Realpolitik notwithstanding, it is difficult to regard Vladimir Putin as a ‘peacenik’, and Barack Obama, the first African-American to occupy the Oval Office and a Nobel Peace laureate to boot, as a ‘war-mongering’ leader. Yet, the Syrian crisis has effected a curious role-reversal between the Russian and American presidents in less than a fortnight. Putin’s sage advice for a negotiated settlement on Syria is gaining ground with each passing day across the world, including a majority of Americans who are stoutly campaigning against another military misadventure. At the same time, the US president is being seen as a confused leader desperate to get out of a tight situation after his proposed ‘surgical military strikes’ on Syria have left him isolated even in his own country.
“The Russian diplomatic opening at a minimum buys time for everyone; and at a maximum actually provides a solution,” says Richard Fontaine, president of Washington’s Centre for a New American Security.
But what prompted the Russians to get into action with a plan to try and get Syria to hand over its chemical arsenal? The signals from Moscow till some days back suggested that Russia—an old ally of Damascus—would rather let the Americans walk into the political minefield of Syria. Is Russia playing the dove only to enhance its international prestige vis-a-vis the US?
According to Fontaine, there are a couple of incentives for Russia to play peacemaker. “First, it puts Russia squarely in the middle of the decision-making again on this, where it had previously been taken out of their hands. It had been a US decision whether or not to strike Syria. Now, Russia is at the centre of things again. Second, it could potentially avert a military strike on Syria, Russia’s ally, and that is something that Russia sees as in its interests.” Fontaine adds that if an agreement over identifying, confiscating and destroying Syria’s huge chemical weapons stockpile actually comes through and is successfully implemented, “Russia will no doubt take credit for having averted a military conflict in Syria and reap some prestige, but I think that is still a long way off”.
The opportunity for a peaceful settlement to the Syrian crisis cropped up suddenly last week when US Secretary of State John Kerry suggested—perhaps half-rhetorically—that if the Bashar al-Assad regime agreed to put all its chemical weapons under international scrutiny and allowed them to be destroyed, war could be averted. The Russians lost no time in grabbing the US proposal and offered to play the role of a peacemaker. As the Assad government, too, agreed to put up its entire chemical arsenal for UN scrutiny and ultimate destruction (reportedly a sticky point with the Syrians), the war clouds louring over Syria appeared the least menacing in weeks. As matters stand, the Russians and Americans, headed by Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov and involving teams of technical experts, are meeting at Geneva to thrash out the details of a possible handover of Syria’s chemical weapons.
But what led the US to tone down its belligerence in the first place?
Protesters in New York say no to a strike on Syria
One view insists that Obama, a reluctant war president, was all along looking for a way out that would give him a stab at a negotiated settlement. Others argue that Obama started a rethink when he realised how ridiculous he’d look if he failed to get support from the US Congress for a strike. Whether Kerry’s remarks were by design or not is still being debated, but it did allow Obama a way out of a tight spot.
However, the US and its allies say that if the SC proposal, with its tough talk of sanctions and strikes, is diluted, it would disappoint many across the world, particularly those in Syria, who want an end to the Assad regime.
The other big problem is related to the ground situation in Syria and whether civil war conditions would allow UN weapons inspectors to do a thorough job of checking on the regime’s chemical arsenal—much of which may be stored in rebel-held areas. This, Assad’s detractors fear, could give the regime the legitimate excuse of hiding much of its stockpile from the UN inspectors for later use.
The claims and counter-claims by the Assad regime, its steadfast allies and its circling enemies will continue to play out for weeks before the current surge in diplomacy could show a way that may satisfy all. A missile-strapped US, and its fleet-footed diplomatic partner Russia, would direct much of the proceedings.
By Pranay Sharma with Ashish Kumar Sen in Washington
The reported agreement between Russia and the US to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons is a significant achievement. It could be built upon to achieve some sort of a ceasefire, as a prelude to a complicated political settlement, while the UN deals with the humanitarian crisis.
Realpolitik says once Syrian chemical weapons are out of the way(it doesnot have nuclear weapons)it would be real easy to invade.
A fair settlement should ensure that safeguards are in place to save Syria from aggression of US or Israel in future.
Since the later two are rougue states vis-a-vis disregarding UN resolutions, Syria has just taken a very risky step.
Though UN has not suffered the fate of LoN, it is not very far from it either.
"Realpolitik notwithstanding, it is difficult to regard Vladimir Putin as a ‘peacenik’, and Barack Obama, the first African-American to occupy the Oval Office and a Nobel Peace laureate to boot, as a ‘war-mongering’ leader."
The tendency is due to the US propanganda from Cold war days. Russia Today provides a more balanced worldview then the crap dished out CNN and f*cks news.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT