The UK’s former ambassador to Syria warned that the agreement appears to be an attempt by Syria’s ally Russia to divide the rebels fighting the Assad regime.
Peter Ford, who served in Damascus from 2003 to 2006, gave a gloomy assessment of the deal in an interview on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.
He started by likening it to Neville Chamberlain’s agreement with Hitler before the Second World War. Ford said: “Well Munich. Is it ‘peace in our time’? Definitely not. Is it divide and rule? Quite possibly.”
Ford added:
The key here is al-Nusra. This is an very important armed group, affiliated to al-Qaida and it is legitimate to continue bombing it. Al-Nusra, however, works closely with a number of the so-called moderate groups. This agreement is going to set the cat among the pigeons among all the rebels, especially those who work hand in glove with al-Nusra. They are going to get hit if they continue to work alongside al-Nusra in the designated areas. So Russia is being quite clever. Their game is to try to split the so-called moderates away from al-Nusra, so that the Syrian army, which suffers from depleted manpower, can tackle al-Nusra.
We wait to see whether the opposition is ready to step up to the plate and deliver ceasefires in their areas. Clearly Russia can force Assad to comply. That is not a problem, the onus is now on the opposition to show that they can deliver ceasefires.
Asked if they could he said: “No, I don’t think they will. It’s back to the drawing board.”
Ford added: “What we are seeing is not a political transition towards some endgame in which Assad steps down, what we are seeing actually is a transition in which the American position is changing. You can sense this in the words not used by [US Secretary of State] Kerry. He has more or less stopped demanding that Assad step down.”
Ford also criticised the British government’s response to the agreement, claiming it was focussed on a domestic agenda. “The British are one step behind. But of course the British have a Trident-related agenda of their own to demonise Russia. I think [Foreign Secretary] Philip Hammond made a typically sour comment [he] could only say negative things about Russia. But this has to be be seen against the background of the British government’s need to ramp up fear and loathing of Russia, because they have renewal of Trident coming up.”
Diplomat Peter Ford interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme
Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined the urgency of the need for humanitarian access to besieged areas - part of the agreement, writes Kareem Shaheen.
He described the situation in Aleppo as “grotesque” amid the ongoing fighting that has sent tens of thousands of refugees to the Turkish border.He said the government offensive and Russian airstrikes have displaced 51,000 civilians and put another 300,000 at risk of being placed under siege.“I condemn these horrendous acts unequivocally,” he said in a statement last night. “The warring parties in Syria are constantly sinking to new depths, without apparently caring in the slightest about the death and destruction they are wreaking across the country. Women and children, the elderly, the wounded and sick, the people with disabilities are being used as bargaining chips and cannon fodder day after day, week after week, month after month. It is a grotesque situation.”Talks on the crucial details about humanitarian access are due to start in Geneva later today.
Syrians, who fled bombing in Aleppo, wait in a queue to get food at a tent city and close to the Bab al-Salam border crossing on Turkish-Syrian border near Azaz. Photograph: Anadolu Agency/Getty Images
Last night a top Saudi military official repeated the kingdom’s readiness to send special forces troops to fight Isis inside Syria, despite opposition by Russia, Iran and the Assad regime.
Staff Brig Gen Ahmed Asiri, Prince Mohammad bin Salman’s military adviser, said Saudi Arabia would “participate with ground forces once there is an agreement by the leadership of the [US-led] coalition.”“These will most likely be small numbers of special forces to push forward the work on the ground and achieve positive results for the coalition,” he said after a meeting of coalition representatives in Brussels.The pledge would likely be unaffected by an agreement for a nationwide ceasefire that does not include military operations against Isis.Allies of the Syrian regime have condemned the prospect of Saudi ground troops in Syria, with the Syrian foreign minister saying any invading forces would return home in coffins.Jan Eliasson, the deputy UN Secretary-General, said at a press briefing earlier this week in Dubai that the prospect of ground forces and intensified airstrikes (which were conducted by Russia in the run-up to the Munich meeting) were dangerous escalations in the conflict.
A major question regarding the viability of a ceasefire agreement is the status of Jabhat al-Nusra, which is excluded from the agreement, writes Kareem Shaheen.
