Carnegie Moscow Center
The world watches and waits to hear if the Assad government will give up Syria’s chemical weapons stock.
Although Vladimir Putin used his New York Times op-ed to reiterate his position on Syria in an aggressive tone, there is now a potentially productive discussion of Assad’s chemical weapons underway.
If the conflict in Syria is to be resolved, it is important to go beyond the chemical attack issue and work through a political process that would end the war.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed does not complicate international negotiations over Syria’s chemical weapons. Contrary to common perceptions, Putin is pragmatic and capable of making deals.
In his New York Times op-ed, Vladimir Putin asserts that Russia is not supporting Assad as an ally, but it is supporting the world order, centered on the U.N. Security Council.
Russia has submitted a plan for chemical weapons seizure in Syria.
Russia’s position on Syria is based in large part on Moscow’s concerns about the political repercussions of intervention. At the G20 Summit, Vladimir Putin attempted to create a de facto referendum on intervention.
The current state of the affairs between Russia and China is most positive in their history. This relationship is built primarily on an economic pragmatism.
Although Putin’s statements have been seen as flexible rhetoric, Russia’s policy toward Syria has not changed.
The Obama administration was correct to cancel the summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin because Russia had recently stonewalled Obama’s agenda.