0 $
2,350 $
4,700 $
1,650 $
COLLECTED IN OCTOBER

Russian Foreign MInistry Slams US ‘Provocative Attempt’ To Rescue Idlib Terrorists Through UN Security Council

Donate

On September 19, a spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Mariya Zakharova, made an official coment on the recent US-led attempt to use the UN Security Council to rescue terrorists organizations operating in Syria’s Idlib.

Voting on draft resolutions on Syria at UN Security Council (source):

During a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 19, the delegations of Belgium, Kuwait and Germany, under pressure from the US, put to a vote a draft resolution that urged all combat operations in the Idlib de-escalation zone in Syria to be halted.

In fact, this was a provocative attempt to take the heat off the terrorist organisations controlling Idlib, being lavishly nourished from abroad.

In essence, this had nothing to do with caring about the civilians who are suffering from the terrorist domination in this area of Syria. The project initiators were not even stopped by the fact that an entire range of such organisations were acknowledged as terrorists by the UN Security Council, which urges that a relentless struggle against them be waged. It is obvious that an attempt was made to use humanitarian aspects for political purposes, to perpetuate the dividing lines in sovereign Syria and to protect the extremists from being totally wiped out by securing them in the country’s northwest.

The draft resolution, vetoed by Russia and China, would have laid the foundation for groundless accusations of the Syrian government and the Russian military of violating international humanitarian law; it also threatened further measures in case of the ceasefire violation, that is, it denied the opportunity to strike back against the stepped-up terrorists’ raids, including their shelling of civilian objects in towns and the Russian airbase in Khmeimim.

The draft resolution completely ignored the efforts made by the three Astana guarantors (Russia, Iran and Turkey) to promote a political settlement in Syria, as well as avoided mentioning the ceasefire introduced on August 31, which was nearly disrupted by the US Air Force’s strike on the Idlib zone.

While working on the draft, the Russian delegation suggested constructive amendments to be made, so that the ceasefire did not apply to anti-terrorist activities. However, these amendments were ignored. The co-authors refused to continue looking for compromise formulas and, as we understand, under pressure from Washington, insisted on putting the draft resolution to a vote as submitted. We also have information that US representatives put pressure to bear on UN Security Council members so that the process of approving the draft resolution ended up in a stalemate, avoiding a constructive discussion.

Russia and China presented an alternative draft resolution on the ceasefire, which would have come into force as of midnight September 20, but would not apply to anti-terrorist combat operations. Unfortunately, it was not supported.

Russia will continue facilitating the restoration of sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Syria, the return of the country to a peaceful life and successfully eradicating terrorism.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Tiresia Branding

    say “welcome” to the new “United States of Ashkenazist” ambassador to the UN
    https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Kelly-Craft-shows-commitment-to-Israel-at-UNSC-meeting-602368
    Current situation suggest me Israhell need maximum coverage because of a new ethnical cleansing operation against Palestinians is ready to start. This is also why they need a KSA vs Iran war

    • Tommy Jensen

      New Jezebel sister.

  • Xoli Xoli

    Double tongue Erdogan also calls on USA warmongers to safe his terrorists in Idlib from Russia and Syria forces.

    • Tommy Jensen

      Triple tongue.

      • Xoli Xoli

        Thanks mr.Jensen.

  • Barba_Papa

    Russia should expose Western hypocrisy by agreeing to vote for this resolution if an addendum was to be added calling for a similar cease fire resolution in Yemen to halt all Saudi bombing on Houthi controlled areas. That resolution would disappear so fast scientists would have to come up with a new term to describe this new theoretical speed limit.

  • Rodger

    Belgium, Kuwait and Germany aren’t real members of the UN Security Council. They are just there to make the UN more of a sham.
    https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/content/current-members

    • Tommy Jensen

      The LGBT group has also taking over the leadership of Germany. Morally, ethically, culturally and financially corrupted.

      • Redadmiral

        Indeed Tommy. Deutchmark stiffies leading Butch Euro into the Grande Canyon Rainbow, where Old Faithfull is blowing its load at the thought of taking Gay Pride to a Higher level. Lol

  • Tommy Jensen

    Beautiful. Thanks to Russia and China, humanity owes you!!

    • Willing Conscience (The Truths

      God Damn them you should say, here’s what both the proposals were,

      US backed proposal,

      The draft proposed by co-sponsors Belgium, Germany and Kuwait — which would have called on all parties to immediately cease hostilities to avoid a further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Idlib Governorate, beginning at noon Damascus time on 21 September — received 12 affirmative votes, 2 negative votes (China, Russian Federation) and 1 abstention (Equatorial Guinea).

