Germany, Italy Refuse To Join Syria Airstrikes

There are at least two European nations who remember that when it gets cold in the winter, there is one country they call to provide the natural gas they need for heating.


One of them is Germany, which realizing that any strike on Syria would further jeopardize its relationship with the Kremlin, said that it will not join any military strikes against Syria in response to the alleged chemical gas attack on an opposition enclave which Russia claims was a "white helmet" false flag, but all too diplomatically supports Western efforts to show the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, Chancellor Angela Merkel said.

"Germany will not take part in possible - there have not been any decisions yet, I want to stress that - military action," Merkel said according to Reuters after meeting Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen in Berlin. "But we support everything that is being done to show that the use of chemical weapons is not acceptable," she added.

Of course, Merkel could have simply said "we are happy to do anything except whatever puts us on Putin's black list: the rest of you can do that."

Meanwhile in Dublin, Germany's new Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Germany expects to be consulted before any Western allies conduct an attack on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces as the allies must be united on the matter.

Earlier, Merkel spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron about the suspected gas attack and expressed her concern that the international community's ability to ban chemical weapons was eroding, her spokesman said. Norbert Roettgen, chairman of the German parliamentary foreign affairs committee and an ally of Merkel's, said: "Shamefully, there is still no policy from the EU - or even individual EU states - for the Middle (East) countries.

"If it came to military strikes with the participation of France and Britain, that is still not a policy."

Amusingly, instead of focusing on the nature of the schism between Germany and its allies, Europe's most powerful nation deflect to the lack of a coherent European policy on the matter: an easy excuse in a continent in which there is virtually no cohesion on any matter:

Roettgen urged the European Union to develop a policy for the Middle East as a whole, adding: "Germany should work together with others for a Middle East peace conference. We have various diplomatic options to not let the topic rest."

He called for a "step-by-step approach", which could start with humanitarian access in Syria. "The situation is so burdened with multiple conflicts that one can only proceed gradually."

Asked about such a conference, Merkel told reporters: "We know a lot of things are linked in the Middle East, no question, but now we must urgently deal with a situation where there is a lot of evidence that the Syrian regime again used chemical weapons."

Another option floated by Germany would be to use what oil-importing leverage Europe has over Iran to pressure Syria. Roettgen said Europe could talk to Iran in connection with its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, which Trump has criticised as "the worst deal ever negotiated".

Iran needed to understand that its economic prospects would be constrained if it "pursues a permanent bellicose expansion of power," he said, adding Turkey should be told "there cannot be a warrant for warfare in Syria."

In other words, Europe would stop importing Iranian oil (for Euros) if Tehran refused to betray its Syrian friends.

"But there is no country - neither the U.S. nor a European country - that is taking the initiative. That's the shameful thing about Western politics," Roettgen said.

* * *

The other country, which moments after Germany said would not participate any Syrian strikes, said it took would refuse to participate in any military action against Russia Assad, was Italy:

  • ITALY WILL NOT TAKE PART IN ANY MILITARY ACTION IN SYRIA

However, just like Germany...

  • ITALY WOULD PROVIDE LOGISTICAL SUPPORT TO ALLIES -PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE

Which means that the two nations that will lead the attack on Syria when it inevitable comes - whether with or without the US - will be the UK, whose subs are already on location off the coast of Syria, and most likely France.

Comments

Leakanthrophy wildbad Thu, 04/12/2018 - 11:59 Permalink

While Trump is playing for time, Macron and May will get a big black eye from Russia, and that will put them in their place.

Putin will sunk a couple of tincans and that will be the end of WW3.

The poodles and beagles will get back to yelping from behind their fence.

 

Jew ass kissers deserve whatever is coming for them.

Go Putin !

In reply to by wildbad

DuneCreature Chupacabra-322 Thu, 04/12/2018 - 12:48 Permalink

That would be fun to see. .... Let all of Soros refugees shiver and shake while raping the native girls in Bavaria.

Let's have President Trump blow up the Muzzie Middle East world while we're at it. ... So they can come here and thank us too.

Creating Pissed Off Refugees 101

Live Hard, Hint - Muzzies ARE NOT Welcome In Israel, Die Free

 

~ DC v8.8

 

In reply to by Chupacabra-322

DEMIZEN Erek Thu, 04/12/2018 - 20:54 Permalink

lol, it is just an excuse to sit out the pointless effort, same goes for eastern nato members they work close with Germans and Russians.  I find franco-german split very odd.  something is not right about French moves.

germans and unoperational :) how can you even buy that nonsense?

In reply to by Erek

Rubicon727 wildbad Thu, 04/12/2018 - 18:31 Permalink

 Macron (France) is on a rampage: privatize all of the railroad employees. privatize the entire university system.  The RR employees are in a one-month stage of protesting with about 50% of French adults agreeing with the unions. University students are protesting against Macron's privatization plan as well.

The French have looked at how the US dismantled most ALL unions, and the privatization in universities, and have concluded,  "NO WAY!" Besides, most of the populous now despises Macron. 

In reply to by wildbad

PT lester1 Thu, 04/12/2018 - 12:14 Permalink

"Now they let other countries like the USA protect them, then take the military savings ..." :

"Give me all of your guns and then I will protect you.  You don't need guns because I am bigger and stronger than you so I can protect you." - Now do you see how this works?

The flaw in my argument is that it appears that Germany may not have to do as they are told after all, in which case the US will start saying:

"Why should I spend all that money on protecting you?  You should be paying me so I can buy more weapons to protect you."  - This is also a very old Trump argument - dig up his interviews from the '80s.  He was very clear on this point. 

Disarm your opponent.
Opponent surrenders.
Can't trust your opponent with weapons.
Now you have to use your own weapons to defend your opponent.
Now you boss your opponent around and he has to comply.
Forget the past, get sick of spending money defending your opponent.
"You should pay for your own defence."
"No worries, just let me make my own weapons and let me go.  You could have done this years ago.  Why are you complaining about the expenditure that you insisted on making and to which I could not disagree?"

I'm no historian.  It could be messier than that.  Who knows if I left anything out?

In reply to by lester1

Ace006 swmnguy Thu, 04/12/2018 - 17:50 Permalink

You have asked one of the forbidden questions:

1.  From whom, exactly, is the US protecting Europe?

2.  Why does the U.S. train, arm, and supply Islamic fanatics in Syria?

3.  What threat does Syria pose to the U.S.?

4.  What is the legal basis for the U.S. war on Syria?

5.  Why is Israel America's BFF in the world?

6.  Who is behind the mania for open borders and "diversity"?

7.  Why are AntiFa thugs allowed to operate with official permission in Sweden, Britain, German, the U.S. and other countries?

There are more, of course.

In reply to by swmnguy

Rubicon727 Ace006 Thu, 04/12/2018 - 18:37 Permalink

"3.  What threat does Syria pose to the U.S.?

4.  What is the legal basis for the U.S. war on Syria?

5.  Why is Israel America's BFF in the world?"

There are two key winners if Trump goes to war against Syria:

American zionists want Syria destroyed to then take on Iran. Without Iran and Syria, the Zionist Jews will have a free pass to make what they will of those territories. 

Secondly, there are very powerful American entities who make billions off US military advances. 

Also, if those two nations were destroyed, Russia, would be left more vulnerable while the US might have a better chance at maintaining its global $$$/military hegemony.

In reply to by Ace006

Killdo Thought Processor Thu, 04/12/2018 - 12:07 Permalink

yes  - even their ugly monument next to the Branderburg Gate in Berlin is full of cracks - I took photos of it last time I was there - huge ugly concrete boxes with biggish cracks . Young people don't give a shit about them - they walk on them, jump from one box to another...even I peed on them once after shopping at Hugo Boss nextdoor

In reply to by Thought Processor

veritas semper… Belrev Thu, 04/12/2018 - 14:00 Permalink

   Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General said the NATO was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

   Kind of redundant to play the sovereign nation card when your country is in NATO .

  So ,let's see what we have on the Donald's 666 D chess board :

-the 5 Anglos Eyes : US , UK , Canada , Australia  and  (anybody knows if NZ is in yet ? ) ; no surprise here

-France , ruled by Rothschild and CRIF ( = French AIPAC)

-Israhell

-Saudi Arabia might join

 

In reply to by Belrev

TheGardener Thu, 04/12/2018 - 11:42 Permalink

Merkel would want to join. But the German penal code reserves up to 20 years

in prison for anyone preparing or participating in a war of aggression.