The terrorist attacks in Paris were so shocking for Europe that today societies of many European countries are changing their view on how it is necessary to fight terrorism. Even in peaceful Germany, where pacific attitudes are traditionally strong, the majority of respondents stand for the active participation of Germany in the struggle against ISIS. Harsh statements were received from Moscow, which officially declared that the A321 crashed because of a terrorist attack. Therefore, a certain solidarity of European society with the position taken by Russia on Syria can be seen in this context.
Will rapprochement between Russia and the West be limited by social attitudes or will the trend in foreign policy continue? Despite the solidarity around the fact that the struggle should be provided by common efforts and the talks at the G20 summit, none of the sides demonstrate readiness to make concessions on the geopolitically key Syrian issue. The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Vesti that Russia isn't considering the issue of overthrowing Bashar Assad. The Kremlin is not ready to reject Assad at this stage. An end to support for the Syrian government, which is one of the most effective centers of fighting ISIS in the world, would be a counterproductive step from the point of view of the effectiveness of the anti-terrorist campaign. However, a successful end to the mission is very important for Russia for several reasons, including the fact that terrorists destroyed a Russian passenger liner.
Simultaneously with Sergey Lavrov’s interview, Barack Obama urged Russia to choose “between saving the Syrian state and Bashar al-Assad.” According to Obama, the end of the civil war in Syria is impossible under the current President, who “has lost his legitimacy.” Statements by the top officials of Russia and the USA make us think that the crucial point is still the fate of Bashar al-Assad. However, it is absolutely obvious that it is not the personality of the Syrian president, but the political, economic, and military factors which are connected with him are important for global politics. The Kremlin needs a succession of his geopolitical course, if Assad willingly decides to resign. At the same time, the West and Arab monarchies need real changes in the foreign and internal policy of Syria, rather than a formal change of the head of the country.
It is a difficult task to kick out Bashar al-Assad and create a transactional government which would involve representatives of the current ruling elite of Syria as well. It should be noted that the Western media is discussing information on certain contradictions between Russia and Iran on the further fate of Bashar al-Assad. According to unnamed diplomatic sources, Moscow is ready to consider options of the future Syrian government without al-Assad, while Tehran stands for a resolute position and insists on maintaining the current authorities in Damascus. It is difficult to assess the truthfulness of such stove piping. Politics is the art of achieving the possible; and various options can be developed during closed talks on the Syrian conflict. However, it should be pointed out that a settlement of the crisis is impossible without Iran’s participation in any option. Tehran and its ally Hezbollah play a great role in the fact that Damascus, the capital, is still controlled by the government. The number of killed generals of the IRGC in Syria over the past few weeks has demonstrated the big scale of involvement of the Iranian military in the struggle against ISIS.
For neither Iran nor for Russia is maintaining al-Assad’s power in Syria a target in itself; but maintaining his political course is important. Probably it would even be beneficial for them to change Bashar al-Assad to a more positively perceived person. However, al-Assad’s resignation is connected with plenty of risks. His forced overthrow or willing resignation could turn into legislative chaos, destruction of the vulnerable internal political configuration in the country in the conditions of civil war. It could cause even greater escalation of the civil war and the final defragmentation of the Syrian state and complete destruction of the constitutional power.
The formation of a Syrian ‘transitional government’, which is regularly discussed by the West, requires a consensus between regional and international players which have interests in Syria. It requires the involvement of representatives of the interests of each country in the government. Moreover, there is no consensus at all, and a question emerges: will such a ‘collecting authority’ be able to act (especially in the context of the war against ISIS) and won’t it have the fate of other unstable coalitions which have been formed around a common goal (destruction of ISIS in this case), which countries having reached then sink into political crisis again? Furthermore, there is no guarantee that all regional and international players will play according to the rules in case of achieving a consensus on the transactional government. Instead of running such risks, it is tactically more beneficial for Russia and Iran to continue supporting the legal government of Syria. Actually, Syria's fate is being decided on the battlefield, and at the moment, when the governmental army is demonstrating military successes and is liberating territories which had been occupied by militants, the negotiating positions of Moscow and Tehran are strengthening.