The group is the al-Qaida affiliate in Syria and its leaders have repeatedly pledged allegiance to Ayman al-Zawahiri, but the Nusra has also allied itself locally with various conservative rebel groups. It is part of the Jaysh al-Fateh alliance that conquered large swathes of Idlib province in the north in the spring of last year, and remains one of the most powerful groups in Syria fighting the Assad regime. Nusra operates across Syria, including in Aleppo and Latakia provinces, Idlib, Hama and the south not far from the Jordanian and Israeli borders. While the group has claimed that it is not planning attacks in the West from Syria, a wing of the group, known as Khorasan, is believed by some observers to be doing just that, though members of its top echelon have been killed in American airstrikes.It is an open question whether attacks against the group will inevitably hit other rebel groups fighting alongside Nusra against the regime and what impact such attacks will have on any nationwide ceasefire agreement.
Dmitry Medvedev Photograph: Yekaterina Shtukina/TASS
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev says the use of ground troops in the Syrian conflict could result in world war.
In an interview given before the cessation of hostilities agreement, Medvedev told the German newspaper Handelsblatt that “a ground operation draws everyone taking part in it into a war.”
When asked about a recent proposal from Saudi Arabia to send in ground troops to Syria, the prime minister answered that “the Americans and our Arab partners must consider whether or not they want a permanent war.”
Medvedev criticized Western powers’ refusal to collaborate with Russia in Syria. The prime minister said ties at the level of defense departments are only sporadic.
A “cessation of hostilities” is to come into force in Syria within a week, US secretary of state John Kerry has said.
In an agreement brokered between the US, Russia and other powers overnight in Munich, a UN task force will meet within days “to develop the modalities for a long-term, comprehensive and durable cessation of violence”.
The cessation deal explicitly excludes Islamic State and al-Nusra front, against whom military action will continue.
Russia has not committed to end its airstrikes in Syria, but repeated its insistence that it was targeting terrorist groups – as the agreement permits. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said:
Our airspace forces will continue working against these organisations.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and US secretary of state John Kerry announce the agreement. Photograph: Alexandra Beier/Getty Images
Urgently needed humanitarian aid is to be delivered to besieged areas across Syria in the next few days, with a working group to monitor progress meeting later on Friday in Geneva.
The deal agreed by the 17-member International Syria Support Group called for “full, sustained, and unimpeded access” to people in the regions most affected by the conflict.
Kerry warned that the agreement, although positive, was currently on paper only:
What we need to see in the next few days are actions on the ground, in the field.
Without a political transition, it is not possible to achieve peace.
The UK foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said the agreement would succeed only if Russia ceased bombing moderate opposition groups:
Russia, in particular, claims to be attacking terrorist groups and yet consistently bombs non-extremist groups including civilians.
If this agreement is to work, this bombing will have to stop: no cessation of hostilities will last if moderate opposition groups continue to be targeted.
Read the full text of the communiqué here.
And read the latest round-up from the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, here.
I’m now handing over this live blog to my colleague Matthew Weaver in London for further updates as the working group meets in Geneva to discuss urgent humanitarian access to Syria.
Thanks for reading.
Associated Press has this analysis of the work that lies ahead for the twin task forces – one focusing on humanitarian access, the other on the detail of the cessation of hostilities – over the coming week:
While humanitarian access to be discussed by a working group on Friday in Geneva is key to relieving the suffering of millions of Syrians in the short term, a durable and lasting ceasefire will be required if stalled negotiations between Assad’s government and the opposition are to resume on or before a UN-set target date of 25 February.
The talks broke down last month before they really started, due largely to gains by Assad’s military with the heavy backing of Russian airstrikes.
Kerry and Lavrov said the US and Russia would co-chair both the working group on humanitarian aid and a task force that will try to deal with the “modalities” of the temporary truce.
That task force will include members of the military along with representatives from countries that are supporting various armed groups in Syria. The Syrian government and the opposition would both have to agree to the details.
Despite apparent concessions on potential timing of the truce and the agreement to set up the task force, the US, Russia and others remain far apart on which groups should be eligible for it. At the moment, only two groups – Islamic State and the al-Qaida-affiliated al-Nusra Front – are ineligible because they are identified as terrorist organisations by the United Nations.