      That draft also would have demanded that Member States ensure that all measures taken to counter terrorism comply with international law, and stress that such operations do not absolve parties to armed conflicts from their obligations under international humanitarian law. It would have urged all parties to apply the principles of distinction and proportionality, as well as take all feasible precautions to avoid and minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. It would have further requested the Secretary-General to immediately report any violations of international humanitarian law.
      ….
      Russian backed proposal,

      The draft proposed by China and the Russian Federation, which holds the Council presidency for September, was defeated by 9 votes against (Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Kuwait, Peru, Poland, United Kingdom, United States) to 2 votes in favour (China, Russian Federation), with 4 abstentions (Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Indonesia, South Africa).

      By its terms, the Council would have decided that all parties maintain the cessation of hostilities as of 31 August to avoid a further deterioration of humanitarian conditions in Idlib. It also would have reaffirmed that the cessation of hostilities shall not apply to military operations against individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with Council-designated terrorist groups.
      ….
      What’s the difference between the 2 proposals, only the dates and nothing else, and the dates aren’t important at all.
      Both proposal would’ve been great news for Assad, but they were both vetoed by the opposing party, God damn all of them.

  • Willing Conscience (The Truths

    What’s the difference between UN resolution 2254 that the Russians Turks and the Iranians want to have implemented,

    Emphasized their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic as well as to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. They highlighted that these principles should be universally respected and that no actions, no matter by whom they were undertaken, should undermine them”.

    and this one the US supposedly wants implemented,

    “During a meeting of the UN Security Council on September 19, the delegations of Belgium, Kuwait and Germany, under pressure from the US, put to a vote a draft resolution that urged all combat operations in the Idlib de-escalation zone in Syria to be halted”.

    So what’s the difference between them.
    Both demand an end to hostilities by all parties including the SAA, which effectively stops both the advancing SAA and the fleeing refugees in their tracks, so they’re both bad resolutions as far as Assad’s concerned, that’s if he was hoping to achieve a military victory in Idlib instead of a political one, and what’s he been doing in Idlib and Hama for 5 months now, nothing at all political.
    And although the Russian resolution calls for sovereign independence and territorial integrity, which sounds excellent, it will only be guaranteed by the implementation of UN resolution 2254 and a new Syrian constitution, which I won’t elaborate on [I’ve posted info and links many times before], but suffice to say, if anyone can find a statement from Assad saying he’s willing to accept UN resolution 2254 in any way shape or form, please let me know, because every single statement I’ve seen from him concerning the Russian/Iranian/Turkish proposed UN resolution 2254, says no way in hell. Assad doesn’t like the Russian/Iranian/Turkish proposed UN resolution 2254 at all, that should be enough info for anyone to wonder if the Russian backed resolution is any better than the other one. I’m not referring this new Chinese/Russian proposal mention in this article, just the Russian/Turkish/Iranian resolution which has already passed.
    The new Astana pathway allows for SAA hostilities against designated terrorist organizations like HTS and Al Nusra, but still differentiates groups like the FSA,NFL,SLF as moderate opposition, which means they’ll eventually become part of the political process when 2254 is implemented, but Assad doesn’t call them moderate opposition, he still calls them terrorists, it’s only the Russians Turks and the Iranians calling them moderate opposition and making them politically viable in the future. The other US backed one doesn’t do that though, which doesn’t mean it’s good, it’s crap too, but my point is they’re both pieces of crap, so what’s the real difference, this one’s just a little browner than the other maybe, but they both stink.
    And what about this,

    “The draft resolution completely ignored the efforts made by the three Astana guarantors (Russia, Iran and Turkey) to promote a political settlement in Syria, as well as avoided mentioning the ceasefire introduced on August 31, which was nearly disrupted by the US Air Force’s strike on the Idlib zone”.

