadist on jordan territory, just 1 km behind border. beleiev me, the whole nato would understand the red line.

            also ukraine. the americans uo today tell wizh open mouth the Monroe doctrine. This make with independent countries. Russia should tell zhe same in territories of USSR. neutrality OK, but no membership in ather organisation. Why do not tell clearly, that this is their geoploutucal sphere? You should understand: the russians think this, do in this way, but are silent, no declarations. and therefore are always ar aggressor. AAAAND, this policy will have brutal, very brutal consequences in central asia, becaous of … no, not america, …. bcause of china. china sees this territory as own. hire is the most important part of one belt. if china push out russians, chan totally ignore russa, the south belt will be only one. and this is happening. nowhere write laud about this problem, but the undergrpound and backgoung activities alredy are running.

            russia should loud declare its geopolitical intersts (of course much, much lower than in case of USSR) an be prepeared fight for them with weapons in hand.

            Instead of this russia is making rcstoscopy of west and china. and both are pissing on china. russia has only 1 chance: to build up something own. godd, prosperous and strong. if will not di, than at the end pf centory will by only in history.

          • Ma_Laoshi

            Being angry does not help with clear writing. ;-) But I think I
            understand most of what you say. Yes other parties were holding their
            breath for a moment when Russia intervened. Then the intervention turned
            out to be halfhearted, premature withdrawals were announced, and Russia
            right or wrong allowed itself to be seen as a bit of a paper tiger. I
            would say it’s worse because they were constantly inviting the Americans
            in for “partnership”, instead of getting them to leave other people’s
            countries where they were not invited.

            So yes, the Kremlin shares
            in the blame for the current mess. Still I don’t see what I change in
            rhetoric would achieve by itself, unless you change the overall
            approach.

    • Thegr8rambino

      They have said that already many times, although in not so many words..

      • Solomon Krupacek

        no times

        • Thegr8rambino

          All times

    • John Whitehot

      another warmonger who never shot a cartridge in his life.

      • Solomon Krupacek

        wow, how wise is this extra white john

      • Solomon Krupacek

        ts ts ts

  • RamboDave

    Since the SAA is only about 40 miles from the al-Tanf / al-Walid boarder crossing, why not just airlift a SAA battalion directly over into the Iraqi side, which is called al-Walid ? They can then join up with some friendly Iraqi PMU and Iraqi Army soldiers and drive back over the boarder, a distance of about 3 miles, to take control of the al-Tanf crossing, currently occupied by Norwegian soldiers. The pink area in the map below is Iraq and the green area is Syria (controlled by rebels). The US would be fools to attack the Iraqi PMU, since US special forces are in-bedded with the Iraqi Army outside Mosul, and operate sometimes just a stone’s throw away from other PMU units. They could easily be taken hostage at a check point near Mosul.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/729d740689cf5e7d1ce542d3786fa5d220e53e96cc1758d2edd613e1ef4b3526.jpg

    • Ronald

      Problem is its officially ISIS , just over the line (or FSA) the PMU’s are hard to the right on the map , many km .

    • Ma_Laoshi

      Didn’t the US *already* bomb the Iraqi PMU when they were moving towards this area? May or may not be foolish as you say, but so far they’ve gotten away with it. They’re practically daring–well the whole world really, to give them a bloody nose, but so far this has not happened.

      • RamboDave

        That is correct. Apparently Trump has given the US military a certain amount of discretion to act on it’s own. But, I think a deal was made to let the SAA take al-Tanf after Trump returned from his trip, so as not to embarrass him in front of the Saudis.That is why it has been quiet for two weeks. Also, Trump appears to have called off an invasion from Jordon directly through that corridor, during the joint training exercises two weeks ago in that area. McMaster (and fellow neocons) were for it — Steve Bannon was against it.

        • Ma_Laoshi

          Interesting! With Trump so far having even bigger problems than Obama to control his own government, it may be good to keep in mind that there’s not a single “US”. We’ll see the coming week if it’ll play out along the lines you mention.

        • goingbrokes

          “Trump has given the US military a certain amount of discretion to act on it’s own.”
          I suppose you could put it like that, but the truth is that Pentagon has told Trump to f*#% off. He won’t be making any military decisions from now on. This is the Deep State which Pentagon is a part of, telling the President that he is a figure head and not a very important person! Lol.

    • Thegr8rambino

      Good plan!!

      • Solomon Krupacek

        no.

        pmu is not iraqi army. only the official iraqi army and government could send away the maericans and bits, nors.

        • Thegr8rambino

          The PMU are the ones leading the fight for Iraq, so YES Solomon, it IS A GOOD PLAN!!

          • Solomon Krupacek

            but not official. americans will them stop. it similrar, if the american national guard would operate and help in mexico. nonsence! until iraqi government will not officially agree, they are desperates. similar, like russian fighters in abroad without government agree, are desperates for russia.

          • Thegr8rambino

            How are they not official? They’ve been leading the fight against daesh for a while now. Even if they weren’t official, why the hell would the Iraqi govt order them to stop and come home? They (baghdad) already said the other day they won’t join the anti-iran Coalition, and that they are coordinating with Syrian and Iranian forces to secure the border. So Syria, Iran, iraqi govts all allied and in this together and will succeed. You seem to be terribly misinformed on a great many things, judging by your comments

    • John Whitehot

      It would work only in a world where politics do not matter.

  • John

    Maybe I am wrong but, this one was important.