The past week in Russian foreign policy was marked by a search for ways to resolve the Syrian crisis. Complicating matters, of course, was the tragic crash of the Russian passenger jet in Egypt. Whether there is any connection between these two events is still uncertain. World leaders have been cautious when it comes to talking about a possibility of a terrorist attack and apparently are ready to cooperate with the Russian side in finding out the answer. In addition, Russian foreign policy was looked at through the lens of another important event this past week – the World Congress of Russian Compatriots, which took place in Moscow on Nov. 5 and 6.
Two lists required for Syrian cease-fire
Gradually, political dialogue is starting to take shape in Syria. Realizing Russia’s readiness to continue its fight against extremism, in the name of finding a political solution to the crisis, a number of opposition leaders have declared their readiness to sit down with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad at the negotiating table.
According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, to start a political dialogue, all parties first need to agree upon two lists – the “list of terrorist organizations that a cease-fire would not apply to, a cease-fire that we are all hoping to declare at some point” and the “list of opposition delegations, which would negotiate with the government.” Theoretically, both these lists should have been prepared within a two-week period (before the next meeting in Vienna), but the parties could not meet this deadline.
It appears that there should be no problems when it comes to creating the first list. Moscow has repeatedly made it clear that it was inviting all “sensible” forces inside Syria to the negations. For example, the Kremlin has already prepared a list of 38 opposition leaders, who could be brought into the negotiating process.
As for the second list, getting it approved by all parties seems a daunting task, since this requires reaching a consensus among several hundred of the provisionally called moderate opposition groups. All these groups have different goals, and different sponsors, but nevertheless, equally big ambitions.
Given the fact that Saudi Arabia desires to block the Vienna process, Riyadh may put pressure on the group under its control, in order to slow down the approval procedure of the list of representatives. Moscow may counter the actions of Riyadh only through its continued bombing campaign, hoping that among the Saudi clients in the Syrian opposition, the question of physical survival will soon become more important than the question of receiving continued Saudi funding.
Political implications of the Russian plane crash
The final report of the investigation committee working on the Russian passenger plane disaster in the Sinai is still very far away, even though some countries have openly started announcing their own versions of what caused this catastrophe. Given the lack of information and evidence, all these competing versions can be viewed as simply being politically motivated.
Continue reading at Russia Direct
Americans will not find it difficult to give up the feeling of chosenness and superiority in case the situation pushes them. The space for missionary-style democratization initiatives will sharply narrow in a post-ideological world guided by pragmatism. Mankind will stop perceiving democracy as a uniquely American feature.
Events that have principle importance to world development are rare in the course of history. The Crimean Spring is undoubtedly one of these. It has triggered a sequence of processes, whose outcome is yet to manifest itself. However, they are already changing the international landscape of the 21st century.
It seems to me that George Friedman’s geopolitical doctrine simplifies both the international reality and the liberal ideas of the American mainstream. Acceptance of the reality of the existing balance of powers, aspiration for preserving stability and guidance by the international law – these are the key ingredients in the realist policies recipe that the US still fail to manage.
The EU has not yet realized the amount of yearly grants that Ukraine’s stabilization will require if the latter turns its back on the Russian support – and the Union is not ready to provide them. There is every reason to have doubts about Kiev’s actions over the long term. The internal antagonism in Ukraine between the East and the West of the country is growing further. The US has yet to act as a stabilizing force. Russia is taking measures to ensure its risks and to avoid damage to its assets. An impetus to strike a deal may only occur when the EU feels the damage to its energy security.
The Foreign Policy Analysis Group is a strategic intelligence and research organization based in Moscow, Russia. We analize and advise on foreign policy and international affairs since 2014 with an aim to produce the most accurate analysis of current affairs in international relations from non-Western perspective.
To top