Checkmate: Putin Paints The U.S. Administration Into An Even Smaller Corner

[Updated]

Putin takes this to the next level and he has to be having some fun with this:

Putin: Syria Chemical Arms Handover Will Work Only If U.S. Calls Off Strike

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syria’s chemical arms handover will only work if the US and its allies renounce the use of force against Damascus.

Follow RT's Live Updates 

"Of course, all of this will only mean anything if the United States and other nations supporting it tell us that they're giving up their plan to use force against Syria. You can’t really ask Syria, or any other country, to disarm unilaterally while military action against it is being contemplated," President Putin said on Tuesday.

President Putin said that the matter of bringing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has long been a subject of discussion by experts and politicians. 

Putin confirmed that he and President Barack Obama had “indeed discussed” such a possibility on the sidelines of the G20 summit in St. Petersburg last week.

It was agreed, Putin said, “to instruct Secretary of State [John Kerry] and Foreign Minister [Sergey Lavrov] to work together and see if they can achieve some progress in this regard."

President Putin’s comments came shortly after the Syrian government said it would agree to place its chemical weapons arsenal under international control. 

On Tuesday, Britain, France and the US said they would table a resolution on Syrian chemical weapons to the UN Security Council later in the day.  

“[Lavrov] said that Russia, on its part, is submitting a draft statement for the UN Security Council’s chairman, welcoming the… initiative and calling on the UN Secretary General, the general director of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and all the interested parties to make efforts to facilitate the implementation of this proposal,” the ministry’s statement said. 

At the same time, Syria said it was ready to completely give up chemical weapons and sign the Chemical Weapons Convention. 

Syria also takes it to the next level: 

Syrian FM: We Are Ready To Sign Chemical Weapons Convention

Syria said it would sign the Chemical Weapons Convention, following Russia’s proposal that it hands over its chemical weapons to international supervisors. Damascus pledged to open its storage sites and provide full disclosure of its stocks immediately.

“We fully support Russia’s initiative concerning chemical weapons in Syria, and we are ready to cooperate. As a part of the plan, we intend to join the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said in an interview with Lebanon-based Al-Maydeen TV.

“We are ready to fulfill our obligations in compliance with this treaty, including through the provision of information about our chemical weapons. We will open our storage sites, and cease production. We are ready to open these facilities to Russia, other countries and the United Nations.”

He added: “We intend to give up chemical weapons altogether.” 

Does Kerry's 'Rhetoric' Reveal Real U.S. Motive?

 Russians liked an offer by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry that the United States would not bomb Syria if the country put its chemical weapons under international control, but then the statement was dismissed by the State Department as a “rhetorical argument,” causing skeptics to suggest the true intent of the U.S. in Syria is regime change and to limit Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

National Security Adviser Susan Rice, however, has raised questions over the Russian acceptance of Kerry’s proposal, saying that she previously had exhausted all options short of military action.

“Failing to respond to the use of chemical weapons risks opening the door to other weapons of mass destruction and emboldening the madmen who would use them,” said Rice, who formerly was the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

It was while she held that position that she declared on nationwide television that the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consular facilities in Benghazi was prompted by a video released in the U.S. that mocked Mohammad.

“We cannot allow terrorists bent on destruction, or a nuclear North Korea, or an aspiring nuclear Iran, to believe for one minute that we are shying away from our determination to back up our longstanding warnings,” she added. “Failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure.”

It is this line of talk, sources tell WND, that suggests the true intent of bombing Syria may not be just about chemical weapons after all.

Russian Arms Headed For Syria

President Barack Obama’s two climb-downs on a US strike against Syria over its use of chemical weapons are turning out to be part of a deal which he forged secretly with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Obama is presenting it as a US-Russian accord for stripping Bashar Assad of his chemical arsenal, while Putin is using it as an expedient for saving the Assad regime in Damascus. Both are ready to sacrifice the Syrian rebel movement to their détente.

Moscow is pushing for more than a US pledge to back off using force against Syria, demanding that Washington also refrain from diplomatic action against the Assad regime.

The result was a major battle which forced the UN Security Council’s closed-door emergency session scheduled for Tuesday night, Sept. 10 to be postponed without a new date.
The French wanted to table a tough, binding resolution placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control and a timetable for their destruction spelt out - with “extremely serious” consequences for violations including a military option.

Washington warned it would not fall for “stalling tactics.”

Moscow balked, insisting on a declaration – not a binding resolution - in support of international control for the chemical stockpiles – and no sanctions for violations. China and Iran backed the Russian motion.

Addressing a Russian TV Arab broadcast Tuesday, Putin said he had urged Syria to hand over its chemical weapons for them to be destroyed. He added that the handover plan would only work if the US renounced the use of force.

Our sources disclose that in another part of his deal with the Russian president, Obama did not object to Moscow providing the Syrian army with a fresh supply of advanced weapons in substantial quantities to compensate Assad for giving up his chemical arsenal.

