Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned U.S. coalition airstrikes in Syria as a violation of international law.

In a statement posted to the Kremlin website, Putin called the coalition airstrikes an “act of aggression against a sovereign government” and accused the United States of compounding the humanitarian catastrophe in war-torn Syria.

Putin called for emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council to discuss the attack.

“The current escalation of the situation around Syria has a devastating impact on the whole system of international relations,” Putin said.

“History will put everything in its place, and it has already laid heavy responsibility on Washington for bloody reprisals against Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya.”

What chemicals?

Putin said Russia’s own military experts had traveled to the site of the alleged chemical attack in Douma and found no indication of chlorine or other toxic gases. 

“Not even one local resident confirmed the fact of the chemical attack,” said Putin.

The Russian leader also complained that the United States and its allies had “cynically” failed to wait for an assessment by inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons – currently on the ground in Syria.  

Russia has long maintained that all chemical weapons stores held by its ally, Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad were given up under a 2013 deal the Kremlin brokered with the Obama Administration.   

Any remaining banned weapons in Syria, the Kremlin argues, are in the hands of either terrorists or Western-backed rebel groups, who deploy chemical weapons to undermine the Assad government.

Russian officials have repeatedly suggested that the aim of the latest U.S.-led airstrikes was to prevent the OPCW from carrying out its work.

Military matters

Meanwhile, Russia’s Defense Ministry confirmed that the U.S.-led airstrikes had avoided hitting Russian bases in the Syrian cities of Tartus and Hmeimim and that Russian air defenses had not been deployed.

Indeed, Russian newswires reported that Syria’s government had largely fended off the airstrikes using Soviet-built air defenses that were nearly 30 years old.

Still, Defense Ministry officials accused Washington of striking “both military and civilian infrastructure” and suggested Moscow may help Damascus beef up its air defenses.

In a hastily arranged news conference Saturday, Colonel-General Sergei Rudskoi said Russia was weighing deliveries of its S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Syria and “other countries” in lieu of the attack.

Diplomacy back-channels

Despite the hostile rhetoric, there were signs of back-channel diplomacy as well.

In a video issued by the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, Ambassador John Huntsman said the United States had communicated with Russia “to reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties.”

“This is not about a conflict between superpowers,” said Huntsman, “but about the principle that the use of chemical weapons is simply unacceptable.”

“We would still welcome cooperation with a Russia that will do the right thing.”
…

The United States, France and Britain launched military strikes in Syria to punish President Bashar Assad for an apparent chemical attack against civilians and to deter him from doing it again, but also stirred up angry responses from Syria’s allies and ignited a debate over whether the attacks were justified.

Russian President Vladimir Putin denounced the Friday night raids as aggression that will make the humanitarian crisis in Syria worse and called for an emergency meeting of the United Nations’ Security Council. Putin added that the strike had a “destructive influence on the entire system of international relations.”

Pentagon officials said the attacks targeted the heart of Assad’s programs to develop and produce chemical weapons.

Syrian television reported that Syria’s air defenses, which are substantial, responded to the attack. Syrians poured into the streets for defiant demonstrations of their national pride.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said there were no reports of U.S. losses in what he described as a heavy but carefully limited assault.

President Donald Trump said the U.S. is prepared to sustain economic, diplomatic and military pressure on Assad until he ends what the president called a criminal pattern of killing his own people with internationally banned chemical weapons. The allied attack set off a fierce international debate about whether it was justified.

On Saturday, Putin reaffirmed Russia’s view that a purported chemical attack in the Syrian town of Douma that prompted the strike was a fake. Putin added that Russian military experts who inspected Douma found no trace of the attack. He criticized the U.S. and its allies for launching the strike without waiting for inspectors from the international chemical weapons watchdog to visit the area.

The Syria attack drew support from the European Union, Germany, Israel and other allies while British Prime Minister Theresa May said reports indicate the Syrian government used a barrel bomb to deliver the chemicals used in an attack on Douma. She said the use of force was “right and legal” in this case.

