I have read the transcript of the President's speech.
I read Mr Putin's rebuttal.

Interesting reads, both.

That the stonewalling has commenced is no surprise at all. The record the international community has for getting results -- see specifically the 1991 cease fire agreement and its requirements, never fully complied with, regarding Iraq -- is abysmal.

Can someone point me to a success in the last 30 years on that score?

I don't think the development of an Iranian bomb can be stopped. India's nuclear capability is juxtaposed with Pakistan's nuclear capability. The point Mr Putin's article makes isn't any new insight: it's a replay of the 1950's reality that eventually led to the NPT, a treaty of dubious quality. I suppose it seemed like a good idea at the time, and is better than nothing.

Treaties are only as effective as their enforcement or willing adherence, otherwise a lot of them are relegated to the "scraps of paper" category of diplomatic efforts.

We have discussed the practical issues of how to implement any UN/International/External disposition of Syria's various chemical stocks. That discussion will doubtless be revisited in the next few weeks and months as negotiations take the usual eternity to arrive at an acceptable (to all parties) plan of action.

Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war will continue, most likely without the use of chemical weapons. As I noted elsewhere, there are sufficient conventional munitions to keep the body bag business booming.

There has been great rejoicing that American arms will not blow a bunch of stuff up in that little corner of the world any time soon. How nice. Should anyone rejoice that the Syrian civil war has no end in sight? :mad:

Since the "limited strikes" probably would not have ended that war (had they been undertaken) I may have crafted a non sequitur there. :p

Beags:.
Might this be a deliberate 'good cop bad cop' ploy, particularly the Kerry / Obama contrast? McCain's been a loose cannon for years, and he's not part of the administration.

@BEagle

Does being on the staff of an RAF gliding school count?

Plus lots of CCF & ATC years visiting many bases, flying in many types and with a couple of overseas trips.

And on topic:

Turkish PM: Assad buying time for more massacres

Erdogan says it’s ‘doubtful’ Syria will follow through on Russian proposal and subject chemical weapons to international control

Assad, like Qaddafi, Mubarak, and Hussein before that, were all good guys.

Now they are all bad guys. Didn't we do well in picking good guys?

Why is the most powerful nation on earth supporting the rebels? Why is the second most powerful supporting the lawful Government?

Just because two-thirds of the population is of the other religion from the secular State, why did they feel the need to rise up against Assad?

In all the current brouhaha I don't recall any media explaining why the rebels are good and the Government are bad.

Should the US etc really be supporting people who want to overthrow their Government just because the US no longer like them?

Pontious

So true- and how quickly we forget, eh?

Remember the US arming and backing the Mujahadeen against the Russkis in Afghanistan? Only to finish up fighting the bastards ever since...

We should choose our friends more carefully.

Those trying to overthrow Assad and his mates are NOT our pals. :=

Why do you think that's the reason?

This whole "Arab Spring" deal seems to be a fig leaf for some long smoldering embers.

Best analysis I have read to date points to water and economic development policy in Syria, and preferential treatment of regime cronies, as being the root cause of the recent demonstrations that led to civil war as the ember was fanned into a flame.

Sectarian issue are certainly embedded, but I do not fall for the line that sectarian differences as the cause of rebellion.

Lonewolf, I went to a university seminar in the early-90s. A very young professor, he looked younger than a policeman, talked of NATO expansion and how far it would go. Then of future conflicts being not over oil but over water.

Mmmm.

On sectarian it is also an alternative handle for tribal.

Apparently an emboldened Assad has started laying down his own conditions for a chemical weapons deal. According to RIA and Interfax, citing an interview with Assad to air in its entirety later today on Rossia 24 TV, they are:
A chemical arms deal depends on US stopping aid to terrorists : Assad will complete the deal only if the US stops its “policy of threats”: Calls for Israel to dispose of its WMD: Rebels may use chemical weapons against Israel as provocation: Assad says implementation of the deal may take a month or more.

And now, his bluff called, we are back to Barack Obama.

Bob C

And I can see Israel handing over their nukes with Iran working on theirs. Assad is simply stalling by spouting off a load of requirements that will never happen.

Assad also says it will take a month to start the process. He will pile on the conditions until the whole project becomes untenable. Which outcome is worse for him, a few TLAMs or losing the only weapon that works against the rebels?

Also this whole CW disarmament process will only work if the FSA allow. This is a warzone. At the moment they are being offered a deal whereby they get zero new kit or supplies whilst Assad gets lots of shiny new toys. That is hardly going to go down well.

Also Russia seems to be including S-300s in their latest shipments. Presumably as a B2 deterrent. The problem is that these missiles have a range that allows them to dominate a lot of Israeli airspace. Bibi will not allow this. He will blow them up without asking the USA or the UN. And if they have Russian operators so much the better, the Israelis have killed Russian "advisers" before.

And O'Bummer will let it happen rather than do anything on the excuse that a peaceful solution is the best solution despite the fact that everyone can see there is no solution at all...

Bloody hell... Ole Peanuts is starting to look like a strong and effective president... :uhoh:

We were briefing that in NATO HQ's during the early and mid 90's as NATO shifted its focus from the Fulda Gap and Northern European Plain to the Southern Region. Three core strategic issues of concern to NATO's European AO:

1. Population explosion on areas bordering NATO's southern region
2. Food and water scarcity
3. Political instability as cold war world order realigned

There were other issues. Maybe that prof had a chance to talk to the strategy heads in NATO, and maybe a lot of people looking at the same thing came up with the same assessment.

That's what you get for not setting a time frame in the first place, it allows Assad to offer one up and then you are screwed all over again.
You're caught on your back foot and you either say no to it, in which case you are forced down the route of having to act again or you agree in which case you are seen to be allowing Assad to dictate the terms.

Aren't these opening rounds of a negotiation, using the media as a sounding board?

May well be, but always better to get in the first unrealistic timescale, so he can counter with, we cannot do it that quick how about XYZ?

That's what we need... The bleeding media part of the process... Now we have politicians and the media negotiating for us... How the hell could that go wrong???? :ugh:

No worse than the double act comedians Obama and Kerry :O

Assad and Putin have pulled one over Obama again.

Syria is headed for catastrophe, beyond that which we have already seen, and the West is ill-prepared to respond in both its understanding and strategy.

3rd Grader in Special Ed could manage that...................

True

I heard Assads list today on the news, he is running rings round Obama.