WarSclerotic

▶ Obama: Progress On Syria – YouTube.

President Obama highlights the progress that has been achieved toward the goal of stopping the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from using – or possessing – chemical weapons.

In Kerry-Lavrov Syrian chemical accord scant punishment. Assad is free to pursue war.

John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov close a deal on Syrian chemicals

The framework accord for destroying Syria’s chemical stockpiles, which US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announced at a news conference in Geneva Saturday, Sept 14, covers important ground – but leaves even more important issues unaddressed. Its implementation depends on the full cooperation of Bashar Assad and his army for securing the process. He is therefore assured of staying in power and free to wage war unhindered.
This assurance was incorporated in Kerry’s words that the agreement can end the chemical threat to the Syrian people, its neighbors and the region only “if fully implemented.”

The US Secretary listed the six points of that accord:

1. It included a shared assessment of the amounts and types of Syrian regime’s chemical weaopons stockpiles.

debkafile: Earlier reports spoke of a 40-percent disparity between the US and Russian assessments.
2. The Syrian regime has one week until Sept. 21 to submit a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions and local and foreign storage, production and research and development facilities.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-OPCW, which usually allows 30 days, has agreed to extraordinary procedures to assure the inspection and destruction of all CW stocks.
3. Inspectors must be on the ground by November and the destruction of CW completed by mid-2014.

— On this point, the Russian foreign minister was less specific: Implementation of the agreed framework for the removal and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons must be supported by an “OPCW investigation and a Security Council resolution,” he said, indicating a process of several months.
debkafile: This timeline could stretch out even longer because of the technical difficulties of destroying not just stocks but also manufacturing plant and the facilities for mixing and loading the chemical and biological agents on weapons of delivery.
4. Syria must provide immediate and unfettered access to its CW sites.

5. All CW including stocks inside and outside Syria must be surrendered and destroyed on-site, or if necessary outside the country.
6. Non-compliance would entail the approval of Article 7 of the UN charter which provides for legally binding military or non-military sanctions.

Lavrov’s version

— On this point, too, Lavrov elaborated on Moscow’s position: Violations must be first investigated and confirmed by the OPCW before coming before the UN Security Council for a new resolution mandating “concrete measures.” These may not entail military action, said the Russian foreign minister, “which would be catastrophic.”
Although this word was not mentioned, the accord leaves Moscow free to use its veto once again to bar punitive action against Syria.
In answer to a reporter’s question, Kerry later insisted that the Syrian regime would be held fully accountable for non-compliance with its commitments and the US president retained the power and right to pursue military measures ““commensurate with the [Syrian ruler’s] level of accountability” without UN approval if diplomacy failed to achieve its end.

At the same time, the US secretary allowed that the US and Russians were agreed that Syria would be disarmed of its chemical weapons by diplomatic, not military, means.
Lavrov departed from Kerry’s presentation of their accord on more points:

a) All chemical weapons must be destroyed – not just those in the hands of the Assad regime, but also the Syrian rebels. This laid the groundwork for the Syrian ruler to delay compliance by pointing a finger at Israel.
b)  Military action against Syria was ruled out a priori.
c)  The Russian-US accord on Syria’s chemical weapons must lead to an international conference to discuss the declaration of the Middle East as a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which is Moscow’s ultimate aim.
This supported Assad’s stipulation which has made his implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention contingent on Israel ratifying  the CWC which it signed in 1993, as a step on the road to demanding its  nuclear disarmament.

Secretary Kerry made no comments on this point.
d)  The US will contribute the funding and other resources for destroying Syria’s chemical weapons, and ask other world powers to participate.

More omissions

While the US secretary repeatedly praised President Vladimir Putin for initiating Syria’s handover of chemical weapons, Lavrov omitted to reciprocate with commendations of President Barack Obama.
debkafile’s intelligence and military sources see five conspicuous omissions in the way of the “full implementation” of the US-Russian Geneva Agreement:

— The timeline is left open. In none of his speeches and interviews did President Obama set deadlines for the eradication of Syria’s poison chemicals, and the dates set by Kerry Saturday in Geneva are unrealistic.

—  Russia and the Syrian ruler were left with the impression that Obama has opted against bringing Assad to account for using chemical weapons in order to keep his war afloat from a position of strength. Indeed the US president appears not to be averse to letting him stay in power.
Neither Kerry nor Lavrov answered the reporter who asked simply: “Why didn’t you first of all try and stop the war?”
—  Notwithstanding the impression Kerry tried to convey at the news conference, Obama has clearly discarded the military option as a means of keeping Assad under pressure to comply with his commitment to dismantle his chemical weapons. Even if Washington decided to invoke Article 7 to punish Syria for non-compliance with the accord, the Russian veto still hangs over this step.
—  Rescued from an  imminent American military threat, the Syria ruler is free to surrender only a small part of his chemical resources and, with the support of his Russian and Iranian allies, hold back sufficient poison gas to save himself if he risks losing the war.

He can continue to ignore the evidence found by US intelligence agencies that the Syrian army was guilty of using chemical weapons against civilians in Homs, Aleppo and Idlib – even before the poison gas massacre of Aug. 21 east of Damascus.

When on April 24, Brig. Gen. Itay Brun, head of Israeli Military Intelligence research stated publicly: “We have recently detected the Syrian army’s repeated use of lethal chemical weapons, apparently sarin,” the White House in Washington was up in arms and made Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon promise that such slips of the tongue would not recur.
Sunday, Sept. 15, Secretary Kerry is expected in Israel for a one-day trip.

