Do Russia and the US Agree on Syria?

At a time when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has traveled to Moscow to discuss a resolution to the Syrian crisis, we are hearing news that the two countries have reached an agreement to hold an international conference with the participation of all the groups involved in this crisis. Despite this, many uncertainties still exist concerning the nature of the two countries’ agreements about Syria.

It has been reported that the United States and Russia intend to strengthen their cooperation to solve the Syrian crisis peacefully. The Russian foreign minister, after a meeting with his U.S. counterpart, said that an international conference will soon be held with respect to this.

In this context, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who traveled to Moscow, announced yesterday that Russia had agreed to hold an international conference at which both members of Bashar al-Assad’s government and opponents of the Syrian regime will be present.

According to John Kerry, this conference should be held “as soon as is practicable, possibly and hopefully, by the end of this month,” since this matter is a response to the increasing demands from countries that want to achieve a peaceful solution in Syria so it can be free of this chaos.

Sergei Lavrov, Kerry’s Russian counterpart, also remarked on this topic: “the task now is to convince the government and all the opposition groups … to sit at the negotiating table.” He also stressed that Russia’s concern is the “individuals ruling over” Syria and that Russia is not defending a particular individual, but rather that Moscow’s main worry is on account of the Syrian people.

Last year at the Geneva conference, Washington and Moscow reached an agreement regarding the necessity of forming a transitional government in Syria, but with this question unsolved it remains to be seen what Bashar al-Assad’s fate will be! Now Lavrov is saying the aim of that is “to persuade the government and the opposition together … to fully implement the Geneva communiqué on creating a transitional government.”

But these statements and John Kerry’s trip to Moscow are taking shape at a time when during recent weeks the Syrian crisis has grown even more complex. Armed rebel groups’ extreme measures on one hand and the discussions brought up about the possible use of chemical weapons in this country on the other have increased uncertainties about the country.

On this basis, John Kerry’s trip to Moscow was very important and is valued in the context of the U.S. effort to find at least minimal grounds for collaboration with Russia concerning Syria.

In this regard, it would not be an unexpected choice if the United States, attentive to the recent developments, adopted as its new strategy toward Syria the tactic of finding foundations for cooperation with Moscow. One of these foundations could be confronting the acquisition of power by extremist Islamist groups in Syria.

In this framework, if Washington can convince Moscow that both countries are equally worried about power grabs by these groups and, with the resulting weakening of Assad, can demonstrate the necessity of protecting moderate alternatives acceptable to both parties, it is not improbable that the two countries’ approaches to the Syrian crisis will come close to each other.

This option is becoming especially important at a time when we should pay attention to what Lavrov is saying. He has spoken explicitly of Russia’s “not supporting particular individuals,” and values the “fate of the Syrian people” alone as important for his country. In this way it seems that the statements can be taken as a kind of strategic withdrawal from previous stances and a leaving open of the possibility of support for other options in the near future.

Of course, this topic can also be regarded from another, perhaps more pessimistic viewpoint — namely, that the United States, by using the lever of extremist groups and also keeping alive the possibility of supporting other rebel groups with armaments, intends to increase the costs for Moscow and drag this country in the direction of agreement.

In this context, it can be said that the United States is secretly continuing support of armed extremist groups, or at least has no objection to others supporting them. On the other hand, with these groups gaining strength, it is leading Moscow in the direction of accepting this matter such that the only remaining avenue is to embrace options that are on middle ground and satisfactory to both sides. Otherwise, in the near future Russia will have to bear witness to U.S. support of, so to speak, “more moderate” groups opposing Assad — such that this aid may also fall into the hands of extremist groups and, at a later stage, threaten the security and interests of Russia.

In any case, in the event that such an agreement surfaces, it should only be expected in the coming meeting spoken of by Kerry and Lavrov that discussions of the “manner” of transition to a new government in Syria will be directed in this context toward “moderate individuals acceptable to both countries.”

In the end, it is also necessary to point out that in recent weeks, Washington has intensified its efforts to appear more aligned with Moscow in several matters and to consider the sensitivities of Russian officials. Several analysts even see the course of events after the Boston bombing and the manner of U.S. behavior regarding the matter because of the implication of two Russian Muslims in the incident as an effort on the part of the United States to indicate to Russia, for the first time, that it understands this country’s concerns about extremism in the Northern Caucasus.

All told, provided that these impressions are accurate, in the near future we can expect shifts on the practical side of the Syria conflict.