Mattis said the assault was a “one-time shot,” so long as Assad does not repeat his use of chemical weapons. The strikes were carried out by manned aircraft and from ships that launched cruise missiles from the Mediterranean Sea. Mattis disclosed that the U.S. had not yet confirmed that the most recent suspected Syrian chemical weapons attack, on April 7 in the Damascus suburb of Douma, included the use of sarin gas. He said at least one chemical was used – chlorine, which also has legitimate industrial uses and had not previously triggered a U.S. military response.

He said the targets selected by U.S., British and French officials were meant to minimize civilian casualties.

“This is difficult to do in a situation like this,” he said, in light of the volatility of chemical agents.

Defense officials from the countries involved in the attack gave differing accounts of how much warning was given to the Russians, Syria’s powerful ally.

Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. did not coordinate targets with or notify the Russian government of the strikes, beyond normal airspace “de-confliction” communications. But the description from an ally described things differently.

But French Defense Minister Florence Parly said that “with our allies, we ensured that the Russians were warned ahead of time.”

At a Pentagon news conference alongside Mattis, and with British and French military officers beside them to emphasize allied unity, Dunford said the attacks targeted mainly three targets in western Syria.

Dunford said missiles first struck a scientific research center in the Damascus area that he said was a center of Syrian research, development, production and testing of chemical and biological warfare technology. The second target was a chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs. He said this was believed to be the main site of Syrian sarin and precursor chemical production equipment.

The third target was a chemical weapons equipment storage facility and an important command post, also west of Homs, Dunford said.

British leader May said in London that the West had tried “every possible” diplomatic means to stop Assad from using chemical weapons. “But our efforts have been repeatedly thwarted” by Syria and Russia, she said.

“So there is no practicable alternative to the use of force to degrade and deter the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime,” May said. “This is not about intervening in a civil war. It is not about regime change.”

French President Emmanuel Macron said in a statement that a target of the strike was the Syrian government’s “clandestine chemical arsenal.”

The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons.

The decision to strike, after days of deliberations, marked Trump’s second order to attack Syria. He authorized a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles to hit a single Syrian airfield in April 2017 in retaliation for Assad’s use of sarin gas against civilians.

Mattis estimated the latest air campaign was about twice the size of the 2017 strike. He added that the U.S. expects the Syrian government and its allies to conduct a “significant disinformation campaign,” which the Pentagon would rebut with additional information Saturday morning.

The air campaign could frustrate those in Trump’s base who oppose military intervention and are wary of open-ended conflicts.

Trump chastised Syria’s two main allies, Russia and Iran, for their roles in supporting “murderous dictators,” and noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had guaranteed a 2013 international agreement for Assad to get rid of all of his chemical weapons. He called on Moscow to change course and join the West in seeking a more responsible regime in Damascus.

The U.S. missile strike a year ago, which targeted the airfield from which Syrian aircraft had launched their gas attack, was meant to deter Assad from further use of chemical weapons. Since that did not work, a more intense attack would aim to degrade his ability to carry out further such attacks, and would try to do this by hitting Syrian aircraft, military depots and chemical facilities, among other things.

The strikes that hit early Saturday in Syria came hours before inspectors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons were set to arrive to inspect the site of the apparent attack.

The strikes appear to signal Trump’s willingness to draw the United States more deeply into the Syrian conflict. Just weeks ago, Trump said he wanted to end U.S. involvement in Syria and bring American troops home to focus on the homeland. The participation of British and French forces enables Trump to assert a wider international commitment against the use of chemical weapons, but the multi-pronged attack carries the risk of Russian retaliation.

In his nationwide address, Trump stressed that he has no interest in a longtime fight with Syria.

“As other nations step up their contributions, we look forward to the day when we can bring our warriors home,” Trump said. “And great warriors they are.”