He faces two uphill tasks: He must convince Israel that there is no danger of Syrian chemical weapons being passed to the Lebanese Hizballah and so diverted from international control; and that the US-Russian deal on Syria is not a template for letting Tehran off the hook on its nuclear program. That is the foremost of Israel’s concerns.

Obama’s overall Syria strategy in disarray | The Times of Israel.

President’s hodgepodge of contradicting goals and strategies won’t be resolved by the new effort to get Assad to relinquish his chemical weapons

In this April 1, 2012, file photo, then-U.S.Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks with an Arab official as she arrives to join foreign ministers from dozens of countries gathered to set conditions for a new Syria. Clinton believed she secured Russia’s commitment on a path forward in June 2012 with the “Geneva process.” Within hours of signing on to the strategy, the U.S. and Russia bickered over whether the agreement included Assad relinquishing power. (photo credit: AP Photo)

WASHINGTON (AP) — After 2½ years of civil war in Syria, President Barack Obama’s larger policy is in disarray even as his administration, with help from Russia, averted a military showdown for the time being.

In an address to the American people earlier this week, Obama said he was working with U.S. allies to “provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition and to shape a political settlement” for ending a conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people and made refugees of millions more.

That simple message belies a hodgepodge of often contradicting goals and strategies unlikely to be resolved by the new international effort to get Bashar Assad’s government to relinquish its chemical weapons. These include Obama’s vacillations on providing military assistance to rebels as part of a peace strategy and his repeated demand that Assad relinquish power but still retain a veto over any replacement government.

The difficulty in understanding what America is trying to do in Syria has persisted in the current debate over how to respond to the Assad government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Threatening military reprisals, Obama said that the “United States military doesn’t do pinpricks” only a day after Secretary of State John Kerry promised an “unbelievably small” operation.

In the last few days Obama has turned again to help from Russia, a Syrian ally the U.S. repeatedly has accused of being complicit in the Assad government’s wartime atrocities.

A look at how U.S. policy in Syria has evolved:

THE END OF ENGAGEMENT

Arab Spring-inspired demonstrations erupt across Syria in March 2011. The unrest comes as the Obama administration is hoping to coax Assad into ending Syria’s alliance with Iran and support for militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. As the protests spread and reprisals worsen, U.S. engagement narrows to trying to get the Syrian government to respect political opponents and move toward democracy.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says Assad is seen by some U.S. lawmakers as a “reformer.” Days earlier, Kerry, then a U.S. senator, argues that Syria is poised for change “as it embraces a legitimate relationship with the United States and the West.” The administration resists calls over the next months to recall the U.S. ambassador, the first senior American posted to Damascus in five years. Obama reacts to increased brutality by Assad’s forces in April by ordering a new set of sanctions against Syria. Violence escalates, with Assad sending tanks into cities throughout the summer. Citizens and defecting soldiers take up arms against government. By August, Obama publicly calls on Assad to resign.

REBUFFED AT THE U.N.

The U.S. and allies take their case to the United Nations in October 2011, asking the Security Council to condemn human rights violations in Syria and demand an end to violence. Russia and China veto the resolution. That month, the U.S. pulls Ambassador Robert Ford out of Damascus because of security concerns. Ford returns in December, then leaves for good two months later. The U.S. tries anew at the U.N. in February 2012, backing an Arab-proposed plan to hold Syrian human rights violators accountable. Russia and China again exercise their veto.

The U.S. turns to Arab and European allies and convenes the first “Friends of Syria” conference in Tunisia to seek ways to support Syria’s opposition. U.S. intelligence officials start warning about al-Qaida and other extremist militants joining the fray. Still hopeful of finding a peaceful resolution, the U.S. urges that no one send weapons to either side. The violence worsens. In March 2012, Obama pledges “nonlethal” aid to the rebels. The U.N. says about 8,000 are dead after a year of violence.

FALSE DIPLOMATIC HOPE

Secretary of State Clinton believes she secures Russia’s commitment on a path forward in June 2012 with the “Geneva process.” It calls for a Syrian transitional government through negotiation between Assad’s government and the opposition.

Within hours of signing on to the strategy, the U.S. and Russia bicker over whether the agreement includes Assad relinquishing power. Russia and China veto a third U.N. resolution in July after the U.S. and its allies try to make the agreement enforceable. The process fizzles out without delivering peace talks.

Arab governments disregard the U.S. call for a weapons embargo and supply the rebels with increasingly advanced weaponry. Obama rebuffs suggestions by Clinton, CIA Director David Petraeus and other senior U.S. officials to provide weapons to moderate opposition forces. By July, the U.N. says 5,000 Syrians are dying each month in the fighting.

RED LINE

Responding to worrying intelligence indications, Obama declares in August 2012 that the use or deployment of the Syrian government’s chemical weapons stockpiles is a “red line,” which if crossed would change America’s calculus in the conflict.

Rebel military advances stall. At the behest of Washington and others, the Islamist-dominated political opposition reforms itself in November 2012 to include more moderates and minorities. The U.N. puts the death toll since the beginning of the conflict at 60,000. In December, the U.S. recognizes the Syrian Opposition Coalition as the Syrian people’s legitimate representative. U.S. humanitarian aid increases significantly.

NEW ASSERTIVENESS

Obama starts his second term as president and Kerry replaces Clinton as secretary of state. The U.S. becomes more assertive in its rhetoric about shifting the Syrian civil war’s momentum and trying to convince Assad that he cannot prevail militarily and should relinquish power.

In February 2013, the U.S. decides to send medical kits, food and other forms of nonlethal aid directly to the rebels but refuses to send weapons. In March, Syrian rebels and Assad’s government accuse each other of using chemical weapons. In May, Kerry travels to Moscow and revives the Geneva peace process. U.S. and Russian officials again differ on whether Assad must relinquish power. Like its predecessor, the “Geneva II” effort delivers no progress.

CHEMICAL WARFARE

U.S. intelligence concludes in June that Assad’s forces used small amounts of the nerve agent sarin in several attacks. Obama responds by authorizing the delivery of lethal aid to Syria’s rebels, but no weapons or ammunition are sent.

Military officials express increasingly dire assessments of the role al-Qaida and other terrorist groups are playing in Syria and the options available for U.S. military intervention. By July, the U.N. secretary-general says more than 100,000 people have died. The war takes an even more ominous turn on Aug. 21 with a massive chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.

RED LINE CROSSED

Obama and top aides threaten limited military action. Four U.S. destroyers equipped with cruise missiles are put on standby in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.

The Parliament in Britain, America’s closest military partner, rejects using force in an Aug. 29 vote and U.S. officials raise the possibility of a unilateral American attack. Two days later, Obama asks Congress for official authorization to strike. Encountering resistance, the president and his advisers say he can act even if Congress rejects his request.

PRESIDENT REBUFFED

Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate increasingly voice opposition to Obama’s strategy. Obama meets Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a global economic summit on Sept. 6 and they discuss diplomatic alternatives to get Assad to surrender his chemical weapons stockpiles.

Obama asks Senate leaders on Sept. 9 to delay voting on authorizing military action. Assad’s government says it will sign the U.N. treaty banning chemical weapons and hand over its stockpiles. Diplomatic wrangling continues between the U.S. and Russia over how to verify that Syria lives up to the deal and what consequences it should face if it doesn’t. U.S. officials say the Syrian rebels have received a first package of U.S. lethal aid.

What’s resolved, and what isn’t, in the US-Russia deal on Syria | The Times of Israel.

A critical first hurdle: There is no indication that the Assad government will sign off on the agreement

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, left, shakes hands with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, right, after making statements at a news conference in Geneva, Switzerland, Saturday Sept. 14, 2013. (photo credit: AP Photo/Keystone,Martial Trezzini)

POINTS OF AGREEMENT:

—The U.S. and Russia agree to work together on a U.N. Security Council resolution that would ensure verification of the agreement to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stocks and remove its capability to produce such weapons.

The resolution would come under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter, which allows for military action. But U.S. officials acknowledge Russia would veto such a step and they do not contemplate seeking authorization for the use of force.

U.S. officials stress that President Barack Obama retains his right to conduct military strikes to defend American national security interests in the absence of U.N. authorization.

—The U.S. and Russia give Syria one week, until Sept. 21, to submit “a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.”

—The U.S. and Russia agree that international inspectors should be on the ground in Syria by November and complete their initial work by the end of the month. They must be given “immediate and unfettered” access to inspect all sites. The destruction of chemical agent mixing and filling equipment must be completed by the end of November.

—The U.S. and Russia agree that all of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks, material and equipment must be destroyed by mid-2014.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES:

—Despite Russia’s close relationship and influence with Syria, there is not yet any indication that the Assad government will sign off on the details of the agreement. It contains requirements that are above and beyond the normal criteria for countries bound by the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria agreed to join earlier this week under pressure from Moscow.

—Although Russia has accepted the U.S. intelligence estimate that Syria has about 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons and precursors, the two sides have not agreed on the number of sites where they are manufactured and stored.

U.S. officials say they believe Syria maintains roughly 45 sites associated with chemical weapons, about half of which have “exploitable quantities” of chemicals. The Russian estimate is considerably lower, but U.S. officials would not say by how much. This could be an issue in determining where the inspectors are to work.

—Details about the composition of the inspection teams and their security must still be determined. The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which technically is in charge of the inspections, has never mounted an operation as complex as this and will require assistance from outside parties to conduct the work. Nationalities of inspectors as well as the guards who will provide security for them must still be determined.

—No specific penalties for Syrian noncompliance have been agreed on. Those will be left up to the Security Council. Russia has made clear that any allegation of noncompliance will have to be thoroughly investigated before the council can take action, meaning Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh.

Obama: Military action still on table if Syria diplomacy fails | JPost | Israel News.

Report: Putin to travel to Iran for nuclear strategy talks | The Daily Caller.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has accepted Iran’s invitation to visit Tehran to work out a strategy for the Islamic regime’s nuclear program, Fars News Agency reported Saturday. The West believes the Iranian program is a front for developing nuclear weapons.

Putin, seen by Iran’s clerical establishment as a strong opponent to America and the West — especially after his successful political play on averting a U.S. missile strike on Syria — was approached by Iran to protect the Islamic regime in the face of continued pressure by the West over its illicit nuclear program. Russia and the U.S. reached agreement Saturday to take control of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal by mid-2014.

Fars, the media outlet run by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said Putin will soon travel to Tehran, although details of the trip have yet to be announced. Fars said Iranian President Hassan Rowhani issued the invitation to Putin on Friday while both leaders were attending the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said the Russian president accepted.

