28 February 2017
Moscow: 15:14
London: 12:14

Consular queries:  
+44 (0) 203 668 7474  
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

07.09.2012

Ambassador A.Yakovenko: thinking on Syria

Over the past few months meeting British Government Ministers, politicians and people in academia and media I have been often asked questions on Russia’s position on the Syrian crisis and its conceptual reasoning. The Embassy has also been receiving letters from British citizens on those issues. I’d like to answer them, though Russia has always been clear on where we stand on Syria, including at the level of President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as well as in the course of our diplomatic contacts with Foreign Office.

First of all, Russia’s position on settlement of the Syrian crisis is a position of principle. The principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of other states, enshrined in the UN Charter, have not been codified in international law just like that. They represent the wisdom, paid for dearly by the world over centuries of wars, including Wars of Religion and Revolutions in Europe.

Those principles represent awareness that outside interference into these processes, profoundly intimate for the nations concerned, can only distort and deligitimize the final outcome. The British saw it in their own history and take pride in having been able to draw a line under the experience of their Revolution and Civil War early enough, although it took almost 40 years to achieve that. This was, by the way, George Kennan’s recommendation to the West for the post-Soviet period in Russia.

Revolution releases elemental forces, and the way they play out is resolved by history alone. To think that an outsider knows better is utterly arrogant. Based on our own experience of Revolution and Civil War, we know that when every participant fights for his/her vision of his/her country, the logic of armed struggle inevitably brings the most ruthless on top for people, among other things, fight for their lives.

As to the unintended consequences of outside intervention, we know what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union intervened there and the USA followed to support the other side. It was all done presumably for a good cause, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then followed war in Iraq, intervention in Libya, which, for now, led to destabilization of another neighbouring country, as rightly noted recently Stephen Kinzer in The International Herald Tribune.

Revolutions are a serious business, they take generations to run their course. Transformations once started, follow their own unpredictable logic. And in an argument between a life that happens to be and a life that ought to be, it is usually the former that prevails. In Europe the Revolutions didn’t help to prevent the tragedy of the Great War and everything that followed. Is there a need to dig as far back in history as civil wars in Rome with their proscriptions. The same pattern repeats itself everywhere with violence begetting violence in a vicious circle and people always losers.

The only realistic thing to do for international community is encouraging the parties involved to display moderation and engage in an inclusive political dialogue. This has been a consistent policy of Russia on Syria, as President Vladimir Putin has stated on successive occasions. On 30 June 2012 the Action Group on Syria at its first meeting in Geneva agreed precisely this position. Unfortunately it has not been followed through by our partners, tempted by ambivalent ideas of a political transition imposed on the Syrians.

 If either of the parties to the conflict does not feel compelled to seek middle ground early on, then what incentives would they have to act in that fashion when winner gets all? The foundations for moderate politics and policies, required for national reconstruction and reconciliation, have got to be laid early. That is why things look more inspiring and sustainable in Tunisia and Egypt. This approach is plainly pragmatic. And if it doesn’t work in Syria, the reason is that the opposition has never been influenced in earnest in that way.

These views do not differ much from those expressed by Seumas Milne in The Guardian on 8 August 2012. The evidence in their support has been mounting on the ground over the past weeks and days. What else is required for our Western partners to reassess the situation and admit that their initial assumptions were wrong?

It seems that outside interventions reflect the political imperative to be seen doing something, though there is objectively nothing spectacular that could be really done. Or is it just to have one’s way?  Another factor is self-delusion that those things can be managed from outside and countries and entire regions ordered and re-ordered. We don’t share that view.

It is worth mentioning that in 2006 in American conservative think-tanks various plans were drawn of territorial restructuring of Iraq and neighbouring states. New “organic borders” were supposed to be established through “creative destruction” under the slogan of “New Middle East” (for example, see the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal). They provided for partitioning of Iraq, creation of “Free Kurdistan”, “Islamic Sacred State” etc. It was done to find ways to ensure regional stability after it had been destroyed by the war in Iraq. These ideas now seem becoming a reality with a prospect of a fragmented Syria. At that time, with no Arab spring on the horizon, the authors of this intellectual exercise didn’t mind the consequences of such a scenario, for example, for Turkey (The Financial Times was quite eloquent on that recently), as well as the states on the Arabian peninsula, which is the ultimate objective of Al-Qaida and its likes, who, sure, will take advantage of mutual destabilization of regional states if it comes to that. It was presumed that things like this were manageable and would provide “decent outcomes”, otherwise unachievable. Now comes the reality check, with the costs to be borne both by the nations of the region and the outside world. Do we really need to go that far and risk an explosion, the region has not seen since the end of the Ottoman empire a hundred years ago? 

This is not to say, that one can get away from history. Niall Ferguson’s and Jeremy Paxman’s Empires are primarily about the present state of the nation and the world, which would be impossible to understand otherwise. As wrote The Independent the other day, colonial history cannot be wished away in the Middle East and other regions. Why then shifting blame on to Russia?

