US Should Remove Its Signature from Geneva Communiqué

Moscow will not participate in the international coalition on Syria due to the coalition’s failure and its merely demonstrative actions.

For the first time in four and a half years, Washington should present to the world a conceptual vision of its participation in the events that have been taking place in Syria. If this differs from that which is contained in the Geneva Communiqué, which the U.S. was a signatory to, then the U.S. should remove its signature from the document. Maria Zakharova, the official representative of the Russian Federation’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, made these statements. Earlier, it had become known that during the 70th session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, Washington was ready to propose bringing about regime change in Damascus in the near future.

“Our American colleagues need to make clear overall what it is they are doing, to show the world just once in four and a half years the conceptual vision of their participation in these events. If the U.S. still follows the Geneva Communiqué, which is supported by the entire international community and which they are signatories to, then how can they speak before the General Assembly about a proposition of some figures and the concept of regime change?” Zakharova asked. “In the Geneva Communiqué, it is clearly stated that the political future of Syria needs to be defined by Syrians themselves. Therefore, in all probability, our American colleagues must remove their signatures from the Geneva Communiqué. However, if they do not remove their signature and insist they are still in agreement with this document, it will be impossible not only to design a model by which the situation can be changed, but also to ever practically implement such a model. In any case, they have deceived us all.”

Additionally, Moscow has been surprised at the actions of the coalition against the Islamic State, as they are ineffective and seem more like a demonstration than anything else.

“Unfortunately, we continue to see that the fight against the Islamic State group within the framework of the coalition’s stated goals is not in fact a real and full-scale fight. Despite knowing about the location of the militants and receiving information about their movements, no strikes are made. We have data on this,” said Zakharova. “We have also seen information that they have continued supplying the supposedly moderate opposition with arms through different channels. It seems to me that modeling the situation as a case of 'good terrorists' and 'bad terrorists,' moderate opposition and radical opposition, is an outdated way of viewing things.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly addressed Moscow’s official stance regarding the solution to the Syrian issues and the war with the so-called Islamic State group. According to Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergei Lavrov, the key element of the Russian president’s thinking is the formation of a united front in the fight against the Islamic State group; this will bring together the forces of all those fighting terrorism, as well as all the countries that can provide support. At the same time, Vladimir Putin has offered to lead the political resolution process in Syria according to the Geneva Communiqué of June 30, 2014.

According to a source within Russian diplomatic circles, it is exactly because of the impossibility of combating terrorism through airstrikes alone, as well as a number of other unsuccessful initiatives, that Moscow has not fully taken part in the international coalition.

“For us, the goal of the coalition is twofold. It should not be formed according to political petitioning, but according to real results on the ground. Right now we see the continued supply of weapons to the so-called moderate opposition, as well as the fact that not a single area controlled by the Islamic State group has been liberated through the actions of the international coalition. It’s impossible to combat terrorism without boots on the ground. You will never beat them from the air; there is not a single example of this happening in all of history. That’s why we’re not there with them,” explained Izvestia’s source, a high-ranking official. “For us, the war against the Islamic State group is a question of national security. It’s exactly for this reason that we are willing to help those who genuinely fight against terrorism. The scale of this current problem stands as a real threat to Russia.”

Russia’s president has repeatedly emphasized that Moscow has supported and will continue to support the official powers in Damascus in the struggle against the Islamic State group.

“I want to state that we support the government of Syria in the opposition of terrorist aggression. We offer and continue to offer necessary military equipment and support. We urge other countries to join us,” Vladimir Putin announced, speaking on Sept. 15 at the summit of the Collective Security Treaty Organization in Dushanbe, Tajikistan.

According to Izvestia’s source, the entire world understands that the issue of Syria within the international coalition is solely within the purview of Washington. The participation of others only exists so that it is possible to say that the whole world is fighting against terrorism, to give it the veneer of political correctness and the appearance of having gathered “backing vocals.”

“In reality, this coalition of the world’s joint forces isn’t at all a common effort,” added the source from Russia’s diplomatic circle.

Following the ceremony to open the renovated mosque on Sept. 23, Vladimir Putin reminded [the public] that Islam is one of the traditional religions of Russia. The president stressed that the true values of Islam profess peace and love, and have nothing to with the principles held by the prohibited recruiters of the Islamic State group within the Muslim world in Russia.

“It is important that young Muslims are taught traditional values,” Putin emphasized. “The terrorists of the Islamic State group discredit Islam, sow seeds of hatred, kill people — including priests. Their ideology is built on lies, on perverted versions of Islam’s ideas.”