“Russia could possibly take new steps in solving the Iranian nuclear dossier,” Rowhani said. “The Russian initiative in relation to the Syrian chemical weapons and the steps taken by the Syrian officials provide this hope that a new war can be averted in the region.”

“Russia looks at Iran like a good neighbor,” Putin was quoted as saying. “I am very happy meeting the new Iranian president and personally congratulate him for his [recent presidential] victory. … We are aware of the opinions on the world’s stage in relation with Iran’s nuclear program; however, we have to also consider that Iran is our neighbor, a good neighbor.”

There were conflicting reports last week that Russia might increase its arms sales to Iran should Syria be attacked, including the delivery of its sophisticated surface-to-air missile system, the S300.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant had reported that Putin had decided to deliver five battalions of the S300s should Iran withdraw its claim of $4 billion in damages due to a breach of an original contract by Russia signed in 2007 worth $800 million.

In September 2010, then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, under pressure by America and the West, signed a decree that banned the delivery of the S300 systems to the Islamic Republic. Iranian leaders, infuriated by this action, then filed a complaint against Russia’s arms export company, Rosoboronexport, with the International Court in Geneva.

Both Russia and Iran have strongly supported Syria’s Bashar Assad, with Iranian leaders warning that any intervention in Syria would cross a red line.

Meanwhile on Saturday, the leader of Iran’s proxy militia group in Iraq, Al-Mukhtar, warned that if America at any time attacks Syria, its forces would attack the oilfields of Saudi Arabia, thereby cutting off the “economic jugular” of the West.

“America’s attack on Syria will be the end of Saudi Arabia because the Saudi leaders promote the Syrian attack,” Wathiq al-Battat said, according to Keyhan newspaper, which is directly supervised by Iran’s supreme leader.

Battat threatened that his group would target the Saudi ports of Abqaiq, Juaymah and Ras Tanura, one of the largest in the world, and that his militants would also attack Saudi gas and oil pipelines, power lines and communication towers.

Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Quds Forces, addressing a forum on Saturday, boasted about the power of the “Resistance Front” [Iran, Syria and Hezbollah] and stated, “In the eyes of the West, Zionists and the reactionary regimes, Syria’s real problem is not the ruling of the minority Alawites [who rule Syria] or the lack of democracy, but the reality is that the West and the reactionary regimes know that the Resistance’s powerful position in the region is indebted to the Syrian government.”

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and author of the award-winning book ”A Time to Betray“ (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

John Kerry: U.S., Russia Reach Deal On Syrian Chemical Weapons.

By MATTHEW LEE and JOHN HEILPRIN 09/14/13 11:15 AM ET EDT

GENEVA — After days of intense negotiations, the United States and Russia reached agreement Saturday on a framework to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons by mid-2014 and impose U.N. penalties if the Assad government fails to comply.

The deal, announced by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva, includes what Kerry called “a shared assessment” of the weapons stockpile, and a timetable and measures for Syrian President Bashar Assad to follow so that the full inventory can be identified and seized.

The U.S. and Russia agreed to immediately press for a U.N. Security Council resolution that enshrines the chemical weapons agreement under Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can authorize both the use of force and nonmilitary measures.

But Russia, which already has rejected three resolutions on Syria, would be sure to veto military action, and U.S. officials said they did not contemplate seeking such an authorization.

“The world will now expect the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments,” Kerry told a packed news conference at the hotel where negotiations were conducted since Thursday night. “There can be no games, no room for avoidance or anything less than full compliance by the Assad regime.”

It was not immediately clear whether Syria had signed onto the agreement, which requires Damascus to submit a full inventory of its stocks within the next week. Russia does have a close relationship with Syria and holds influence over its Mideast ally.

Kerry and Lavrov emphasized that the deal sends a strong message not just to Syria but to the world, too, that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated.

Lavrov added, cautiously, “We understand that the decisions we have reached today are only the beginning of the road.”

The deal is considered critical to breaking the international stalemate blocking a resumption of peace talks to end the Syrian civil war, now in its third year.

Under the framework agreement, international inspectors are to be on the ground in Syria by November. During that month, they are to complete their initial assessment and all mixing and filling equipment for chemical weapons is to be destroyed.

The deal calls for all components of the chemical weapons program to be removed from the country or destroyed by mid-2014.

“Ensuring that a dictator’s wanton use of chemical weapons never again comes to pass, we believe is worth pursuing and achieving,” Kerry said.

Noncompliance by the Assad government or any other party would be referred to the 15-nation Security Council by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. That group oversees the Chemical Weapons Convention, which Syria this week agreed to join.

The U.S. and Russia are two of the five permanent Security Council members with a veto. The others are Britain, China, and France.

“There is an agreement between Russia and the United States that non-compliance is going to be held accountable within the Security Council under Chapter 7,” Kerry said. “What remedy is chosen is subject to the debate within the council, which is always true. But there’s a commitment to impose measures.”

Lavrov indicated there would be limits to using such a resolution.

“Any violations of procedures … would be looked at by the Security Council and if they are approved, the Security Council would take the required measures, concrete measures,” Lavrov said. “Nothing is said about the use of force or about any automatic sanctions.”

Kerry spoke of a commitment, in the event of Syrian noncompliance, to “impose measures commensurate with whatever is needed in terms of the accountability.”

