There were gasps as the Russian President made his remarks after being asked how he would react if Barack Obama proceeds with an attack in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. ‘Will we help Syria? We will. And we are already helping, we send arms, we cooperate in the economics sphere,’ Mr Putin declared.

Amid signs any US-led action could be delayed for as long as a fortnight, with President Barack Obama battling to win the approval of Congress, Russia last night sent a fourth warship with ‘unspecified cargo’ to the eastern Mediterranean.

In an unprecedented act of defiance for any recent international summit, eleven countries, including the US and the UK, issued their own statement demanding a ‘strong international response to the grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience’ by Assad’s regime.

The countries, which also included Australia, Canada, France, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Turkey, said they would ‘support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons’.

President Obama insisted military action was right even if the public was largely against it, saying US intervention in the Second World War had also been opposed by a majority. As he left the summit, the US leader said: ‘I’m not drawing an analogy to World War II other than to say that when London was getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular, both in Congress and around the country to help the British. Doesn’t mean it wasn’t the right thing to do.’

Analysis Jon Donnison BBC News, Sydney: Labor's six years in power are emphatically over. Australia's economic growth during difficult global financial times should have played well for an incumbent government. But the economy has begun to slow and Kevin Rudd's Labor party has been undone by disunity and infighting. The rivalry between Mr Rudd and Julia Gillard which saw the leadership of the party and the country switch back and forth did not sit well with voters.

You sense from voters that Mr Abbott's victory is not so much a ringing endorsement as a rejection of Labor. He's a conservative who has promised a tough line on immigration and asylum-seekers. He opposes gay marriage and has been a sceptic on climate change. Kevin Rudd sold himself as the comeback kid. It didn't work. His party now faces a period of further introspection.

The five-day visit is being made in Princess Anne's capacity as a member of the International Olympic Committee. She will attend the opening ceremony of the 125th session of the International Olympic Committee at the Theatre Colon in Buenos Aires this evening.

Protest group Quebracho – which led riots against the British Embassy in Buenos Aires in April last year – has vowed to disrupt proceedings, claiming it will be able to enter the theatre. It called on supporters, including ex-combatants from the 1982 Falklands War and Spanish activists, to meet at the theatre ahead of the IOC opening ceremony.

Buckingham Palace would not say whether the Princess's security had been stepped up either as a result of the threat or as a precaution in anticipation of such protests.

According to the Labor Department, the economy added a disappointing 169,000 jobs in August. In addition, the government lowered its estimate of the number of jobs created in June and July by 74,000 positions. The grinding pace of recovery has hollowed out the workforce.

Government data showed that only 63.2 percent of working-age Americans have a job or are looking for one, the lowest proportion since 1978. Nearly 90 million people are now considered out of the labor force, up 1.7 million from August 2012.

“We just don’t see this consistent, strong job market that’s really going to entice people to go back into it,” said Michael Evangelist, policy analyst at the National Employment Law Project. “You don’t want people falling out of the labor force where they’re not able to contribute and not able to find work.”

From May 1 through August 31, the fund’s assets shriveled 14%, from $292 billion to $251 billion; $26 billion from outflows and $15 billion from the shrinking value of the bonds. The fund lost 5.5% during that period. By riding up the greatest bond bubble in the history of mankind, the fund has become known as a place where investors who don’t mind smaller returns but shudder at the thought of losing some of their principal could park their money without having to worry about it – but now, they’re worrying about it.

September is shaping up to be even worse.

Bonds are cratering and yields are spiking worldwide. In the US, the 10-year Treasury yield kissed the magic 3.0% late Thursday, at least briefly, for the first time since July 2011, up from a low of 2.75% at the beginning of the month. It will drag other bond yields, mortgage rates, and other consumer and corporate rates behind it.

Pimco’s fund wasn’t alone: in total, $39.5 billion were yanked out of bond mutual funds in August, $21.1 billion in July, and a record of $69.1 billion in June. Emerging market funds, international bond funds… they’ve all gotten hit. The Great Rotation out of bonds into stocks? Alas, that concept is vacillating between pipedream and deceptive hype, proffered by Wall Street for its own benefit. In reality, it doesn’t exist.

In this nightmare environment, can the US military make a meaningful difference? I’ve been wrestling about this for several days, and here is where I have come out. I cannot in good conscience support the Congressional resolution to authorize this particular President with the power to use US military force in Syria for 60 days, much less 90 days.