Russia, Syria and Iran argue that other groups – notably some supported by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states – should not be eligible for the ceasefire, and there was no sign on Friday that those differences had been resolved.
Another key element of the text agreed in Munich – albeit the third point behind humanitarian access and the cessation of hostilities – deals with “political transition”.
Here’s what that section says in full (the bold highlighting is mine):
Advancing a political transition
The members of the ISSG [International Syria Support Group, the 17 members meeting in Munich] reaffirmed the imperative of all sides engaging in negotiations under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, in strict compliance with United Nations Security Council 2254.
They reaffirmed that it is for the Syrian people to decide the future of Syria.
The members of the ISSG pledge to do all they can to facilitate rapid progress in these negotiations, including the reaching of agreement within six months on a political transition plan that establishes credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance and sets a schedule and process for drafting a new constitution, free and fair elections, pursuant to the new constitution, to be held within 18 months and administered under supervision of the United Nations, to the satisfaction of the governance and to the highest international standards of transparency and accountability, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate.
Full implementation of these objectives will require the ISSG co-chairs and members, the UN and others, to work closely on political, humanitarian, and military dimensions.
Talks will begin in Geneva within hours aimed at securing access to Syria’s most besieged regions – and people – to deliver humanitarian relief.
How successful, and speedy, these negotiations will be remains to be seen.
Syrians wait to leave the besieged town of Madaya, north-west of Damascus. Photograph: Uncredited/AP
Earlier this week, the Guardian’s Emma Graham-Harrisonand Kareem Shaheenreported on the desperate situation facing residents of Madaya:
The besieged Syrian town of Madaya is facing starvation again because meagre supplies delivered last month are already running out, residents have said, as the United Nations was accused of severely underestimating the number of people suffering under blockades around the country.
More than a million Syrian civilians are living in besieged towns and villages, according to the aid organisation Siege Watch, more than double the number listed in UN data.
That number could rise sharply if the government troops advancing on Aleppo cut off the city’s last supply line, with the UN warning on Tuesday that up to 300,000 civilians could be stranded in the city that was once Syria’s biggest urban centre.
A cessation of hostilities is to come into force in Syria within a week, US secretary of state John Kerry has said.
In an agreement brokered between the US, Russia and other powers in Munich, a UN task force will work over the coming days “to develop the modalities for a long-term, comprehensive and durable cessation of violence”.
Humanitarian aid is to be delivered to besieged areas across Syria in the next few days, with a working group to monitor progress meeting on Friday in Geneva.
The deal agreed by the 17-member International Syria Support Group called for “ full, sustained, and unimpeded access” to people in the regions most affected by the conflict.
The cessation deal explicitly excludes Islamic State and al-Nusra front, against whom military action will continue.
Russia has not committed to end airstrikes, but repeated its insistence that it was targeting terrorist groups – as the agreement permits. Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, in a late-night press conference to announce the breakthrough, said:
Our airspace forces will continue working against these organisations.
John Kerry listens to a translation as Sergei Lavrov addresses reporters. Photograph: Sven Hoppe/EPA
Kerry warned that the deal, although positive, was currently on paper only:
What we need to see in the next few days are actions on the ground, in the field.
Without a political transition, it is not possible to achieve peace.
The UK foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, said the agreement would succeed only if Russia ceased bombing moderate opposition groups:
Russia, in particular, claims to be attacking terrorist groups and yet consistently bombs non-extremist groups including civilians.
If this agreement is to work, this bombing will have to stop: no cessation of hostilities will last if moderate opposition groups continue to be targeted.
The Washington Post has this pithy summary of what the cessation might look like on the ground in Syrian conflict zones:
Although isolated, small-scale fighting is likely to continue, the deal would ideally stop the use of heavy weapons, including tanks and antitank missiles.
The United States and its partners would continue their current level of equipping and training the opposition so as not to leave the rebels at a disadvantage if the cessation of hostilities collapses.
Russia presumably would continue its support for the Syrian government.