The agreement offers no specific penalties. Given that a thorough investigation of any allegation of noncompliance is required before any possible action, Moscow could drag out the process or veto measures it deems too harsh.

Kerry made clear that the U.S. believes the threat of force is necessary to back the diplomacy. U.S. officials have stressed that President Barack Obama retains the right to launch military strikes without U.N. approval to protect American national security interests.

“I have no doubt that the combination of the threat of force and the willingness to pursue diplomacy helped to bring us to this moment,” Kerry said.

Under the deal, the U.S. and Russia are giving Syria just one week, until Sept. 21, to submit “a comprehensive listing, including names, types and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.”

International inspectors, the U.S. and Russia agreed, should be on the ground in Syria by November and complete their initial work by the end of the month. They must be given “immediate and unfettered” access to inspect all sites.

Kerry said the two sides had come to agreement on the exact size of Syria’s weapons stockpile, a sticking point.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss details of the negotiations, said the U.S. and Russia agreed that Syria had roughly 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons agents and precursors, including blister agents, such as sulfur and mustard gas and nerve agents like sarin.

These officials said the two sides did not agree on the number of chemical weapons sites in Syria.

U.S. intelligence believes Syria has about 45 sites associated with chemicals weapons, half of which have “exploitable quantities” of material that could be used in munitions. The Russian estimate is considerably lower; the officials would not say by how much.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe all the stocks remain in government control, the officials said.

U.N. inspectors are preparing to submit their own report this weekend. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Friday that he expected “an overwhelming report” that chemical weapons were indeed used on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21.

A U.N. statement said Ban hoped the agreement will prevent further use of such weapons and “help pave the path for a political solution to stop the appalling suffering inflicted on the Syrian people.”

Britain’s foreign secretary, William Hague, said Saturday’s development was “a significant step forward.” Germany said that “if deeds now follow the words, the chances of a political solution will rise significantly,” Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said.

Obama called for a limited military strike against Assad’s forces in response, then deferred seeking congressional approval to consider the Russian proposal.

The commander of the Free Syrian Army rebel group, Gen. Salim Idris, told a news conference in Turkey that the Russian initiative was a “waste of time” and that rebels will continue “fighting the regime and work for bringing it down.”

He said that if international inspectors come to Syria in order to inspect chemical weapons, “we will facilitate their passages but there will be no cease-fire.” The FSA will not block the work of U.N. inspectors, he said, and the “inspectors will not be subjected to rebel fire when they are in regime-controlled areas.”

Idris said Kerry told him by telephone that “the alternative of military strikes is still on the table.”

Elite Syrian Unit Scatters Chemical Arms Stockpile – WSJ.com.

Assad Regime Has Moved Weapons to as Many as 50 Sites

Anwar Amro/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

A fighter allied to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ran across a street in Damascus following fighting with rebel forces on Thursday.

A secretive Syrian military unit at the center of the Assad regime’s chemical weapons program has been moving stocks of poison gases and munitions to as many as 50 sites to make them harder for the U.S. to track, according to American and Middle Eastern officials.

The movements of chemical weapons by Syria’s elite Unit 450 could complicate any U.S. bombing campaign in Syria over its alleged chemical attacks, officials said. It also raises questions about implementation of a Russian proposal that calls for the regime to surrender control of its stockpile, they said.

U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies still believe they know where most of the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons are located, but with less confidence than six months ago, U.S. officials said.

Secretary of State John Kerry met Thursday in Geneva with his Russian counterpart to discuss a road map for ending the weapons program. The challenges are immense, Mr. Kerry said.

WSJ Exclusive: A secret Syrian military unit is spreading stockpiles of poisonous gas and munitions to make tracking by the U.S. harder. WSJ Pentagon correspondent Julian Barnes explains. Photo: AP.

The U.S. alleges a chemical-weapons attack by the Syrian government on Aug. 21 killed more than 1,400 people, including at least 400 children. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Thursday again denied any involvement in a chemical attack, but he said his government was prepared to sign an agreement banning the use of chemical weapons. Syrian officials couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the weapons.

Unit 450—a branch of the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center that manages the regime’s overall chemicals weapons program—has been moving the stocks around for months, officials and lawmakers briefed on the intelligence said.

Movements occurred as recently as last week, the officials said, after Mr. Obama said he was preparing to launch strikes.

A man affected by what activists say was nerve gas received assistance in the Damascus suburbs last month.

The unit is in charge of mixing and deploying chemical munitions, and it provides security at chemical sites, according to U.S. and European intelligence agencies. It is composed of officers from Mr. Assad’s Alawite sect. One diplomat briefed on the unit said it was Alawite from “janitor to commander.”

U.S. military officials have looked into the possibility of gaining influence over members of Unit 450 through inducements or threats. “In a perfect world, you would actually like to co-opt that unit. Who cares who pays them as long as they sit on the chemical weapons,” said a senior U.S. military official.

Although the option remains on the table, government experts say the unit is so close knit that they doubt any member could break ranks without being exposed and killed.

The U.S. estimates the regime has 1,000 metric tons of chemical and biological agents. “That is what we know about. There might be more,” said one senior U.S. official.

The regime traditionally kept most of its chemical and biological weapons at a few large sites in western Syria, U.S. officials said. But beginning about a year ago, the Syrians started dispersing the arsenal to nearly two dozen major sites.

Unit 450 also started using dozens of smaller sites. The U.S. now believes Mr. Assad’s chemical arsenal has been scattered to as many as 50 locations in the west, north and south, as well as new sites in the east, officials said.

