Russia: Give us a good reason to jilt Syria's Assad

One Russian analyst summed up Moscow's resistance by saying, 'We simply don't believe Western leaders know what they're doing, and we're not listening to all that chatter anymore.'

Alexei Nikolsky, Government Press Service/RIA-Novosti/AP
Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev attend the United Russia party annual congress in Moscow, Saturday, May 26.

Russian President Vladimir Putin will make quick visits to Berlin and Paris tomorrow originally planned to address "economic issues." But the rapidly deteriorating situation in Syria and the divide between Russia and the West on how to respond appears certain to figure heavily in their talks. 

There have been several days of active speculation that Russia might be ready to alter its tough anti-interventionist stance in the wake of last weekend's Houla massacre. While Russia joined other permanent United Nations Security Council members in endorsing a rare statement condemning the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad two days later, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov placed blame for the violence on both sides and Russian officials have been quick to deny that the condemnation is a sign it is softening its resistance.

Several Western states are proposing harsher sanctions against Syria. On May 29, newly elected French President François Hollande said that foreign military intervention in Syria "can't be ruled out," if it is approved by the Security Council, and indicated that he might ask Mr. Putin not to stand in the way. Speaking to an audience of students in Copenhagen today, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton upped the criticism of Russia, saying, "I have been telling (the Russians) their policy is going to help contribute to a civil war" in Syria. 

But today Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, responded emphatically that Russian policy toward Syria will not change under duress. Russia's position is "well-known, balanced and consistent, and completely logical," Mr. Peskov told the independent Interfax news agency. "So it is hardly appropriate to talk about this position changing under someone’s pressure." 

Moscow has taken a lot of heat internationally for vetoing two Security Council resolutions that would have pressured Mr. Assad to step down and potentially paved the way for greater outside involvement in the crisis. 

Russian foreign policy experts say that Moscow's unwillingness to back down on its refusal to license any foreign intervention is based on several factors, all of which have been clearly thought out and seen as rooted in national interest. 

Russian analysts argue that any violation of national sovereignty is a form of neoimperialism which, even if packaged as a humanitarian intervention, tends to be wrapped up with the geopolitical interests of the intervening powers and seldom leads to better humanitarian outcomes. They cite most of the wars of the past decade, from Kosovo to Iraq to last year's NATO intervention in Libya (which Russia acquiesced to in the Security Council) to make their point. 

"We were told that military interference in Libya would be limited to protecting civilians, but we were deceived, pushed aside once we'd let it get through the Security Council," says Pavel Gusterin, an Arab specialist with the official Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow. "Why would we let them do this again?" 

Russia does have major political and economic interests in Syria, a Soviet and Russian client state since 1971, including about $5 billion in arms contracts, and the use of a naval supply station at the Syrian port of Tartous. 

But many Russian analysts insist that it's not so much about material interests, as it is that the West has simply not made a convincing case to Russia for why it should abandon Assad and assent to Western-led intervention in Syria. 

"We think we know how the world works as well as anyone else, and our diplomats have been active in the Middle East for a long time. We do not have the slightest romantic illusion that something that comes after Assad will be better," says Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the independent Institute of Middle Eastern Studies in Moscow. "We know that if the Assad regime is destroyed, Syria will dissolve in chaos... 

"Our Western colleagues point to these terrible atrocities, such as the massacre in Houla last weekend, and say, 'We have to do something!' But your own Western track record shows that you get the regime change you wanted, then lose all interest in the humanitarian problems," he says. 

"As for Russia, we've learned to base our policy on national interest. Not a single promise made to us by the West in recent decades has been fulfilled. We simply don't believe Western leaders know what they're doing, and we're not listening to all that chatter anymore. So, Russia's Syria policy will remain basically the same, and there is no significant debate over this in the Russian establishment today."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.