I don’t know. But Russia was not a party to suppressing the first wave of political awakening in the Broader Middle East in early 1950-ies. We have never dominated this region. We have nothing to atone for. We have no vested interest in preserving the status quo. But history has a lot to do with the Arab Spring, the ways events have been unfolding over the past year and a half. The absolute minimum we owe to the peoples of the region and our international partners are honesty and openness. We’ll never engage in Great Games there or anywhere else.

We are willing to be part of a collective international effort on that basis, which includes a joint intelligent analysis and joint thinking the situation through. We started that in Geneva. We are not far apart in what we want for the region. But we differ on the methods to achieve that goal, and it is a case where method defines outcome, where style equals substance.




LATEST EVENTS

14.02.2017 - UK – RUSSIA YEAR OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION: THE BEGINNING OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP? (Robin Grimes, FCO Chief Scientific Adviser, Part of Global Science and Innovation Network)

At the end of the classic film Casablanca, Rick says to the Chief of Police “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship”. So, as we embark upon a year of UK Russia Science & (Science) Education events, what do we expect our scientific relationship to look like 12 months from now? There are some crucial points to bear in mind.


10.02.2017 - UK worried about its place if US-Russia ties are repaired – Russia’s UK envoy (Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for RT)

Hacking, destabilizing Western states, building up its military might, and weaponizing information – Russia is hitting the headlines and seems to be to blame for all of the world’s problems. One of the loudest anti-Russia voices is the United Kingdom, condemning Moscow’s actions and calling for economic sanctions against it. Most of the accusations are far from proven – so is there still room left for cooperation on vital issues between world powers? And now that the UK’s ally the US may be ready to change course and start making deals with Moscow, is there a chance for a change in tone? We ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom – Alexander Yakovenko.


08.02.2017 - Ambassador’s Alexander Yakovenko speech at the opening of "Revolution: Russian Art 1917-1932" exhibition, Royal Academy of Arts (February 7, 2017)

It’s an honour for me to be here at the opening of this impressive exhibition. The best Russian museums have provided masterpieces from their collections which give a fascinating insight into the drastic and violent transformation of culture and society in Russia 100 years ago. Our revolution was a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, a direct result of our common European catastrophe, which was WWI.


30.01.2017 - Alexander Kramarenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary for the “International Affairs” magazine (Moscow). Unaccomplished mission of Alexander Benckendorff and its lessons.

11 January marked 100 years since the death of the last Ambassador of the Russian Empire to the UK count Alexander Benckendorff, who was buried in the catholic Westminster Cathedral in London. This anniversary was a timely reminder of his unaccomplished mission in London, where he arrived in 1903. What was it and why is it still relevant now?


25.01.2017 - A visit to Syria by an independent group (31 August - 7 September).



13.12.2016 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for The Daily Mail (full text)

Question: Does Russia hope for better co-operation (both political and military) with the UK and how can this be achieved/ what would this look like? Answer: Unlike MI-6 Director Alex Younger’s portrayal of Russia, I can assure you that Russia doesn’t view Britain as a strategic adversary, and it just cannot be. There is nothing strategic for us to contest. We hope for real cooperation, not war of words, primarily in the fight against terrorism, including military and special services cooperation, in political settlement in Syria and other international issues.


05.12.2016 - Ambassador Yakovenko answers to media question regarding Russia’s efforts in Syria

Question: What is Russia’s position on a draft UNSC resolution on Aleppo recently presented to the Security Council? Answer: We believe that the introduction of this draft is utterly counterproductive. In the coming days experts from Russia and the United States are to begin their work on the withdrawal of all fighters from the eastern part of Aleppo and achieving an agreement on routes and timing of their exit from the city. After that the ceasefire will come into force.


30.11.2016 - Speech by Russian Ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko at the Russian-British Business Forum (30 November 2016, London)

I am pleased to witness the ongoing constructive cooperation between business communities of our two countries in spite of the unfavorable political situation. This year has seen a number of impressive business events, including those arranged by the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce (as it marked its 100th anniversary), “VTB”, “Moscow Exchange” and the “Russian-British Working Group for the development of the International Financial Centre in Moscow”.


25.11.2016 - Ambassador Yakovenko answers to media question regarding listing Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam as terrorist organizations

Question: What was the Western partners’ reaction as regards Russia’s initiative at the UN Security Council on listing Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam as terrorist organizations?


23.11.2016 - Answers by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko to media questions after the demonstration near the Embassy on the 23 of November

1. Question: How do you see today’s demonstration in support of Russia’s policy in Syria? Answer: From the very start of the Russian operation in Syria we have seen a lot of support from Britons who see that the war being waged there is а war against enemies of the whole European civilization, including Britain. This support can be felt now as well, despite the Whitehall instigated campaign to accuse Russia of “war crimes”. News of civilian suffering are cynically exploited to hamper the defeat of terrorists and their allies, to undermine the political process. It’s good that more and more people come to understand this.



all messages