Russia And America Respond To Syria’s Use Of Chemical Weapons Against Their Own People


The Russian nations’ blatant denial and misconstruction of the truths, objectives and costs of the Syrian Civil War creates a clear index to the globalized audience of the need for collective change. This notion was epitomized this week through an article published by the BBC organization, as it documented Russia’s conduct within the UN Security Council Meeting on Saturday, whereby the directives of the states were established upon the support and principles of the Al-Assad regime.

The Russian nation has thus successfully sponsored President Al-Assad from the beginning of the conflict in 2011 and provided a variety of aid, resources and training to help fund and support the successful restoration of Al-Assad’s government within the country. During this meeting, Russia successfully attacked the values, decisions and actions of Western powers such as the US, UK and France and thus further epitomized the turbulent nature and tension which surrounds the management strategies of the Syrian civil war. The new spout of attacks this week produced by the Western nations marks thus marks the largest magnitude of offensives seen in the region during the seven years of conflict. This civil crisis, sparked during the Arab Spring revolts during 2011 has thus seen the displacement of 6 million refugees internally within the region and a further 5 million refugee’s that have fled outside Syria.

The Pentagon on Saturday released a statement confirming the successful targeting of three major areas arguing that their achievement has ‘set the Syrian chemical weapons program back years.’ The key areas targeted by this Western offensive included, the Barza chemical weapons development centre, the Him Shinshar chemical weapons storage facility and the Him Shinshar chemical weapons bunker facility. American Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie stated that in total 40 Syrian defence missiles were fired in response to the American airstrikes however they failed to have any major detrimental impacts.

The Americans thus claimed that the scale of the attack was double that of the 2017 airstrikes, that had been launched in response to the chemical weapons bombing which had been carried out in the city of Khan Sheikhoun. This American Pentagon briefing, however, is critically contrasted against the records issued by the Russian Defence Ministry who rather assert that of the 103 cruise missiles which were launched by the US, 71 had been successfully shot down by American defence systems. Both sides critically stated that no casualties had been reported however the Syrian government alleged that three people had been injured in Homs due to the attacks.

Russia’s participation within the UN council on Saturday thus critically condemned the military offensive and airstrikes which had been issued by the Western powers and claimed the West was carrying out detrimental and unjustified operations within the Syrian region. This notion, however, was rejected by the majority of the council members who rather supported and contributed to the advance of the Western powers in Syria through the use of military force. The Russian UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia thus claimed on Saturday at the UN security council meeting that the UK, America and France, had ‘demonstrated a blatant disregard for international law’, and described their actions within Syria as ‘hooliganism’. This Russian statement was thus further formed in response to America’s omittance to wait for the confirmation from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that use of chemical weapons was in fact specified and accurate.

In response to these allegations, the US ambassador rather argued that the airstrikes were ‘ justified, legitimate and proportionate… if the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again the United States is locked and loaded’. Of the 15-membered council, only China and Bolivia voted in favour of the Russian opinion whilst the other nations rather followed suit with the US and UK’s justification and operation of military force. The Russian emblematic affiliation with the Al-Assad regime thus comes to reflect the two nation’s symbiosis of ideologies as both nations potently come to challenge, defy transmute the powers of Western nations for their own gain.

The necessity of physical intervention is a potently needed within Syria whereby seven years of civil war has thus left the country in a critical condition of disarray and discontent. The need for both simultaneous diplomatic and physical force to be implemented within the region is an urgent requirement as the historic and repeated use of diplomatic relations has failed to produce any real consequence of tangible mediations, accountabilities or resolve. The need for global intervention to secure the safety and security of the innocent civilians located within regional Syrian villages is a crucial outcome required to be met by the UN Security Council.

Russia’s overt support of the Al- Assad regime thus critically indexes the stance of the nation as the preservation and protection of life, land and resources thus fails to be accounted for in the directives of their governmental policies. The urgent need for Western intervention within the Syrian region is thus necessary to ensure the Al-Assad regime is held accountable for their transgressions perpetrated against their own national population. The future of the Syrian nation and people as at the moment in limbo and must be addressed by a global populace and interference as the documentation of this crisis thus forces people to confront their own personal boundaries and morals regarding the rights, acceptability and treatment of our fellow citizens.

Ellie Willis