The U.S. has about 2,000 troops on the ground in Syria as advisers to a makeshift group of anti-Islamic State fighters known as the Syrian Democratic Forces. They are in eastern Syria, far from Damascus. A U.S.-led coalition has been conducting airstrikes in Syria since September 2014 as part of a largely successful effort to break the IS grip on both Syria and Iraq.
…

A potent spring storm system that’s expected to persist through the weekend has raked across the Midwest and spawning at least one tornado in Arkansas as blizzard conditions blanket much of the Northern Plains.

A tornado ripped through the tiny Ozark Mountain town of Mountainburg, Arkansas, injuring at least four people and causing widespread damage Friday afternoon.

Crawford County Emergency Management Director Brad Thomas said there were at least three entrapments following the twister. He said he did not know the condition of the four people hospitalized.

Meanwhile, blizzard warnings stretched from northern Kansas across most of Nebraska and South Dakota into southwestern Minnesota and northeastern Iowa, with winter storm warnings and watches covering most of the rest of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan. Heavy snow already blanketed parts of western Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota.
…

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said Friday that President Donald Trump is still weighing options in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria that Washington believes President Bashar al-Assad carried out.

“Our president has not yet made a decision about possible actions in Syria,” Haley told a meeting of the U.N. Security Council. “But should the United States and our allies decide to act in Syria, it will be in defense of a principle on which we all agree. It will be in defense of a bedrock international norm that benefits all nations.”

Haley told reporters on her way into the council session that she would be returning to Washington on Friday for more meetings on a potential response.

“I am unbelievably proud of how President Trump has looked at the information, analyzed, not let anyone rush him into this, because he has said from the beginning — we have to know when we’re right, we have to know all the information, we have to know that there’s proof and we have to know that we’re taking every precaution necessary should we take action,” she told reporters.

At least 40 people were killed and hundreds sickened in last week’s attack in Douma, in eastern Ghouta on the outskirts of Damascus.

“At some point, you have to do something,” Haley said. “At some point, you have to say enough.”

Syria has denied using chemical weapons, but Haley criticized the Syrian president for the repeated use of chlorine and sarin gas on civilians.

“Let’s be clear: Assad’s most recent use of poison gas against the people of Douma was not his first, second, third, or even 49th use of chemical weapons,” the U.N. ambassador said. “The United States estimates that Assad has used chemical weapons in the Syrian war at least 50 times. Public estimates are as high as 200.”

Russia

She chastised Russia for steadfastly protecting Assad from accountability with its Security Council veto and for not living up to its obligations in making sure Syria gave up all of its chemical weapons under a 2013 deal.

“Russia can complain all it wants about fake news, but no one is buying its lies and its cover-ups,” Haley said.

Russia called Friday’s Security Council meeting, the fourth day this week it has discussed Syria. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said his government has worked “robustly and fully” to de-escalate tensions in international relations. He said Moscow sponsored and supported the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) sending a fact-finding mission to Douma to investigate, but the U.S., Britain and France had rejected it.

“Thereby, these countries have demonstrated they have no interest in an investigation,” Nebenzia said. “The sole thing they have an interest in is to oust the Syrian government and, more broadly, to deter and contain the Russian Federation.”

A measure put forward by Moscow supporting an OPCW investigation, but not a mechanism to attribute blame for chemical attacks, failed to pass the Security Council on Tuesday, garnering support from six of the 15 council members.

OPCW inspectors have arrived in Syria and are scheduled to begin collecting samples Saturday in Douma.

Britain, France

The United States has been in close consultations with allies Britain and France on what response it should take.

French envoy Francois Delattre said Assad’s government had “reached a point of no return” with its most recent chemical weapons attack.

“This is a situation to which the world must provide robust, united and steadfast response and this is our responsibility,” Delattre told the council Friday.

He said France would “shoulder its responsibility to end an intolerable threat to our collective security,” and ensure respect for international law and Security Council resolutions.

“The use of chemical weapons cannot be allowed to go unchallenged,” said British Ambassador Karen Pierce. “The British Cabinet has agreed on the need to take action to alleviate humanitarian distress and to deter the further use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and we will continue to work with our friends and allies to coordinate an international response to that end.”