1.) The United States does not currently have a President who is trustworthy, principled, steady and wise — to the contrary, Mr Obama is weak, vacillating, dithering, and devoid of a clear, compelling and principled policy in the Middle East. He doesn’t inspire confidence, not with our allies, not with Congress, and most importantly, not with the American people. It is clear that he drew his “red line” without thinking it through. He doesn’t have a plan. He hasn’t built Congressional or international support. He is winging it. And that is incredibly dangerous.

2.) Nobody is with us — President Obama has been unable to build even the limited international coalition for action that President George W Bush built going into Iraq in 2003.

3.) The unintended consequences of becoming engaged in the war in Syria with an undependable President could be catastrophic, and this could draw our government, and thus us, in even deeper, with no exit strategy —

If a US military strike in Syria leads to the fall of Assad and to al Qaeda or other Radical Islamic groups coming to power?

What if Syria’s chemical and biological weapons fall into the hands of al Qaeda or other terrorists?

What if those terrorists use those weapons against the American people and/or our allies?

What if the Radical jihadist rebels start massacring the Christians of Syria?

What if Assad, in a desperate last gasp of vengeance, unleashes a chemical weapons attack against Israel?

These are just a handful of the nightmare scenarios.

Under a different President — one who was trusted and respected deeply by the American people, and our allies; one with foreign policy experience; one with solid principles and a steady hand – I could support this resolution because I would believe that the President would be ready to handle any unintended consequence. As it stands, I agree with most of the language in the resolution. But I do not have any confidence that President Obama is up to this enormous challenge. And since the downstream effects of what could be unleashed by a mishandling of this crisis are so horrible, I would not be able to vote in favor of the resolution if I were a member of the House or Senate.

It is a dangerous thing to have an American President that the nation does not trust to lead us into battle, or that we can depend upon in times of crisis. But that is where we are.

In a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is hosting the G20 summit, Francis said that lopsided global interests have blocked a diplomatic course in the Syrian conflict and have led to the “senseless massacre” of innocent people.

“To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution,” Francis wrote. The letter follows an announcement earlier this week that the Vatican will host a vigil for peace in Syria in St Peter’s Square on Saturday.

The Vatican outlined Thursday its position on Syria to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. “Confronted with similar acts one cannot remain silent, and the Holy See hopes that the competent institutions make clear what happened and that those responsible face justice,” the Vatican’s Foreign Minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, told the 71 ambassadors regarding the chemical weapons attack that took place outside Damascus on August 21. The US and its allies believe the attack was launched by the Syrian government.

Mr Obama arrived St Petersburg for a tense G20 summit amid signs that Russia's opposition to US airstrikes was gaining significant international support. Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, welcomed Mr Obama to his home town in an encounter that laid bare the increasingly difficult relationship between the two men. After exchanging a stiff handshake and stern looks, Mr Obama and Mr Putin offered fixed smiles for the cameras before entering the Konstantinovsky Palace.

In the summit room, diplomats said the two men were seated well apart from each other and did not speak to one another directly during opening talks about the world economy. The awkward initial encounter came after some other leaders arriving in St Petersburg pointedly sided with Russia in its opposition to US-led military action. Intervention would damage the global economy by pushing up oil prices, China said. Syria is not a significant oil exporter, but the prospect of conflict in the Middle East often pushes up oil prices.

"Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price - it will cause a hike in the oil price," said Zhu Guangyao, the Chinese Vice Finance Minister. Brazil, India and South Africa also worry that intervention would do economic harm, according to Mr Putin's officials. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for the Russian president, said the leaders of the large emerging economies spoke before the St Petersburg summit and agreed that Syrian intervention would have an "extremely negative effect" on the global economy."

While the British and French governments have both backed the principle of military intervention to punish the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons, the European Union as a whole is opposed, European officials said.

Herman van Rompuy, the EU president, arrived at the summit with a warning against military action.

Up until Thursday, the German government and the opposition had been unanimously proclaiming that the use of chemical weapons near Damascus must have "consequences" and emphasizing their approval of the British prime minster's belligerency. Now the German government is declaring that it is not considering "a military strike," while the opposition is professing that "a military intervention would be a mistake."

This about-face must be seen in the context of the strategic leeway in Europe, resulting from the new situation, which only concerns Syria at a secondary level. As the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) notes, the British parliament's decision has not only "damaged the special relationship with the United States," it also provides Germany new political advantages. Moreover, "the British-French security and defense policy alliance has been weakened," thereby strengthening Germany's position.

In spite of its about-face in foreign policy, bellicose positions are still remnant in Berlin. For example, the Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger, declared that the West should not "from the outset" exclude any option - including participation in a war.