    Has anyone heard or read anything at all about Assad wanting a political settlement in Idlib, no you haven’t and you won’t, all you’ll find is “All uninvited foreign troops must leave Syria and all the terrorists will be eliminated”, you won’t find even a single “I want to do a political deal” anywhere.
    And how dare Trump disrupt the ceasefire by killing 40 of the people who were trying desperately hard to help Erdogan stem the flood of refugees, you know the one’s the SAA had already scared the hell out of, what an idiot, didn’t he know that could have potentially panicked the refugees into running even harder [which would have actually helped his enemy Assad], and didn’t he realize those very same rebels he bombed in Idlib have been telling all their followers, “it’s ok don’t worry, Assad can’t really kick us out of Idlib, our American friends will come to save us with their might jet planes and blow those nasty SAA away, we’ll be safe with the US as our friends”, LOL, they won’t be believing that line anymore will they, LOL.
    And that 15 mill reward Trump offered for 3 of their leaders didn’t help the situation either, that gives a big incentive to any of the terrorists that want to give up the fight and get rich in the process to do it, I wonder what a split of 5 mill would be for one of the smaller 15 to 30 man militias, hell it’d be worth it for a hundred man militia, especially if they captured more than one of the leaders and sent both or all their heads to the US in a bag, retire to Afghanistan really rich afterwards perhaps.
    I’m going to try to find out what the Chinese/Russian proposal entailed, I wish the article at least included a few lines on what that one was concerning, the fact it only mentioned it allowed for continued hostilities against the designated terrorist organizations like HTS and Al Nusra has no meaning for me, since they already have that ability according to the previously passed resolution 2254 and can already do it, so it’s all the other details that will be interesting to read, and also find out what made it fail.

    • FlorianGeyer

      The problem is that the US has a long history of placing US friendly warlords in control of nations that are strategic to the US looting of the globe.

      The US also has a long history of projecting its malign actions onto their opponents whilst pretending to be saintly.

      The US is just the latest Empire that seeks , in the words of Secretary of State, Pompeo, to ‘ Lie, Cheat and Steal ‘ , just as all petty criminals and warlords also seek to do.

      The US is also utilising the Orewellian bastardisation of the English language to further its venal abuse of all other nations.

      • Willing Conscience (The Truths

        All true Florian, but the simple facts are this, the 2 UN resolutions that were both just vetoed, allowed Assad and the SAA to legally according to UN charters, attack all the designated terrorist groups operating in Idlib, and the only stipulation was Assad had to abide to international humanitarian law while he did it, and also minimise civilian casualties in the process, that means the UN resolution the US is backing is actually giving Assad the green light to go for the terrorists and eradicate them altogether, but most importantly they can move into moderate rebel held territory as well to get to the designated terrorists. Yes that means Trumps telling Assad that he can go into Idlib and get rid of all the designated terrorists with Trump’s and the UN’s blessings.
        HTS, Al Nusra front and the other designated terrorist groups control 65% of Idlib and number about 40 to 45,000, and both these resolutions allowed Assad and the SAA to legally take back 65% of Idlib and get rid of nearly half of the nearly 90,000 fighters there, so both of them should have passed, they both say exactly the same things, ones not better than the other, they’re both exactly the same as far as Assad’s concerned, both brilliant and exactly what he wants right now, well not exactly, I should say one is slightly better than the other.
        With the US backed resolution there’s no Turkish/Russian/Iranian ceasefire to abide by, Assad could go straight in and attack the terrorists the day after the resolution passed, and he could take back all of Idlib according to the US backed resolution, but he won’t be able to do that under the Russian backed one, Erdogan’s moderate rebels are protected by the ceasefire and so long as they don’t fight the SAA, the SAA won’t be able to kick them out of any areas they control, which atm is supposed to only be 35% of Idlib, but if the SAA attacked HTS I’ll bet that would quickly change to the moderate rebels controlling most of Idlib before the SAA finally get rid of the terrorists, but that couldn’t happen under the US backed resolution, it doesn’t acknowledge the same special privileges Erdogan does.
        Read both resolutions carefully and tell me which is better for Assad, I say they’re both good and if anything, the US backed one is even better for Assad in the long run, and I don’t understand why either party vetoed the others resolution, since they both say Assad can legally attack the terrorists in Idlib now.
        Tell me Florian, what do you think the US backed resolution means for Assad, and why would the Russians and Chinese veto it, it says in plain English it allows for exactly the same objectives as the Russian backed one did, with only just a few extra humanitarian clauses from the UN included [that they’ve been abiding by anyway], so why would the Russians and Chinese veto the US backed resolution.
        And if your going to ask me why the US didn’t back the Russian/Chinese resolution either just as the Russians didn’t back the US one, I’m pretty sure it’s because the Russian backed one won’t force Erdogan out of Syria, and I sincerely believe not just the US, but the EU, NATO and more than anyone else the Arab League, all want Erdogan out of Syria now, and not just that either, they want him gone from office altogether.
        I’d have been happy if either resolution had passed, at least 65% of Idlib could have been recovered if either had, I want to know why Russia vetoed the resolution if it wasn’t any different to its own, the US backed one only protected the moderate opposition, the same moderate opposition the Russian proposed one does, so why did this SF article say the US is trying to protect groups the Russian don’t want protected, that’s totally untrue, and it’s all in black and white to prove it’s not true, both resolutions can be scrutinized. And all the same groups the Russians have designated as terrorists in the Astana agreement, are all exactly the same groups the UN has listed as terrorists too, so there’s not a thing different between the two of them, not a thing, the same groups can be attacked by both resolutions and both resolutions protect the same moderate opposition.
        Trumps helping Assad with this resolution, not hurting him with it, why would Trump be doing that, and remember Trumps been saying Assad can remain in power since June last year, he’s still saying it, and only a few months ago he said he had no problem with Assad retaking Idlib just so long as he was careful not to harm innocent civilians.
        Things have changed since June last year, Trump may not be everyone’s cup of tea but he’s not the enemy anymore, Erdogan is both Assad’s and Trumps mutual enemy now, and anyone helping Erdogan is by default hurting Assad, and anyone hurting Erdogan is actually also by default helping Assad, so the enemy of my enemy is now my friend is the only thing that helps explain why Trumps doing what he is by endorsing this new resolution.
        Cheers.