The U.S. is using satellites to track vehicles employed by Unit 450 to disperse the chemical-weapons stocks. But the imagery doesn’t always show what is being put on the trucks. “We know a lot less than we did six months ago about where the chemical weapons are,” one official said.

The movements, activities and base locations of Unit 450 are so sensitive that the U.S. won’t share information with even trusted allies in the opposition for fear the unit would be overrun by rebels, said current and former U.S. officials.

The U.S. wants any military strikes in Syria to send a message to the heads of Unit 450 that there is a steep price for following orders to use chemical weapons, U.S. officials said.

At the same time, the U.S. doesn’t want any strike to destabilize the unit so much that it loses control of its chemical weapons, giving rebels a chance to seize the arsenal.

“Attacking Unit 450, assuming we have any idea where they actually are, would be a pretty tricky affair because…if you attack them you may reduce the security of their weapons, which is something we certainly don’t want,” said Jeffrey White, a veteran of the Defense Intelligence Agency and a defense fellow at The Washington Institute.

Within Syria, little is known about Unit 450 or the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center. One of the buildings is in a sprawling complex on the outskirts of Damascus.

Even high-ranking defectors from the Syrian military that form the core of the rebel insurgency—including those who served in units trained to handle chemical attacks—said they hadn’t heard of Unit 450.

The Pentagon has prepared multiple target lists for possible strikes, some of which include commanders of Unit 450.

But a senior U.S. official said no decision has been made to target them, reflecting the challenge of sending a message to Unit 450 without destabilizing it.

In some respects, officials said, the hands-on role that Unit 450 plays in safeguarding the regime’s chemical weapons secrets makes it too valuable for the U.S. to eliminate, even though the U.S. believes the unit is directly responsible for the alleged chemical weapons abuses.

The Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center answers only to Mr. Assad and the most senior members of his clan, according to U.S. and European officials. Attack orders are forwarded to a commanding officer within Unit 450.

If the Russians clinch a deal for Mr. Assad to give up his chemical weapons, any prospective United Nations-led force to protect inspectors and secure storage sites would likely need to work closely with Unit 450 and the research center, current and former administration officials said.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that President Barack Obama directed him to plan for “a militarily significant strike” that would deter the Assad regime’s further use of chemical weapons and degrade the regime’s military capability to employ chemical weapons in the future.

But officials said the U.S. doesn’t plan to bomb chemical weapons sites directly because of concerns any attack would disperse poison agents and put civilians at risk.

In addition to satellites, the U.S. also relies on Israeli spies for on-the-ground intelligence about the unit, according to U.S. and Israeli officials.

Though small in size, Unit 450 controls a vast infrastructure that makes it easier for the U.S. and Israel to track its movements. Chemical weapons storage depots are guarded by the unit within larger compounds to provide multiple layers of security, U.S. officials said.

Whenever chemical munitions are deployed in the field, Unit 450 has to pre-deploy heavy equipment to chemical mixing areas, which the U.S. and Israel can track.

Write to Adam Entous at adam.entous@wsj.com, Julian E. Barnes at julian.barnes@wsj.com and Nour Malas at nour.malas@dowjones.com

A version of this article appeared September 13, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Elite Syrian Unit Scatters Chemical Arms Stockpile.

Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed, annotated and fact-checked.

Below, I’ve annotated the op-ed, line-by-line, elaborating and translating at some points, fact-checking a bit in others. Putin’s writing is set off in italics and bold; my notes are in plain text.

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

So far so good, and all true, establishing a baseline of cooperation on shared interests while acknowledging U.S.-Russia tensions.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

Putin here is implicitly defending Russia’s right to use its veto to block the United Nations from any action on Syria, including simple press releases condemning the use of chemical weapons. The U.N. Security Council veto system, which means that Russia can block any action just because it says so, was not a product of “profound wisdom” as  much as profound pragmatism. Countries don’t like to give up their power to other countries. After World War II, getting the world’s five remaining great powers (the United States, United Kingdom, France, China and the Soviet Union) to consent to this newfangled United Nations system required granting them veto power so they’d be comfortable with it. This is what it took, but it wasn’t profoundly wise, and both Russia and the United States abuse their veto power plenty.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

It’s true that the League of Nations collapsed because no one took it seriously, including the United States. But the United Nations survived the Cold War, which included lots of non-U.N.-approved military actions from — you guessed it — the United States and the Soviet Union. If the United Nations can survive the unilateral Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the U.S. intervention in Vietnam, among many other wars large and small, it will survive cruise missile strikes on Syria.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Putin makes some strong arguments here that a U.S. strike on Syria could hurt U.S. interests. Many of his points are defensible and have been made by American analysts, such as the risk to U.S.-Iran negotiations and the fear that strikes would exacerbate extremism. Some of them are disputable — Obama’s proposed strikes would be pretty modest compared to the ongoing violence, a drop in the bucket, and thus unlikely to so dramatically reshape an already war-torn region.

But what rankles many analysts about this paragraph is that it ignores Putin’s own role in enabling the already quite awful violence, as well as the extremism it’s inspired. Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime has killed so freely and so wantonly in part because it knows Putin will protect it from international action. Putin has also been supplying Assad with heavy weapons. It’s a bit rich for him to decry violence or outside involvement at this point.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

As above, these are strong arguments against outside involvement in Syria’s civil war, made more than a little hypocritically, given that Putin himself has been actively involved in shaping the conflict and steering it away from peace. Still, the concern about Syria breeding extremist violence is likely an earnest one for Putin, who surely knows that some Chechens have been fighting in Syria and could very plausibly cause trouble back home in Russia.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future.