As the international community waits to see if there will be a military response, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned of the dangers of escalation.

“Increasing tensions and the inability to reach a compromise in the establishment of an accountability mechanism threaten to lead to a full-blown military escalation,” he said. “In my contacts with you — especially with the Permanent Members of the Security Council — I have been reiterating my deep concerns about the risks of the current impasse and stressed the need to avoid the situation spiraling out of control.”

Guterres added that the situation in Syria is now the “most serious threat to international peace and security.”
…

The past week has sounded to some like a repeat of the Cuban Missile Crisis when America and Russia, two nuclear-armed powers, headed toward a catastrophic clash amid skyrocketing tension.

Back in 1962, it was the Russians who blinked, with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev deciding not to tempt fate — or the resolve of John F. Kennedy. He ordered Cuba-bound ships laden with missiles for Fidel Castro to back off from a U.S. blockade of the Caribbean island.

For most of this week, the leaders of the U.S. and Russia, as well as their officials, traded dire warnings in rhetorical exchanges as fierce as any witnessed during the Cold War.

U.S. President Donald Trump started the week warning that “missiles will be coming to Syria” to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for the latest alleged chemical weapons attack blamed on Syrian government forces.

Russian envoys, including the ambassador to Lebanon, countered that Russian forces would shoot down any U.S. missiles fired at Syria and target ships and planes that launched them. Those warnings were characterized Thursday by a retired top British general as a virtual declaration of war and raised the prospect of the first naval clash between any powers in a generation.

But by Thursday, both sides appeared anxious to dial down the rhetoric, and it was the Russians who took the biggest step back, redefining what would prompt them to respond militarily to any U.S.-led punitive raids on Syria.

In an interview with Britain’s Sky News, Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, shifted Russia’s “red line,” focusing her remarks on the risks that would be encountered if Russian personnel on the ground in the war-wracked country were killed.

Asked directly about the threat to shoot down incoming missiles, and attack the bases and ships firing them, she hesitated, saying, “Russia should protect its people on the ground, of course.” She added she didn’t want to think about the possibility of Russian or American blood being spilled, arguing that Washington and Moscow could resolve their differences over Syria with better communications.

By removing the threat of Russian retaliation for a missile strike on Syria, the likelihood has increased that Russian President Vladimir Putin will do what he did last year when the U.S. punished Assad for using chemical weapons on his own people – namely, nothing, say analysts.

Hours later Thursday, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis also sounded a note of restraint, telling lawmakers a missile strike was just one of the options being considered by the Trump administration to deter Assad from repeating last Saturday’s alleged chemical weapons attack on the town of Douma on the outskirts of Damascus, in which 70 people died and hundreds were injured.

Syria has denied using chemical weapons and the Russians claim the attack was fake or staged by a shifting cast of characters, including foreign intelligence services and the White Helmets, volunteer first responders working in Syria’s rebel-held areas.

Officials and analysts say a U.S.-led punitive strike on Syria is still all but certain. From Mattis to Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May and France’s President Emmanuel Macron, the consensus among Western leaders is that Assad’s use of chemical weapons shouldn’t go unanswered and that it must be large enough to change the Syrian leader’s calculus about the use of chemical weapons.

“We have to re-establish the taboo against using chemical weapons. The taboo has got frayed. It is important that there’s a reaction,” said John Sawers, a former British intelligence chief.

But neither Washington nor Moscow wants to see an escalation of the overall long-running conflict in Syria, say analysts. President Donald Trump has already indicated he would like to withdraw the approximately 2,000 U.S. ground troops currently in northern Syria, where they’ve been assisting Syrian Kurds to defeat Islamic State militants.

“We’ll be coming out of Syria very soon. Let the other people take care of it now,” the U.S. leader said earlier this month.

Syria gains at stake

On a cost-benefit analysis, the Kremlin has more to lose from any escalation or prolonging of the seven-year-old, multi-sided Syria conflict, now that their longtime ally Assad, thanks to Russian and Iranian military assistance, has swung the battlefield decidedly in his favor and all but won.