Any cessation of hostilities will have to take into account not only the questions of Russian airstrikes, but the complex web of alliances and enmities within Syria.
This Guardian interactive from December illustrates the divisions – political and territorial – that will need resolution:
In the US, the two Democratic candidates for president are taking part in another televised debate, and the questioning has turned to Syria and – in particular – the role of Russia.
Bernie Sanders
Sanders congratulated Kerry and Obama on the deal.
It is a complicated relationship [with Russia].
[The Syrian situation] is unspeakable, it is a real horror … you do have a humanitarian tragedy there.
Right now we have got to do our best to develop a relationship with Russia.
But Sanders has strong criticism of Russia for its aggression in Crimea and elsewhere.
Hillary Clinton
I really do appreciate the efforts Secretary Kerry has made.
She says the need to implement the agreement on humanitarian access is urgent:
[There are] enclaves literally filled with starving people.
The ceasefire has to be implemented more quickly …
The Russians wanted to buy time … to further decimate what’s left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual ceasefire.
She says Kerry is working to move a ceasefire forward “as quickly as possible”, but warned:
I fear the Russians will continue their bombing … The Russians have not gone after Isis or any of the other terrorist groups .
There is further live coverage of the debate here:
Bob Bowker, a former Australian ambassador to Syria, Jordan and Egypt, said agreement appeared to spare groups such as Ahrar al-Sham, an opposition group he said was “essentially cloned from al-Qaida”:
The reality is that no one in their right minds would wish to see al-Qaida-linked or originated elements succeed in Syria. To the extent that the Russians degrade the capabilities of those elements, that’s in everyone’s long-term benefit.
Bowker said any deal “that enables the establishment of local ceasefires and freer access for humanitarian relief purposes has to be welcomed”:
It’s also important that the Russians and Americans are able to identify the need for a negotiating process to continue, even though the military actions that are being undertaken by the Russians will not be wound back as far as the Americans would prefer.
It’s certainly a positive to have a signal to the contending parties that the Russians and Americans are seeking to limit the intensity of the conflict.
But he said much larger questions were still to be answered:
The obvious question is what exactly will be the status of president Assad, in the aftermath of a cessation of hostilities; what political process would follow from that, and who would be in a position to monitor and guarantee the outcomes of that political process?
I don’t think that those issues have been resolved by the Russians and the Americans at this juncture.
The deal announced in Munich aims to see a cessation of hostilities “within a week”.
How will that pan out? Here is a (very tentative) timetable, beginning with a working group to discuss humanitarian access meeting in Geneva on Friday.
Halting violence
US secretary of state John Kerry said a UN task force, co-chaired by Russia and the US, would work over the coming week “to develop the modalities for a long-term, comprehensive and durable cessation of violence”.
Humanitarian response
Another task force will oversee the delivery of aid, including pressure on Syria to open routes, since only around a dozen of 116 previous UN access requests have been granted.
“Sustained delivery will begin this week, first to the areas where it is most urgently needed … and then to all the people in need throughout the country, particularly in the besieged and hard to reach areas,” said Kerry.
“This working group will meet tomorrow in Geneva,” said Kerry. “It will report weekly on progress, or lack thereof, to ensure consistent and timely and approved access moving forward.”
Future talks
Kerry said talks between rebels and the regime would resume as soon as possible.
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia would not stop airstrikes within Syria, saying the cessation of hostilities did not apply to its attacks on Islamic State and al Nusrah:
Our airspace forces will continue working against these organisations.
Reuters cites a senior – but unnamed – French diplomat saying:
The Russians said they will continue bombing the terrorists. They are taking a political risk because they are accepting a negotiation in which they are committing to a cessation of hostilities.
If in a week there is no change because of their bombing, then they will bear the responsibility.
Expect to see further choking of rebel supply routes into Aleppo by Russian and Syrian forces in the week before this agreement comes into effect, says Rodger Shanahan, a Middle East specialist at the Australian National University.
Assad’s forces will be looking to “continue to restrict the freedom of action for the opposition forces, in terms of accessing resupplies from Turkey, focused on Aleppo”, he says.
