24 November 2020
Moscow: 15:19
London: 12:19

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

 
996 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     988 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

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

20.11.2020 - Vladimir Putin addressed the participants in Nuremberg Lessons international conference and workshop

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, friends, First of all, I would like to sincerely thank all the participants in the Nuremberg Lessons international forum: politicians and government officials, researchers and experts, legal experts, representatives of the museum community and NGOs. I know that you have come from across Russia, as well as from many other countries.


18.11.2020 - Putin's replies to media questions on developments in Nagorno-Karabakh

Question: Mr President, a week has passed since the signing of a most important statement by Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. How do you assess the implementation now? What is successful? What might still be a problem? Most importantly, do you think this agreement will make it possible to sever the tight knot and resolve this very long-term and sensitive issue where each side has its own truth, as you put it yourself?


06.11.2020 - Press release on the sequence of events in the Alexey Navalny case

The sequence of events in the story of the alleged poisoning of blogger Alexey Navalny is quite unusual; it is also symptomatic how it has become the target for never-ending speculations in the West.


06.11.2020 - Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on a letter from the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection of Germany to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Russia regarding the “Navalny case”

We are still waiting for the German authorities to provide a substantive reply to the official Russian addresses of August 27 and September 14, 24 and 28, 2020, requesting legal assistance from the concerned German agencies within the framework of the pre-investigative probe conducted by the Russian Ministry of the Interior into the reasons for the emergency hospital admission of blogger Alexey Navalny in Omsk on August 20, 2020. Our German colleagues have been using a variety of reasons and far-fetched explanations to deliberately delay taking action on our requests contrary to their own promises and commitments in the sphere of international legal cooperation.


29.10.2020 - Commentary by the Information and Press Department on a remark made by the German Foreign Ministry spokesperson on short- and intermediate-range missile

German Deputy Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Andrea Sasse’s comment of October 26 has come to our attention. The comment followed President Putin’s statement on additional steps to de-escalate the situation in Europe in the wake of the termination of the INF Treaty, in which she expressed solidarity with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s earlier remark that Russia’s moratorium on deploying ground-based short- and intermediate-range missiles allegedly carries little credibility since Russia “itself withdrew from the INF Treaty.”


26.10.2020 - Statement by Vladimir Putin on additional steps to de-escalate the situation in Europe in the wake of the termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty)

The Russian Federation continues to believe that the INF Treaty was an important element of the architecture ensuring international security and strategic stability. The Treaty played the most particular role in maintaining predictability and restraint in the missile sphere in the European area. We consider the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, that entailed its termination, as a serious mistake, which increases the risks of triggering a missile arms race, rise of confrontational potential and sliding into an uncontrolled escalation. Given persistent tensions between Russia and NATO, new threats to the European security are evident.


26.10.2020 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Athens News Agency – Macedonian Press Agency (ANA-MPA), October 26, 2020

Question: It is four years since your previous visit, what is the significance of your trip to Athens this time? Do you think that the 200th anniversary of the Greek War of Independence celebrations is a reason for deepening Russian-Greek relations, and if so, in which spheres? Sergey Lavrov: I am delighted to have this opportunity to return to Greece again. My previous working visit to Athens in 2016 took place during the implementation of an unprecedented joint project, a cross-cultural year between Russia and Greece, the main event of which was a visit by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.


21.10.2020 - Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova’s comment on the criminal charges brought against Russian citizens by the American authorities

The US administration has once again made news with another anti-Russia attack, accusing our government agencies of malicious activities in the field of information and communications technology.


20.10.2020 - Foreign Ministry statement on New START Treaty Extension

We have received no official response from the United States to our Note dated October 16 which contains the proposal put forward by President Vladimir Putin to extend the New START Treaty for one year. We have noticed only some comments made by U.S. officials on social media platforms. Given contradictory reactions to the actual situation, we want to clarify.


20.10.2020 - Embassy comment with regard to new accusations against Russia

Accusations of numerous cyber attacks (conducted without any meaningful purpose or result) that British authorities mount against Russia on a nearly daily basis form another cycle of their unprovoked malicious campaign.



all messages