| Mr Khan said:
The concern from Russia's perspective would be that it validates the Western position that non-western allies are not allowed to use WMDs under any circumstances, and that merely doing so entitles the Western powers to demand that the country surrender their stockpile or risk being destroyed, especially since Syria was breaking no international law, due to being a non-signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. I guess Russia feels that the danger of outright American intervention outweighs the bad precedent towards Western interference that this sets otherwise. |
Given what my position on the matter of possible strikes is -- there won't be any strikes for 1001 reasons, all this fuss is more of a smoke and mirrors than anything else -- international control over Syrian CW is just a good way to save face and exit that warmongerish circle finally. Otherwise you may as well suggest that CW were the real concern in the first place, which is not true by any means.
BTW Who do you think is going to be that international control if it ever happens? US? No. Israel? No. Yeah, win-win situation for States.