In a statement Thursday, Grimm says the window for action has now passed and that the feedback from his constituents has made him re-think his previous position. “Thus, after much thought, deliberation and prayer, I am no longer convinced that a US strike on Syria will yield a benefit to the United States that will not be greatly outweighed by the extreme cost of war,” Grimm said.

Grimm added: “Now that the Assad regime has seen our playbook and has been given enough time to prepare and safeguard potential targets, I do not feel that we have enough to gain as a nation by moving forward with this attack on our own.”

The remarks stand in stark contrast to what Grimm said less than a week ago. The Staten Island Advance quoted Grimm as saying he was “supporting the president on this.” “We have to keep our word; this is about our credibility,” Grimm said. “We can’t permit a precedent where there is a use of chemical weapons and there is no response.”

Grimm is the 91st House member to express opposition to military action in Syria, along with 93 who have expressed scepticism. That means the ranks of those likely to vote against a use of force resolution is getting close to the 217 that will be required to defeat it.

Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, described as “very dubious” the decision overseen by his successor, Keir Starmer QC, not to charge two doctors who agreed to arrange abortions of baby girls purely because of their gender. Britain’s biggest abortion provider declared that the decision showed that terminating babies because of their gender is not necessarily a crime.

The Crown Prosecution Service has told two doctors, who were exposed by an undercover Daily Telegraph investigation last year, that they will not be charged even though there was enough evidence, because it did not consider the issue to be in the public interest. The CPS said the key reason for the decision was that the doctors would still be investigated by the General Medical Council.

But Lord Macdonald said this amounted to letting them “avoid criminal action” because of their professional status — undermining the basic principle that “everyone is equal under the law”.

Snowden now lives in Russia after a Hollywood-like nearly six-week-long stint in a Moscow airport waiting for a country to grant him asylum. Journalists and pundits have spent countless articles and news segments conveying the intrigue and intensity of the standoff that eventually resulted in Russia granting Snowden one year of asylum. Attention now has shifted to his father, Lon Snowden, and his announced visit of Edward in Russia.

Lost in the excitement of this “White Bronco Moment,” many have missed the elephant in the room: the “Great Game”-style geopolitical standoff between the US and Russia underlying it all, and which may have served as the impetus for Russia to grant Snowden asylum to begin with. What’s at stake? Natural gas.

Russia, of course, has its own surveillance state and has been described by The Guardian’s Luke Harding as a “Mafia State” due to the deep corruption that reportedly thrives under Putin’s watch. It all comes as the US competes with Russian gas production thanks in part to the controversial drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing - “fracking” - transforming the United States into what President Barack Obama has hailed as the “Saudi Arabia of gas.”

Russia produced 653 billion cubic meters of gas in 2012, while the US produced 651 billion cubic meters, making them the top two producers in the world.

From the FT: “China warned on Thursday that military intervention in Syria would hurt the world economy and push up oil prices, reinforcing Vladimir Putin’s attempts to talk US President Barack Obama out of air strikes. “Military action would have a negative impact on the global economy, especially on the oil price – it will cause a hike in the oil price,” Chinese vice-finance minister Zhu Guangyao told a briefing before the start of the G20 leaders’ talks.”

This follows Obama’s humiliating backtracking on his “redline” statement from yesterday at Stockholm, which hardly won the punting president much allies in the “world”: Mr Obama said that he had not set a “red line” over the use of chemical weapons in Syria, saying “the world set a red line”, a reference to a global treaty banning their use… “We as a country and the world are going to have to take tough choices,” he said. Russia and China have made it clear they will veto action on Syria in the Security Council.

Perhaps Russia and China, two of the most important nations in the world, are not part of it according to the US president?

Tensions surrounding the Syrian crisis boiled over at a G20 summit in St Petersburg. Mr Cameron has backed calls for military intervention in Syria after the Assad regime allegedly used chemical weapons. Mr Putin has opposed intervention and questioned Western claims about the attack. Britain has faced questions about its role and influence in the world since Mr Cameron was embarrassed by last week’s Commons vote to rule out a military strike against Syria.

Dmitry Peskov, Mr Putin’s official spokesman, is said to have highlighted that embarrassment, telling Russian journalists that Britain was now diplomatically irrelevant. Britain is “just a small island … no one pays any attention to them”, Mr Peskov is reported to have said. The blunt remarks appeared to realise British fears that the Russians would use the St Petersburg summit to upstage Mr Cameron over his criticism of Syria, Russia’s closest Middle Eastern ally.