The agreement announced on Friday, a cessation of hostilities, includes greater humanitarian access, but does not require parties to allow supplies through their lines.
So Syrian and Russian forces will still be able to “squeeze” rebel-held parts of the Aleppo district, and the city itself.
The apparent breakthrough came just hours after a report by the Syrian Centre for Policy Research said a staggering 11.5% of Syria’s population had been killed or injured since the conflict erupted in March 2011.
The report said 470,000 had died – the majority (around 400,000) as a direct result of violence. A further 70,000 deaths were attributed to a lack of health services, medicine, food, clean water, sanitation and housing.
The mortality rate in Syria in 2010 was 4.4 per thousand.
In 2015, it was 10.9 per thousand.
The difference between a ceasefire and a cessation of hostilities is subtle but meaningful.
A cessation of hostilities, which is what has been announced for Syria, is a temporary halt in violence, freezing positions on the battlefield. It can be the first step in a peace process but is non-binding.
A ceasefire is usually declared as part of a larger peace process or negotiated settlement, and can involve the deployment of UN observers, the possible establishment of demilitarised zones, and usually a ban on building up military forces along front lines.
It is a step higher in the process towards peace, and can be followed by a pre-negotiation agreement – something that still looks far off for Syria.
The Guardian’s Middle East editor, Ian Black, sets out some of the hurdles between the deal and its implementation:
Western diplomats confirmed that there had been no agreement by Moscow to immediately end airstrikes – a key demand of the Syrian opposition, who are likely to be highly sceptical about the results of the talks.
John Kerry acknowledged that the Munich meeting produced commitments on paper only. He and Sergei Lavrov agreed that the “real test” will be whether all parties to the Syrian conflict honour those commitments.
“The key question is whether the [Assad] regime will deliver land access to besieged areas,” said one diplomat. “That remains in the regime’s, not Russian, hands.”
Rodger Shanahan, from the Australian National University, notes the cessation of hostilities does not apply to Jabhat al-Nusra, which has formed coalitions with other militia – Islamist and secular – involved in the Syrian conflict.
Those groups, particularly if they haven’t formally disengaged with the al-Qaida affiliate, will likely be “fair game”, he says:
Jabhat al-Nusra is a bit more dispersed than Islamic State. You could still be legitimately targeting Jabhat al-Nusra and other groups could be killed as a result.
The UK foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, has welcomed the agreement, calling it an “important step” to ending Syria’s civil war, but warned it would succeed only if Russia ceased bombing moderate opposition groups:
If implemented fully and properly by every ISSG member, this will be an important step towards relieving the killing and suffering in Syria.
But it will only succeed if there is a major change of behaviour by the Syrian regime and its supporters.
Russia, in particular, claims to be attacking terrorist groups and yet consistently bombs non-extremist groups including civilians.
If this agreement is to work, this bombing will have to stop: no cessation of hostilities will last if moderate opposition groups continue to be targeted.
Hammond has been increasingly critical of Russian interference, earlier this month accusing Vladimir Putin of undermining international efforts in Syria by bombing opponents of Isis to bolster Assad:
Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov told the press conference in Munich that his country’s air force would continue its airstrikes against Isis and al-Nusra targets in Syria – as the agreement permits.
Russia had earlier proposed a 1 March ceasefire date, but the US said it wanted an immediate halt to fighting.
Ahead of Thursday night’s announcement, the US had accused Russia of exacerbating the conflict with military strikes in support of Assad.
State department deputy spokesman Mark Toner told reporters:
It has been Russian support for the Assad regime over the past months, and most recently in the siege on Aleppo, that has exacerbated, intensified the conflict.
'Cessation of hostilities': what the agreement says
What precisely is meant by a “cessation of hostilities” and the extent of its effect will be the crux of the apparent deal.
The full text of the agreement sets it out as follows (I have highlighted some key elements):
The ISSG members agreed that a nationwide cessation of hostilities must be urgently implemented, and should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities against any other parties other than Daesh [Isis], Jabhat al-Nusra, or other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations security council.
The ISSG members commit to exercise influence for an immediate and significant reduction in violence leading to the nationwide cessation of hostilities.