Any major escalation risks reversing the military dynamic.

“It is not obvious how the Russians can extricate themselves from a binary decision,” said Jonathan Eyal of the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based research group. “Either they confront the American-led operation which is about to come to Syria, or they don’t do anything,” he added.

The latter course would make Russian President Putin appear weak and until now he’s been successful in avoiding having to choose to back down or escalate when confronting the West, Eyal said, “Set aside the bluster that comes from Moscow and they are far, far less secure about how this will play out in the next few days.”

The scale of the U.S.-led retaliation on Assad may well determine how Russia responds. U.S.-led strikes impacting the front lines, and certainly any loss of Russian lives, could strip the Kremlin of the opportunity of restricting its response to one of just issuing angry protests, as it did last year when the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk Cruise missiles on a Syrian airbase after a purported Assad chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaykhun in northern Syria.

To assist the Russians, the U.S. tipped off Moscow about what would be targeted, allowing the Kremlin to move its servicemen out of harm’s way. That would likely happen again, said U.S. officials.

But there are also pressures on Washington not to go as lightly as last year on any retaliation for the Douma attack. In the past, mild punishments have not deterred Assad. “It is clear that any retaliation for the latest use of chemical weapons, possibly the 25th use we have seen recently in Syria, must be bigger than the last retaliation,” according to Peter Roberts, another analyst at the Royal United Services Institute.

But bigger retaliation raises the risks of Russian personnel being killed.

The Gulf states – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – have been lobbying for much tougher action this time round, said U.S. officials. They have offered to participate, determined that any strikes are sizable enough to weaken the military presence in Syria of their arch-foe Iran, another Assad backer.

Israel, too, is determined to stop Iran from establishing bases in Syria, and, on April 9, it launched a Cruise-missile strike on an airbase in central Syria near the ancient city of Palmyra. The strike targeted Iranian Revolutionary Guardsmen, one of dozens of cross-border strikes the Israelis have carried out in Syria since the start of the Syrian war in 2011, mostly focused on either Iranian forces or Hezbollah, the Tehran-tied Lebanese Shi’ite militia.

There are already signs that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who meets and talks frequently with Putin and is close to Trump, is emerging as a key figure behind the scenes as Washington and Moscow and their allies maneuver to seek a way for U.S.-led retaliation on Assad to proceed without escalating the conflict or expanding it. On Wednesday, Putin and Netanyahu talked and, according to Israeli officials, discussed both Iran’s presence in Syria and the Assad chemical weapons attack.
…

White House officials on Friday confirmed that planning for an unprecedented summit between the leaders of the United States and North Korea remains on track and also indicated Washington and Pyongyang are engaged in direct communication about it.

A senior administration official characterizes the chances of the meeting happening as “likely,” explaining “there is an inter-agency and tightly-held process that’s been underway for several weeks now.”

The official also told a reporter in response to a question about direct planning discussions with North Korean officials that “communication will, by definition, have to be sufficient for us to establish and prepare for a successful summit.”

The anticipated summit is to be a major topic of discussion next week when U.S. President Donald Trump hosts Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at the president’s private resort in Mar-a-Lago, Florida for what officials are calling a “working visit.”

The Japanese are among the most nervous of American allies about the Trump-Kim summit, worrying that their national interests might not be taken into sufficient consideration if a security agreement is reached between the United States and North Korea.

The senior White House official denied that Abe has tried to talk Trump out of meeting with Kim.

Trump and Abe have met and spoken on the phone quite frequently about North Korea and other topics.

The president “will certainly want to know what additional thoughts Prime Minister Abe has beyond those that he’s has already shared because they’ve been in constant contact in recent weeks since President Trump accepted an invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un,” the senior official told reporters. “They will go into some detail, for sure, on that.”

Trump’s new national security advisor, John Bolton, had substantive talks on North Korea with his Japanese and South Korean counterparts, according to administration officials.  Those discussions also included preparations for next week’s Trump-Abe meeting.  

