President Vladimir Putin’s debate before the UN General Assembly this entrance Monday has any possibility of becoming the main Russian unfamiliar process eventuality of the year. Putin’s fourth coming at that renowned podium — generally after an absence of 10 years — is firm to draw a great understanding of attention.
Putin will many expected concentration on his favorite topics: the importance of combating general terrorism and extremism, the need to respect inhabitant supervision and the filth of “double standards,” sanctions and pressure politics in international relations. He will substantially couple these topics to the predicament in the Middle East while perplexing to avoid focusing courtesy on Ukraine and the quarrel between Russia and the West that resulted from the cast of Crimea.
On the one hand, it seems the Russian boss has a good possibility to put brazen a positive bulletin for the Middle East and strengthen Russia’s purpose in it, and on the other hand, to divert general courtesy from what appears to be an endlessly smoldering dispute in Ukraine.
Those chances are flourishing as Europe and the U.S. turn increasingly excitable about Russia’s actions in Syria: many new publications review the situation with Moscow’s initial moves in Ukraine and accuse Russia of creating nonetheless another hotbed of instability.
In my opinion, the two conflicts are essentially different. In the first, Russia acted as an aggressor opposite the legitimate supervision of a adjacent country. In the second, it offers assistance to a legitimate government.
In the first, Russia contributed to a separatist transformation in the Donbass. In the second, it is perplexing to ensure Syria’s territorial integrity. And finally, in the initial Russia has finished small to achieve reconciliation, since in the second Moscow over the 2013 agreement to help destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. Therefore, the West is creation a mistake if it does not listen to Putin.
Putin is expected to propose the creation of an general bloc to combat the Islamic State and a concede concerning the status of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Washington has critical receptive and emotional reasons to reject those proposals.
However, the “larger game” in the Middle East is so difficult that Washington’s candid methods are substantially not able of resolving it. A coalition competence infer the only picturesque means for combating the Islamists inasmuch as the U.S.-trained Iraqi unchanging army and the anti-government rebels in Syria can't put adult any critical insurgency to the Islamic State.
The task confronting the West is not to simply reject Putin’s proposals out of hand, though to draw a distinction between team-work in the quarrel opposite apprehension and Russia’s full lapse to global politics.
It seems that Moscow is regulating the situation in Syria to draw courtesy to the problems it considers many poignant and as a tool to remind the West — and primarily the U.S. — that uneven solutions are not always effective.
It is doubtful that Russia is formulation to launch a new Afghanistan-style troops debate in Syria as some observers have suggested. If Putin’s beginning to create an international bloc does not find support, Russia will not mount behind Assad “to the bitter end” and devote poignant resources and military army to defending his regime.
Therefore, notwithstanding Russia’s clearly fitting position in the contention holding figure at the UN, the West has no need to agree with Putin’s proposals. In the days and weeks ahead, any preference done in this area will be formed on the conditions at the given impulse and will not simulate some incomparable strategy.
That is because we am assured that Putin’s arriving debate before the UN General Assembly will not so most solve long-standing problems as it will entice the West to renew the discourse with Russia in one sold area. At best, it will offer as the starting indicate for extended negotiations, though Putin’s vital articulate points will not turn a guide to action.
Any unreasonable reactions to the speech — in whatever form it competence take — risk blank the mark and leading to a passed end. After all, Putin resolutely believes that usually a weak competition expresses a willingness to hold talks and reach a compromise. That is accurately how he interprets Washington’s changing position on Syria. But isn’t his possess honesty to dialogue an acknowledgement of the altered geopolitical position in which Russia now finds itself?
Vladislav Inozemtsev is a fellow with the IWM in Vienna and non-resident comparison associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Article source: http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/535279.html