        • FlorianGeyer

          The Idlib conundrum is so complex that without all the date, secret and public , it’s like walking across a minefield, I think.
          Even the supposed wish that Erdogan is deposed has consequence’s.
          A NATO friendly Turkish president being ‘ elected’ being just one.

          As for the Terrorists V the Moderate Opposition, it has been shown numerous times that the Moderates and AlNusra/ISIS, ALL piss in the same pot of medieval terror.

          The US Coalition of Terror will continue to fan the flames of their destructive wars in the Middle East , in the forlorn hope they will prevail.

          Time is not on the side of the USA and friends.

          • Willing Conscience (The Truths

            Putin’s done a lot to help Turkey’s economy and security industry over the last few years, and the US has been doing the exact opposite [sanctions for nearly a decade, and everything I’ve read so far by all the political experts is this, they mostly believe the next Turkish president whoever it is, will have to be very moderate and conciliatory to all external [foreign] parties, to have any chance at all of being elected, and that’s because the Turks are totally sick of politically fighting with absolutely everyone.
            I agree with you about the Terrorists V moderates, but unfortunately we just like Assad don’t get a say in that, only that world renowned body for international justice does that, the dickeads at the UN get to tell us who and who isn’t a terrorist. And since none of the designated terrorist in Idlib [according to the Astana agreement] are protected by the UN, it wouldn’t have really mattered anyway, it’s only the so called moderate opposition that are protected by both resolutions as well as the Astana agreement.
            I watched the news this morning and was amazed to see that Trump has somehow turned Pompeo from a warhawk into a peace dove, he parroted the same lines his boss did this morning, we want Iran to be our friend, we don’t want to go to war with Iran, Iran can rejoin the world community and prosper, please do a deal with us and Israel so we can all live happily after. And he sacked Bolton a few weeks ago, the man who helped get the Iraq, Libyan, Syrian and Yemeni wars going, so I’m afraid I don’t agree that Trump wants to continue to fan the flames of any more destructive wars in the Middle East.
            I hope I’m right about Trump, Cheers.

          • FlorianGeyer

            Trump is also far too complex to comment on as he is inconsistent in all that he does and tweets. He may well be a dove, yet the America 1st mantra suggests that he is not.

            A negative in Trumps ‘negotiation’ tactics are the failure to know and understand real history, the customs of other nationalities, the inter religious fault lines and the ancient and often hostility of nations et al.

            President Putins negotiating skills are far superior in my opinion

            Whereas Trump threatens US opponents with ‘military diplomacy’ and his vassals with ‘trade tarrifs’.

          • Willing Conscience (The Truths

            Putin outshines Trump in all things but predictability, but in that department Trump beats everyone else, and is that such a bad thing in this way too predictable world.
            The war is over, check the news, resolution 2254 with 2 new amendments has been accepted by the Syrian government, this may even mean there’ll be a dialogue about the US autonomous zone, cross your fingers and toes.

  • christianblood

    The big question is:
    Why is the US always backing jihadists like they did in Afghanistan, Chechnya,
    Kosovo, Bosnia, Libya, Egypt and now Syria and Yemen?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9RCFZnWGE0

    • FlorianGeyer

      Well said.