North Korea, under numerous international sanctions for its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs, has no diplomatic relations with Japan, South Korea or the United States.

Besides the North Korean issue, Trump and Abe are also to discuss their differences on trade issues.

Thanks to their frequent face-to-face meetings, President Trump and Prime Minister Abe have a solid relationship, which allows for flexible discussions on policy matters,” U.S.-Japan Council President Irene Hirano tells VOA. “I am optimistic that they will find areas of mutual agreement on both trade and security.”

Japan and the United States, under the Obama administration, were at the forefront of a sweeping 12-nation trade agreement that took years to negotiate. But Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).

However, the U.S. president in recent days has expressed interest in possibly rejoining TPP.

“Would only join TPP if the deal were substantially better than the deal offered to Pres. Obama,” Trump tweeted on Thursday evening.

Media reports say the president has mused in conversations to others whether he “screwed up” by pulling out of the trade pact, giving an advantage to China (which is not a TPP signatory) at a time the United States is trying to pressure Beijing into reducing tariffs on American products.

Asked by VOA about the veracity of those media reports, the senior U.S. official responded, “I’m not aware of any reference along the lines as you have characterized them.”

 
…

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is assuming a mediator role, calling for a display of sensitivity by the U.S., Russia and other nations amid heightened tensions on Syria.

U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to launch military strikes in response to Saturday’s (April 7) alleged chemical weapons attack by Syrian government forces that killed at least 40.

Erdogan spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin late Thursday on the phone after a separate call with Trump.

“Erdogan is at the moment the only man who can talk to both of these leaders,” said international relations expert Huseyin Bagci of Ankara Middle East Technical University. “On one side, he [Erdogan] is a close ally of NATO, and on the other side, he is a strategic ally of Russia. Erdogan also has leverage.”

Bagci added that without Turkey, Washington and Moscow would be unable to do many things in Syria.

U.S.-Russian tensions remain high as Ankara tries to mediate.

“A dialogue between the chiefs of staff of the U.S. and Russia has begun,” Russian Parliament Defense Committee Head Vladimir Shamanov said Wednesday. “The connection has been made possible through our counterparts in Turkey,” he added.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is due to visit Ankara Monday for talks on the Syrian crisis.

Ankara has also been deepening its relations with Moscow. Last week Erdogan hosted Putin and Iranian president Hasan Rouhani to discuss efforts to resolve the Syrian civil war under the so-called “Astana Process.”

Analysts say Ankara, which is hosting over 3 million Syrian refugees at a cost of $30 billion, will be concerned any U.S.-led attack on Syria could derail efforts to end that country’s war.

“The perpetrators [for the chemical attack] should pay the price. But while doing that, there should not be steps that would damage Turkey, Russia and Iran’s efforts for a lasting peace,” said Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim on Friday.

Adding to Turkish concerns over any U.S.-led attack is that Turkish forces are currently deployed in Syria, fighting against the YPG Kurdish militia, deemed as terrorists by Ankara.

“Erdogan is trying to de-escalate a situation that has left Turkey caught in the middle and in a difficult place,” said political columnist Semih Idiz of the al-Monitor website.”I think this is what this meditation exercise is about. Any U.S.-led attack could really disrupt Ankara’s plans against the Syrian Kurdish militia.”

Economic toll

The threat of a further escalation in fighting in Syria has already hit the Turkish economy hard. “The uncertainty in the region is affecting the Turkish lira, which is plummeting,” said Idiz.

“We are about to enter the tourism season,” he noted. “If there is a major confrontation in this part of the world the last thing tourists would want to do is to enter, what they believe is a war zone.”

Analysts suggest assuming a new mediation role could also be driven ultimately by Turkey’s strategic interests.

“Turkey would like to be a mediator,” “said Bagci. “It wants to be viewed as trustworthy. It wants to be the consciousness of the Middle East. Whether Turkey will be able to take advantage of this opportunity or not is another matter, but the chance is there.”
…