The 'Arab Spring' Is Not a Process We Should Embrace with Enthusiasm

After a brief mutual understanding, a setback followed. The Russian media, citing The New York Times, reported on the delivery of Russian “Yakhont” anti-ship missiles to Syria. In the U.S., this information has prompted negative reactions from various senators.

The president of the Institute of National Strategy, Mikhail Vitaliyevich Remizov, comments on the situation.

Moscow’s Position Is Not To Support Assad

Russia announced its position on weapons deliveries. That position is sufficiently clear: Yes, we make deliveries, but this is in complete compliance with international law. We are prepared to review the political issues of stopping such deliveries, if an effective moratorium will also be established against the opposing side. But it will not be established, because, first of all, it is difficult, and secondly, our partners have no desire to establish it. Accordingly, that voids the question on whether Russia should stop the deliveries.

There is little reliable information about what is being delivered, so it is hard to comment here. We are nowhere close to being neighbors with Syria, and even the technical aspects of such deliveries are very difficult.

It seems to me that such a Russian position is completely logical and balanced, because one should be guided by what is right and not by moral defamation. Moscow’s position is not to support Assad, but to reject that international practice which has developed in recent times — to not only recognize any rebels as legitimate participants in a conflict, but also to recognize their legitimate authority. That methodology of resolving crises, including internal ones now reaching a global level, is unacceptable and ineffective.

Mutual Understanding Outlined During Kerry’s Visit to Moscow

In this situation, talks between Russia and the U.S. about an international conference that would have proposed a plan for peaceful transfer of power were encouraging. Unfortunately, however, after a brief mutual understanding, a setback followed. The mutual understanding was outlined during Kerry’s visit to Moscow, when it was recognized that the U.S. was also seeking a peaceful settlement.

True, the U.S. considers Assad’s resignation a basic precondition, but Russia proposes that a resignation must occur as part of an agreement that would be reached as a peaceful resolution. That was the disagreement, but the platform on which to negotiate has been outlined. However, now the probability is reduced that in this case, with the U.S. as a global leader and Russia as a regional influence, could play roles as effective peacemakers.

It is a curious configuration in the international arena when Western and Muslim countries turn out to be in concert, while Russia is in isolation. Such was the situation in Kosovo. Now this is such a situation. But I emphasize, Russia is not supporting Assad. It is not participating in his concerted overthrow with no clear plans for the future and outside of any legal basis. That is absolutely correct. This is not even a question of interests, but of principles Russia supports in the international arena.

Speaking generally, the “Arab spring” is not a process that we should embrace with enthusiasm. By the way, Russia does not deny the fact that it is supplying arms to Syria. But in The New York Times I see a chain of events that may scare off that illusory hope of detente which recently emerged for Russia and the U.S.