The ISSG members decided to take immediate steps to secure the full support of all parties to the conflict for a cessation of hostilities, and in furtherance of that have established an ISSG ceasefire task force, under the auspices of the UN, co-chaired by Russia and the United States, and including political and military officials, with the participation of ISSG members with influence on the armed opposition groups or forces fighting in support of the Syrian government. The UN shall serve as the secretariat of the ceasefire task force.
The cessation of hostilities will commence in one week, after confirmation by the Syrian government and opposition, following appropriate consultations in Syria. During that week, the ISSG task force will develop modalities for the cessation of hostilities.
The ISSG task force will, among other responsibilities continue to: a) delineate the territory held by Daesh, ANF [Al Nusrah Front] and other groups designated as terrorist organisations by the United Nations security council; b) ensure effective communications among all parties to promote compliance and rapidly de-escalate tensions; c) resolve allegations of non-compliance; and d) refer persistent non-compliant behaviour by any of the parties to ISSG ministers, or those designated by the ministers, to determine appropriate action, including the exclusion of such parties from the arrangements for the cessation of hostilities and the protection it affords them.
Although a cessation of hostilities can facilitate humanitarian access, it cannot be a precondition for such access anywhere in Syria.
The ISSG decided that all members will undertake their best efforts, in good faith, to sustain the cessation of hostilities and delivery of humanitarian assistance, and take measures to stop any activities prohibited by United Nations Security Council Resolutions 2170, 2178, 2199, 2249, 2253, and 2254. The ISSG again expressed concern for the plight of refugees and internally displaced persons and the imperative of building conditions for their safe return in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law and taking into account the interests of host countries.
![""Syrians,"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6bb37d35f0c1547a1820b57261e3aa66491e69ef/226_410_2921_1752/master/2921.jpg?w=300&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=1184b0c65f7db63e70dca3deca7f9dae"")
![""Syrians,"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/6bb37d35f0c1547a1820b57261e3aa66491e69ef/226_410_2921_1752/master/2921.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=56b4f34b5cc81bd98676a4d812e71624")
![""Matthew"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/contributor/2007/09/28/matthew_weaver_140x140.jpg?w=140&h=140&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=cf9f93c81f6ef978238530806d05c851"")
![""Dmitry"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/55cf8d543926cd8db42a7dc17ef32699ace3b2c7/1690_42_1707_2561/master/1707.jpg?w=300&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=cabb3e56a897bbeab389cfb593a62435"")
![""Claire"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/contributor/2015/4/16/1429179665699/Claire-Phipps.jpg?w=140&h=140&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=e5d44bc8829ff4a8e53ea49a12cf148f"")
![""Russian"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/ddc51be81093acdf390d5bac6c89dc8302c946b8/0_0_4716_2830/master/4716.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=4b47c9bbbd51d9700a1dff3361c43a08")
![""Syrians"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a29a2506409f8ba9d05b7b6ed54fee59d0ef3056/0_270_5760_3458/master/5760.jpg?w=300&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=e263883ef6031bf9f637e51d897b42f6"")
![""Syrians"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a29a2506409f8ba9d05b7b6ed54fee59d0ef3056/0_270_5760_3458/master/5760.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=cc6e8a862c9148bac17011282c1408c7")
![""John"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/198dcad366de0416945ce65fdf7e4f337197b7f9/0_0_4096_2459/master/4096.jpg?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=a146d6d649bfa2677070b4f5c183c6cf")
![""Hillary"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/c469c3c441009b2ac832beaec707e085ed0662bf/257_0_1113_1669/master/1113.jpg?w=300&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=65169c55dc3e823da27841d718c497d3"")
![""Michael"](""https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/contributor/2015/4/8/1428486461321/Michael-Safi.jpg?w=140&h=140&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=1730a2e6d7f9a331f56bbf1ee697b92e"")
— StateDept Live (@StateDeptLive) February 12, 2016
.@JohnKerry: We approach this w/ a uniform belief that the killing & starvation of innocent people needs to end as soon as possible. #Syria![""]("//beacon.guim.co.uk/count/pva.gif")
![""""](""//beacon.guim.co.uk/count/pv.gif"")
No comments:
Post a Comment