On Russia and the unity of the West

The Kremlin has been surprisingly slow in responding to the measures taken by Theresa May against Russia´s hostile actions. It´s difficult to come up with a good interpretation of the reasons for the delay.

But two things are clear.

First, I have no doubt they will retaliate. Heavily. And, most likely, before the Sunday presidential elections. The leadership, and Vladimir Putin above all, must show to the Russian voters that they do hesitate when it comes to defending Russia´s international honour and strength, as perceived by the official narrative.

Second, the Kremlin was clearly taken by surprise when they noted the unity shown in the West, particularly in Washington, Paris and Berlin. They wanted to respond to the UK and keep the West divided. Now, they have two big tasks. To deal with the British and look for ways of breaking the common position taken by key Western players.

Putin's writings

President Putin’s opinion text in the New York Times is worth the reading. First, it is well written. Second, it says a few things that make sense, including the reference to the “exceptionalism” the US claim. Third, it keeps the door open for dialogue.

But it is also an extraordinary piece of cynicism. Many of the accusations he implies against the US can also be made towards Russia, including an extreme form of Russian nationalism that is not far from the American exceptionalism.

The wise thing to do is to take the good points he makes and engage the Russians on them. That’s why the meeting that is taking place in Geneva between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov is of great importance. It has, however, to produce concrete results. Time is of the essence. Agreements and action plans, and above all a UN Security Council Resolution on the destruction of Syria’s chemical arsenal, need to be out and running soonest.

Furthermore, besides addressing the chemical weapons issue it is also critical to bring to justice the perpetrators of the 21 August massacres. A Resolution on this matter is also necessary.

With all this in mind, Syria’s case remains the priority number one in the global lists of issues. The daily death toll and the incredible number of refugees and internally displaced people are a reminder of that. A painful reminder, a dramatic reality for millions of people. 

A very good gaffe

John Kerry’s remark on the international control of Syrian chemical weapons might have been a blunder. But thanks to Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, the blunder has become a tiny window of opportunity. And in a world that is tired of wars and abominates state-sponsored violence, as well as all types of violent conflict, the blunder is now a powerful argument against one-sided strikes.

History is so often built on blunders. And historical blunders have led to so many disasters. Maybe this time we will have a positive development coming out of a gaffe. 

Lottery and Assad

Now we know the Damascus official explanation. It runs basically along the following lines:

•           Saudi Arabia and Western intelligence agencies have given chemical weapons to their friends the rebels;
•         The point was for the rebels to make use of them the day the UN inspectors were to start their visit and get the blame on the Assad government;
•          The fellows tried to shoot them from the suburbs they controlled but they were so inept - amateurs, the government said - that they could not send them across to the regime soldiers and to the areas under government control;
•           They kept trying, those amateur rebels, and the more they tried the more they failed and people around them, women and children, not only men, just kept dying in droves.

You believe this and you are ready to talk to Father Christmas about your forthcoming lottery win.

Kerry on Syria

US State Secretary John Kerry’s statement on Syria was an excellent piece of work. Brilliant, well thought through and properly grounded. It is also, in many ways, a seminal moment in terms of foreign policy doctrine. It will be often quoted in the future.

But, for now, it deserves, above all, unqualified support.