"IF TOMORROW THERE IS A WAR"

The conflict in and around Syria seems to be entering a decisive phase. The information disseminated by the world media on the use of chemical weapons by government troops against the opposition forces near Damascus has still not been officially confirmed by UN experts, but has resulted in open preparations by the United States and its allies for a military operation in Syria.

The report that the regime of Bashar Assad used chemical weapons in Huta, a suburb of Damascus, on 21 August was accompanied with dozens of photos and videos demonstrating the victims (the exact number is unknown, although originally more than a thousand, including children, were reported dead). The information about the use of chemical weapons in Syria can be confirmed only by the group of UN experts who arrived in Damascus on the eve of the chemical attack.

By the way, this coincidence - the alleged use of chemical weapons by Damascus the day after the arrival of UN experts in the country - caused a suspicion about the provocative nature of the events taking place now. For their task was to find out whether the parties to the Syrian conflict used chemical weapons during previous fighting. The experts find it difficult to explain why the Syrian government, which recently gained one victory after another on almost all fronts of the fight against the opposition, decided to use chemical weapons and almost in front of the UN experts.

Damascus, in fact, has denied any involvement in the chemical attack, stating that behind these crimes are opposition fighters, while the US and Europe interpret the events in a positive vein for themselves as they are "looking for a pretext for aggression". Moreover, the Syrian leadership claims that the chemical attacks on the country directly involve the US secret services and their closest ally in the Arab world - Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, the West accuses Assad's regime of not allowing the UN inspectors to visit the site of the tragedy for five days. The Syrian Foreign Ministry said in turn that the UN inspectors were given evidence that the Syrian authorities did not use poisonous gases. In addition, Damascus asked the UN to immediately send experts to investigate three new cases of the use of chemical weapons by the rebels in the suburbs of Damascus.

However, the Americans refer to their own intelligence, which they say proves the use of chemical weapons by the government of Syria. However, the White House does not reveal what evidence it has against Assad's regime. The special representative of the UN secretary general for Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, also drew the attention to this: "The Americans, the British and others said that they know that chemical weapons were used... We were told that they would share the evidence they have with us, but they have not shared it."

Meanwhile, Pentagon chief Chuck Hagel said that the US military is waiting for the appropriate order of US President Barack Obama. There are specific facts of war preparations - two aircraft carrier groups of the US Navy have been sent to the Mediterranean Sea. It is assumed that the main targets of the military operation will be units of the Syrian army, which could potentially use chemical weapons, and headquarters, communications centres and missile launchers, from which missiles with conventional warheads or chemical weapons can be launched.

However, the United States initially hoped that their European allies would back the plan of military strikes on Syria. However, the expectations of Washington diminished significantly after the unexpected decision of the UK Parliament. While UK Prime Minister David Cameron calls for military intervention in the Syrian conflict "to prevent the threat of the use of chemical weapons by different regimes in the future", the British lawmakers refused to support a military operation against the Syrian regime.

In addition, at least 12 NATO countries refused to participate in an operation against Syria without a UN Security Council resolution. They justify their position by the fact that the consequences of possible military intervention in Syria are "totally unpredictable" and the victory of the opposition in its present form "is unlikely to bring a lasting peace to Syrian soil".

The refusal of some NATO countries to support a military operation against Syria means that the alliance is very unlikely to be directly involved in combat operations if the West begins a military campaign. So the US is willing to solve the problem unilaterally.

United States President Barack Obama announced his decision to carry out a military strike on Syria. However, he made it clear that attacks on Syria would have a pointed nature and no American soldier would set foot in this country. He did not disclose the time when the military operation against Syria was expected to start. However he thought it advisable to enlist the support of "representatives of the American people" in Congress in this matter and addressed the country's supreme legislative body. Thus, in any case, the US will not attack Syria before 9 September, the day when Capitol Hill will gather to discuss the military decision adopted by the White House.

It is also clear that the United States is ready to launch a military operation against Syria without the approval of the UN Security Council. Apparently, France is unlikely to remain sidelined from the anti-Syrian campaign. Israel is also extremely active in this area. Israeli President Shimon Peres called for collective international action to "impound" all of Syria's chemical weapons so that they cannot be used by any of the parties to the conflict. Turkey shares a similar position, expressing willingness to join any coalition against Bashar Assad. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu stressed: "Turkey always prefers to act through the UN Security Council. But if there is no consensus there, this does not mean that we can sit idly while a catastrophe is unfolding near us."

In general, it should be noted that Turkey is perhaps the only country calling for full intervention in Syria. Turkish Prime Recep Tayyip Erdogan therefore complains about the intention of the United States to limit itself to a "half-hearted" military operation that does not provide for the dispatch of occupying troops into Syria. Perhaps, Ankara, which has openly supported the opposition since the very beginning of the Syrian conflict, is not convinced that American missile strikes will lead to the rapid fall of the Assad regime.

Meanwhile, Russia and China continue to insist that the UN Security Council adopts resolutions providing for the use of force against Damascus. According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the circles calling for military intervention against Syria bypassing the UN are frankly trying to undermine joint Russian-American efforts in recent months for a peaceful settlement of the crisis. Lavrov believes that hysteria in connection with the gas attack in Huta can prevent the convening of the Geneva Conference on Syria, and "perhaps this is precisely one of the objectives pursued by the authors of this news".

Russian President Vladimir Putin also made an unequivocal statement about Washington's planned attack on Syria. Saying that US allegations about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime are unfounded, he urged Barack Obama as the holder of the Nobel Peace Prize "to think twice whether bomb attacks will be productive", especially given the fact that the military operations of the US and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya did not bring "calm and democracy" to the people of these countries. "We urge you to think twice before taking action that is contrary to international law," Putin said.

So, the situation in and around Syria is nearing its climax. The results of the investigation by the UN experts, who are trying to ascertain the accuracy of the information about the use of chemical weapons in Huta, will have some influence on the course of the events. But the final solution of the Syrian problem will largely depend on what ultimately will prevail in the approaches of the leading global forces.