Russia has certainly espoused dialogue and a compromise plan, but it has acted instead to stop that from happening, refusing to wield its considerable power to bring this about. There is no one in the world better positioned than Vladimir Putin to force Assad to the negotiating table. Instead, Putin has shown every indication that he wishes for Assad to defeat the rebels totally and outright, as his father Hafez al-Assad did in 1982 when he crushed an uprising in Hama.

We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not.

Putin is couching his support for Assad as simple fealty to international law. It’s true that, according to the United Nations charter, almost any U.S. strikes on Syria would be illegal under international law. Still, it’s hard to believe that Putin is motivated by international law, given the lengths he’s gone to prevent the United Nations from protecting other forms of international law when it comes to Syria. Russia has blocked the United Nations from simply condemning Assad’s attacks on civilians or the use of chemical weapons in Syria, much less taking action to punish or stop those crimes.

Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

This is true, and a real dilemma for Obama, given that he is attempting to portray strikes against Syria as meant to uphold international law against the use of chemical weapons.

Still, you’ll be shocked to learn that Putin does not hold himself to the same standard he’s setting here for Obama. Putin’s Russia launched a war against Georgia just five short years ago. He would argue that the war was justified, but it certainly wasn’t approved by the United Nations Security Council.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

This is the section of the op-ed that’s drawing by far the most criticism. There is very little reason to believe that rebels carried out the attack but strong circumstantial evidence that chemical weapons were used by the Assad regime. An investigation by Human Rights Watch pointed to the Assad regime as responsible. The United Nations investigation, while not permitted to formally assign blame, is expected to amass lots of evidence indicating Assad regime responsibility — a story that broke mere minutes after Putin’s op-ed went online.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

These are all strong points clearly meant to align with, and thus call greater attention to, arguments that many Americans have been making against strikes. Putin knows the memory of Iraq is weighing heavily on the United States right now and wants to remind us why. Russia, for its part, vehemently opposes Western intervention in foreign countries, which it sees as a continuation of Western imperialism and an indirect threat to Russia itself.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

This is credible. Putin’s Russia has actually made some important strides in nonproliferation, including signing an historic nuclear disarmament treaty, New START, with President Obama in 2010.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

This is Putin’s big argument: Let’s follow through on the Russian plan to have Syria give up its chemical weapons in exchange for the United States not attacking. And Obama is clearly interested.

It’s hard to miss, though, that this appears to strongly contradict Putin’s claim that rebels were responsible for the chemical weapons attack. As Huffington Post reporter Sam Stein tweets, “Putin’s oped argues: 1. The rebels used chemical weapons, not Assad. 2. Let’s encourage Assad to give up his weapons (no mention of rebels).”

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

This is my favorite part of the op-ed because it suggests that perhaps Putin himself, and not just a Western public relations firm, may have had a hand in crafting it. “Americans aren’t special” is a terrible way to convince Americans to hear you out. But that idea is a sore point for Putin, exactly the sort of thing he’d struggle to resist poking at.

“American exceptionalism” is a complicated idea but it basically boils down to a combination of simple nationalism and a belief that the United States can and should play a special role in shaping the world. The one other country that has most closely shared this view of itself was the Soviet Union. Putin’s Russia has obviously lost the ability to play the role of a superpower, but he still cultivates a sense of nationalism and national greatness. That often means nursing Russian pride hurt by perceived American bullying. This jab at “American exceptionalism” is a great illustration of that.

There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

This is an appeal to shared values and an implicit argument for harmony. It’s a reminder to American readers that Russia is a predominantly Christian nation. And it could also be, as World Politics Review editor Matt Peterson pointed out to me, an implicit argument for sovereignty, that all nations are equal and so no one country should go interfering with another.

Kerry, Lavrov: Syria peace conference option depends on outcome of chemical talks – The Washington Post.

By Anne Gearan and Karen DeYoung, Updated: Friday, September 13, 3:38 PM

GENEVA — A proposal for an international peace conference to end the brutal Syrian civil war could be revived if negotiations over ridding the country of chemical weapons succeed, top U.S. and Russian diplomats said Friday.

The remarks by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov were the first explicit indication that the diplomacy begun this week to resolve the immediate crisis of threatened U.S. military strikes could be a gateway to a broader negotiation aimed at ending the 2¹ / ₂-year-old conflict.

The United States and Russia had floated the idea months ago of hosting a peace conference to bring together the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad and the rebels trying to unseat him. The proposal went nowhere.

Kerry began the second day of hastily arranged disarmament talks by saying that the potential for reviving the peace conference option “will obviously depend on the capacity to have success here.”

So far, there is little evidence that the U.S. and Russian negotiators are making progress.

Kerry warned Thursday that U.S. military forces remain poised to attack Syria if a credible agreement to make Syria give up one of the world’s largest stores of chemical weapons is not rapidly reached and implemented.

Assad added to the tension by telling a television interviewer that he is willing to place his arsenal under international control — but only if the United States stops threatening military action and arming rebel forces.

Assad said he is prepared to sign the international convention banning chemical weapons and would adhere to its “standard procedure” of handing over stockpile data a month later.

