ISSN 2618-9844 (Online version)
ISSN 1810-6374 (Print version)
After a relative lull, a recent flurry of news suggests that the endgame in Syria is approaching.
With respect to Russian-American relations, the positive atmosphere is due to the fact that the agenda has become very narrow.
Russia’s differences with Western countries and the US on the Syrian question, for example, are conceptual in nature.
The Arab Spring and the crisis in Syria merely aggravated contradictions that had formed a gap between Realpolitik and the observance of the de jure intact norms of international law. Today’s question is this: Is the international community able to take concerted actions or will inflated ambitions of regional centers of power gain the upper hand?
Addressing the nation for the first time in over six months, Syrian President Bashar Assad thanked Russia for its efforts to help find a political solution to Syria's conflict.
Political power was the focus of 2012. Three of the world’s most powerful countries underwent a change in government.
The world is tired of the never-ending Syrian deadlock, so any news promising change becomes a sensation.
Just as the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan vitiated many of the achievements made by Soviet foreign policy toward the Middle East from the 1950s through the 1970s, Moscow’s strong support for the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria threatens to negate the achievements of Putin’s foreign policy.
Last Tuesday, September 11, while the United States was commemorating the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, anti-American demonstrations erupted at U.S. consulates in Libya and Egypt.
Отношение к Европе является фактором, из-за которого Анкара и Москва сейчас тяготеют друг к другу.
The main task for all Arab Spring countries is to create a stable and effective government.
Many accuse Moscow of supporting a “force of the past” – the Assad regime which is increasingly losing ground. In return, Russia has accused a number of countries of siding with opposition leaders, while having a very vague idea as to where these people can bring their country. The question arises: What if all the parties to the conflict are not up to the mark?
To expand on the success it achieved in the Middle East in the first months of this year, Russia should offer an effective plan for change of power in Syria.
It has been a long time since I was as acutely aware of Russia’s importance as during the recent conference on the Syrian crisis in Ankara.
“Why does Russia support dictators?” a French correspondent who has come to Moscow to find out about Russia’s stance on Syria asked me.
Despite eight years of horrific conflict, and over 500,000 thousand deaths, a stable peace in Syria remains elusive.
The presidents of Russia, Turkey and Iran convened for their fourth summit on Syria in Russia’s southern resort city of Sochi on Feb. 14. Earlier leaders of the “guarantor countries” of the Astana process met in November 2017 in Sochi, in April 2018 in Ankara and in September 2018 in Tehran.
Anyone who has at least some idea about the theory of international relations should remember the oft-quoted formula put forward by the father of British geopolitics, Halford Mackinder: “Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
Relations between the US and Russia are at their worst since the end of the Cold War, China and the US have tense relations, India and China are trying to stabilize relations after a period of acrimony. The major powers appear today to be like the unhappy families in Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: ‘Each unhappy family (major power in this case) is unhappy in its own way.’
Freedom of movement and freedom to choose a place of residence can be ranked among the category of freedoms which, as part of the Global Commons, have been restricted to varying degrees at the level of communities, states, and international associations.