When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

NATO's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen
NATO's Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Martin Winter

BRUSSELS - Over good food and drink, the dinner Tuesday of all of NATO's foreign ministers was meant to be an informal exchange of the different points of view on the Middle East. But before the main course had been served most of the ministers had lost their appetite: The alliance’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, let loose on Syria and the conflict with Iran over the Strait of Hormuz in such vigorous terms that one participant said he thought he heard “the drums of war.”

Multiple sources confirmed to the Süddeutsche Zeitung that Rasmussen declared that NATO could not “stick its head in the sand” regarding Syria, also in light of the importance of the Strait of Hormuz for oil shipments to the West.

Everybody at the table understood what he was referring to: NATO had to prepare to intervene militarily in Syria if need be. Politically that would mean a radical change from its present course, which has been to exclude the possibility of alliance engagement in Syria. Rasmussen was supported by Turkey and Great Britain’s foreign ministers as well as U. S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

No wonder then that a few hours before the U.S. Senate voted nearly unanimously to explore “options” as to how the United States could prevent Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad from using his air force against his own people. The Defense Department is to make suggestions for ways to implement a no-fly zone over Syria. That Washington would prefer NATO's involvement – as was done during the Libya war – “is obvious,” according to a source.

Rasmussen launched into the political shift by asking two questions: What would NATO do if the Syrian army started using chemical weapons? And what if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz? At which point France’s Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius made the comment that one should avoid asking questions “that are not acute.”

The first question had already unleashed strong and contentious debate about Syria in which German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and colleagues from countries including the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland sided against Rasmussen.

Unlike the United States or Rasmussen, many European foreign ministers don’t buy into U.S. intelligence information that Syria may be preparing to use chemical weapons. European intelligence services, including the German one which has an excellent Middle East network, say they have no information to this effect.

On Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had warned after a meeting with NATO colleagues in Brussels to take all reports about such weapons in Syria with a grain of salt. Over the past few years, Russia had followed up on a number of rumors and reports and many had proven to be either completely wrong or only half-true.

However, jointly with Rasmussen, the foreign ministers did warn Syria on Tuesday against using weapons of mass destruction, saying that if the country was to do it, it would face consequences from the international community. A minister from a small country said, however, that the warning wasn’t referring to NATO but to the United Nations.

For his part, Westerwelle was brusque when asked if military engagement in Syria was in the cards if it crossed his “red line,” saying that political solutions were the answer.

If the dinner with the foreign ministers brought no common agreement on the issue, it did reveal at least two opposing camps: One, in league with the United States, Turkey, Britain, and the NATO Secretary General, is considering direct or indirect military intervention. France leans in that direction as well. The other camp, to which Germany belongs, refuses to consider military intervention -- one of the reasons being that they fear that in so doing they might be helping people to power in Damascus who are even more dangerous than the present regime and who would on taking power then also have access to the chemical weapons.

But there’s another reason for the vehement disagreement with Rasmussen on the part of Germany and the Netherlands: fear of opposition in their parliaments in the case they were to ask for approval to deploy Patriotsurface-to-air missiles positioned in Turkey if lawmakers sensed even a whiff of possibility that NATO was considering military engagement in Syria.

That would make the Patriots – of which there are two German batteries – part of a military offensive and not, as they have been presented so far, weapons to be used exclusively to defend Turkey. Right now, it is not known if the missiles will be used. In any case, the order to the alliance’s military leadership to work out an operations plan – even if it is just a back-up plan -- for Syria requires the agreement of all 28 member countries.

And at the dinner for the ministers, they were far from agreement.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!

At the Russia-Georgia border

Yelena Afonina/TASS via ZUMA
Anna Akage, Sophia Constantino, Bertrand Hauger, Chloe Touchard and Emma Albright

Russia’s neighbors — from Finland in the west to Mongolia 3,100 miles (5,076 km) to the east — are being flooded with the arrival of men fleeing the national draft announced last week as Moscow's invasion of Ukraine falters. Some 2,000 miles to the south of Helsinki, at the border with Georgia, there are reports of long lines of cars and bicycles trying to leave and Russian crackdowns on men trying to flee.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

In the first two days after Vladimir Putin announced the mobilization, 261,000 men of conscription age have left the country. Observers believe that has likely doubled since. The most popular destinations are the neighboring countries where one can enter without a visa or even without an international passport, such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Armenia.

But Finland too has reported a major uptick, with nearly 19,000 arriving, compared to 9,000 crossing in the opposite direction. "The arrival rate is about double what it was a week ago," Mert Sasioglu of the Finnish border guard told AFP.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Writing contest - My pandemic story
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