Kerry made clear that he had a much shorter time frame in mind and that Assad was not a party to the negotiations. “There is nothing ‘standard’ about this process,” Kerry said Thursday. “The words of the Syrian regime, in our judgment, are simply not enough.”

On Friday, he and Lavrov met with the U.N.-Arab League representative for Syria, veteran diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi. They said the talks have been productive and would continue Friday and perhaps into Saturday. In addition, the two diplomats said they have agreed to meet again in about two weeks, when both diplomats will attend the U.N. General Assembly’s annual gathering in New York.

Separately, the State Department announced Friday that Kerry will travel to Jerusalem on Sunday to have an in-depth discussion with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the final status negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians. Kerry met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in London on Monday. A spokeswoman for Kerry said he will also talk with Netanyahu about developments in Syria.

The Kerry-Lavrov talks in Geneva are aimed at forging a blueprint for identifying and seizing chemical weapons that the United States says Assad’s government used to kill more than 1,400 people last month.

Russia, Syria’s main international backer and arms supplier, offered to negotiate the issue after President Obama sent U.S. warships to the Mediterranean and asked Congress to authorize a military strike against the Syrian government as a punishment for its alleged chemical weapons use.

The proposed legislation, an uphill battle for Obama amid lawmakers’ skepticism, is on hold pending the outcome of the talks in Geneva. The pause button has also been hit at the United Nations, where the United States, Britain and France had been readying a Security Council resolution designed to authorize the use of force if Syria does not adhere to any U.S.-Russia agreement on the weapons.

An open letter from Putin

As Kerry and Lavrov met behind closed doors Thursday, public statements flew from Moscow to Washington and back again.

Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, in an open letter to “the American people and their political leaders” published in the New York Times opinion pages, said any use of force was a violation of international law and would constitute an illegal “act of aggression.”

The United States, he said, was developing a habit of military intervention that had given the country an image “not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force.” Noting Obama’s reference to America as an “exceptional” nation during a Tuesday night address to the nation on Syria, Putin wrote, “It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.”

“There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too,” he wrote.

Obama did not directly respond during brief remarks at the opening of a Cabinet meeting at the White House. He said he was “hopeful” that the Geneva talks would yield “a concrete result.”

Later, White House press secretary Jay Carney said it was “clear that President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad’s chemical weapons to international control and ultimately destroying them. This is significant. Russia is Assad’s patron and protector, and the world will note whether Russia can follow through on the commitments that it’s made.

“As for the editorial,” Carney said, “you know, we’re not surprised by President Putin’s words. But the fact is that Russia offers a stark contrast that demonstrates why America is exceptional.” Putin’s government, he added, was “isolated and alone” in backing Assad’s assertions that Syrian rebels were responsible for a chemical attack.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers were even less diplomatic. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he was “insulted” by Putin’s article.

Despite the tensions, Kerry said the United States is serious “about engaging in substantive, meaningful negotiations even as our military maintains its current posture to keep up the pressure on the Assad regime.”

He added that diplomacy cannot become a delaying tactic.

“This is not a game,” he said, as the talks began in this Swiss city, once the site of historic U.S.-Russia arms-control talks and the original international covenant banning chemical weapons as a tool of war.

Kerry and Lavrov did not take questions at their appearance before reporters. Lavrov made a point of saying that the discussions should “move this situation from this current stage of military confrontation.”

“We proceed from the fact that the solution of this problem will make unnecessary any strike on the Syrian Arab Republic,” he said through an interpreter.

Kerry responded that it was only the threat of military action that had created the diplomatic opening and that the United States will remain ready to strike.

International inspections

In a briefing for reporters traveling with Kerry, senior State Department officials said the U.S. delegation would present the Russians with information about sites where U.S. intelligence suspects Syria’s estimated 1,000 tons of chemical weapons are stored. Officials expect the Russians to provide their own assessment, presumably with information furnished by the Syrian government.

The officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said they also expected to discuss security concerns regarding international arms inspectors. “We’ve suggested to the Russians they come prepared to discuss it, as well. It is certainly not a permissive environment,” one official said.

Farhan Haq, a spokesman for U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, told reporters that the United Nations has received a document from the Syrian government indicating its commitment to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention. It was not clear whether the document, which he said was written in Arabic and was being translated, included any preconditions.

“This starts the process” of becoming a member of the convention, Haq said.

Security Council members are expected to meet Monday, when Ban would brief them on the findings of a U.N. chemical weapons team that probed the Aug. 21 attack.

The inspection team was mandated only to determine whether the attack had occurred, not to affix blame. But a senior Western official at the United Nations said the inspectors collected “a wealth” of evidence that formed a circumstantial case against Assad’s forces.

In his Tuesday interview with Russia’s Rossiya 24 television, Assad said “terrorists,” the term he has long used to refer to rebel fighters, “are trying to incite a U.S. attack against Syria.” Repeating his charge that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack, he said that “there are countries that supply chemical substances” to the Syrian opposition.

It was only Tuesday that Assad’s government acknowledged for the first time the existence of its chemical weapons stockpile. Although Assad said he had agreed to sign the arsenal over to international control, he insisted that it would happen only “when we see that the United States truly desires stability in our region and stops threatening and seeking to invade,” as well as supplying the rebels.

DeYoung reported from Washington. Will Englund in Moscow, Colum Lynch at the United Nations and Ed O’Keefe in Washington contributed to this report.

© The Washington Post Company