Friday, Sept. Moscow announced that the Nikolai Filchenko landing craft heading for the eastern Mediterranean would stop off at the Black Sea port of Novorossiisk to pick up a “special cargo” for Syria. This vessel, say our sources, was to carry the first shipment of the fresh arms supplies Moscow was sending Bashar Assad.

In Syria, Putin's The Player And Obama's The Playee

The bottom line:

In his speech to the  nation tonight, we can expect Obama to claim that Putin's initiative is really the product of his high level diplomacy, and we can expect his supporters in the media and Congress to overlook the State Department's immediate repudiation of Kerry's offhand policy position. America's power and influence are nose-diving under Obama, but for domestic political consumption, he will claim a triumph. The real players on the world stage know differently, and the ultimate cost of this weakness is unknowable. But for the moment, Obama is spared a serious humiliation, and to his allies, this is quite enough.

Intelligence Experts Have Strong Proof Images Of Chemical Victims Were Fabricated

Footage and photos of the alleged chemical attack in Syria, which the US cites as the reason for a planned military intervention, had been fabricated in advance, speakers told a UN human rights conference in Geneva.

Members of the conference were presented accounts of international experts, Syrian public figures and Russian news reporters covering the Syrian conflict, which back Russia’s opposition to the US plans, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 

The speakers argued that the suspected sarin gas attack near Damascus on August 21 was likely a provocation of the rebel forces and that a military action against the President Bashar Assad government will likely result in civilian casualties and a humanitarian catastrophe affecting the entire region. 

The possible attack by US military without a UN Security Council mandate would violate international law and should be prevented by the United Nations, some of the speakers said.

Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a provocation by rebel forces, which staged a false flag attack to drag the US into the conflict and capitalize on the damage that the Syrian army is likely to sustain in the American intervention.

An increasing number of reports is backing Russia’s position, with local witnesses, US and British formerintelligence professionals and Europeans recently released from rebel captivity all speaking for a provocation scenario.

Making Sense Of Syria

[Peggy Noonan actually gets it right for a change (it's been a while)]

The president has backed away from a military strike in Syria. But he can’t acknowledge this or act as if it is true. He is acting and talking as if he’s coolly, analytically, even warily contemplating the Russian proposal and the Syrian response. The proposal, he must know, is absurd. Bashar Assad isn’t going to give up all his hidden weapons in wartime, in the middle of a conflict so bitter and severe that his forces this morning reportedly bombed parts of Damascus, the city in which he lives. In such conditions his weapons could not be fully accounted for, packed up, transported or relinquished, even if he wanted to. But it will take time—weeks, months—for the absurdity to become obvious. And it is time the president wants. Because with time, with a series of statements, negotiations, ultimatums, promises and proposals, the Syria crisis can pass. It can dissipate into the air, like gas.

Why is he backing off? Because he knows he doesn’t have the American people and isn’t going to get them. The polls, embarrassingly, show the more people hear the less they support it. The president’s problem with his own base was probably startling to him, and sobering. He knows he was going to lose Congress, not only the House but very possibly—likely, I’d say—the Senate. The momentum was all against him. And he never solved—it was not solvable—his own Goldilocks problem: A strike too small is an embarrassment, a strike too big could topple the Assad regime and leave Obama responsible for a complete and cutthroat civil war involving terrorists, foreign operatives, nihilists, jihadists, underemployed young men, and some really nice, smart people. Obama didn’t want to own that, or the fires that could engulf the region once Syria went up.

His plan was never good. The choices were never good. In any case he was going to lose either in terms of domestic prestige, the foreign result or both. Likely both.

* * *

Then get ready for the spin job of all spin jobs. It’s already begun: the White House is beginning to repeat that a diplomatic solution only came because the president threatened force. That is going to be followed by something that will grate on Republicans, conservatives, and foreign-policy journalists and professionals. But many Democrats will find it sweet, and some in the political press will go for it, if for no other reason than it’s a new story line.

It is that Syria was not a self-made mess, an example of historic incompetence. It was Obama’s Cuban Missile Crisis—high-stakes, eyeball-to-eyeball, with weapons of mass destruction and an implacable foe. The steady waiting it out, the inner anguish, the idea that crosses the Telex that seems to soften the situation. A cool, calibrated, chancy decision to go with the idea, to make a measured diplomatic concession. In the end it got us through the crisis.

Really, they’re going to say this. And only in part because this White House is full of people who know nothing—really nothing—about history. They’ve only seen movies.

The only question is who plays Bobby. Get ready for a leak war between Kerry’s staff and Hillary Clinton’s

An important thing. The president will be tempted, in his embarrassment, to show a certain dry and contemplative distance from Putin. The Obama White House should go lightly here: Putin could always, in his pique, decide to make things worse, not better. It would be good for Obama to show graciousness and appreciation. Yes, this will leave Putin looking and feeling good. But that’s not the worst thing that ever happened. And Putin has played this pretty well.

[Update: Take a look at Peggy Noonan's entire article. She correctly predicted the speech almost to the word.]