The Kremlin’s attitude has not changed despite the fact that the Syrian administration is crumbling. The Kremlin’s current approach to the developments in Syria is guided by its perspective on the Syrian crisis and its approach to the West’s reaction to those developments. Consequently, the Kremlin continues to serve as a shield for Syria against the West.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s recent visit to Damascus implies Russia will continue to prevent the UN Security Council from passing resolutions against Syria. In this way, it will seek to block any international intervention in Syria. Indeed, Lavrov said Western countries are making improper and hysterical comments about the consequences of a recent UNSC vote on a resolution targeting Syria.
The Kremlin is actively supporting the Arab League’s initiative that suggests that violence should be stopped irrespective of the source. Lavrov argued that a draft resolution should include not merely slogans but concrete measures that would make them possible. The Kremlin proposed inserting into that draft resolution a call on the Syrian opposition to distinguish themselves from armed radicals as well as a call on armed groups to withdraw from the cities in response to the Syrian’s administration’s moving army troops out of the cities. Lavrov said both proposals were completely rejected.
The Kremlin continues to hope that social, political and economic problems in Syria can be solved without the use of force and through dialogue with the public. It is certain that the parties can reach an agreement within the framework of laws and dialogue. For this reason, it argues, any use of force for the solution of the Syrian crisis should be stopped, and political, social and economic reforms should be implemented.
It is also against the idea of imposing sanctions on the country. It claims that the case of Libya will be repeated if dialogue is sidelined. According to the Kremlin, “The Syrian opposition does not have a constructive program. They just want Bashar al-Assad gone. In other words, this is the typical scenario in all Arab Spring countries. Their purpose is to overthrow the government before thinking about the future. Arab revolutions will certainly not bring stability to the region. This situation will be of benefit only to those who pursue the policy of ‘controlled chaos.’ But how controlled can this chaos be?” The Kremlin argues that its Syria policy should not be reduced to USSR-era good relations or an arms sale. To the Kremlin, there are also historical and cultural ties between the two countries, and Syria is a major center of Orthodoxy in the Middle East.
The Kremlin cannot be so naive as to believe that the Syrian administration has good intentions. Is it determined to protect its major ally in the Middle East to the end? Or is it silently giving support to Israel, which seeks to prolong Syria’s unstable structure, and one-fifth of whose population comprises Jews coming from Russia and which mutually abolished visa requirements with Russia? That is, the Jewish lobby may be trying to make an impact on world politics using this time the Kremlin instead of its historical ally, Washington.
To ward off a military intervention, the Syrian political elite, who were trained in Russia, may choose to sacrifice Assad in order to maintain the Alawite-dominated administration. As a trump card, the Syrian administration may wage a war against Israel for the Golan Heights in a move to draw Russian and Iranian support. Thus, Israel, as a common enemy, may unite the Syrian public and allies under the Syrian administration. In the event of a military intervention, the Kremlin does not want to be party to the intervention.
As usual, Feb. 10 was marked as Russian Diplomats Day in all Russian embassies, with the participation of diplomats from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) member countries. This celebration is an old Soviet tradition and is indicative of reflexes for a big state. Russian intellectuals are nowadays debating hotly if Russia is still a global power or just a regional one. The course of the Kremlin’s Syria policy may provide an answer to this question.
