Russia’s veto on Syrian resolution project in UN Security Council caused uproar in the West. Moscow was accused of thinking in ‘cold war terms’ and pursuing solely its own interests in its peacemaking efforts. Russian and Western political experts discussed the relations between Russia and the EU and US in the context of the Near East unrest in the frames of a Moscow-Brussels video-link.
Alexander Sharavin, Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis
When talking about Syria, Russia's position is often associated with the remnants of the Cold War, believing that Russia is behaving the same way as the Soviet Union, supporting unpopular regimes. The same criticism can be leveled at the U.S. A situation of double standards still exists. Do not assume that those states that support the West and the U.S. are models of democracy. The problem is that often totalitarian, dictatorial regimes are supported because they are allies. This error is typical for both Russia and the United States and other Western states. Unfortunately, these so-called allies are unreliable. They can betray at any moment and also cause serious damage to the state that supports them. The events in
Syria do not provoke approval from any side, and Russia is also seeking to normalize the situation in the country, avoiding the repetition of the Libyan scenario, when different groups with different interests came to power, and the consequences of it are unpredictable.
The US feels safer because Iran is no immediate threat, except for the threat to block the Strait of Hormuz. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a much greater threat to Russia than the United States. That is why Russia is trying to act more cautiously. We cannot say that we accept Iran's position in opposition to the U.S. and the West. Of course not. This is confirmed by the refusal of Russia to supply S-300 systems to Iran, which says that Russia is not interested in strengthening the military might of Iran. Neither are we interested in Iran getting nuclear weapons.
The last treaty on strategic offensive arms does not put an end to the disarmament process. We can reduce the limits of our weapons, but it is not a pressing question. Problem number one for today is to involve other nations in the disarmament process, although they are not willing to because they say that you should reduce your potentials first and only then will they speak to us. Of course, the military potential of Russia and the United States is several times greater than the potential of China, France and the UK, not to mention other states, and naturally we would like other states to also participate in the disarmament process. It would be desirable to maintain the status quo in the field of nuclear weapons. But it is an extremely difficult task in involve other states in this process. Another important problem is the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons. This is a very painful topic for us. Russia insists on the need for the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons on the national territory. The U.S. has tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, but I don’t know whether they will withdraw them, time will tell.
Sergei Oznobishchev, Head of Sector IMEMO, Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies
If I were a citizen of Syria, I would like the position on the geopolitical interests to be clearer. How can we reconcile the protection of morals and humanity that we proclaim with the fact that we consciously or unconsciously find ourselves on the side of dictators and actually support them? I believe that Russia is losing its position in the Arab world and in relations with Western partners. This is a serious problem that will have lasting consequences that are now difficult to predict. Another problem is generally the attitude to these countries from the point of view of international security. What is better for the world community? From a security standpoint, for the international community it is, scary to say, better to keep the existing regimes, as they are embedded in global processes, they valued this position, and it was easier to manage and conduct a dialogue with them. The situation in Syria has reached a level of uncontrollability. The situation in Egypt used to be quite stable, but now Islamists are coming to power there. I am sure a similar thing will happen in Syria. The same processes as in Libya, this creates a very dangerous situation. There is a need to find a compromise between morality and interests. This issue is very delicate, not only for Russian diplomacy, but also for the entire international community.
The United States, especially under Obama, is reducing costly military programs, and it is supported by the internal financial situation. In 10 years they plan to reduce it by 500 billion, so 50 billion a year, a big sum. Russia and the U.S. are beginning to proceed from the fact that they do not pose a direct threat to each other and there is no point in maintaining the Cold War machine, it takes up too many resources and emotions as we see. There is a need for joint actions against new or new -old threats such as terrorism. I hope that Obama will remain in his post, or at least his foreign policy strategy will be continued, and the cooperation between Russia and the U.S. in the direction of disarmament will continue, which is very important for us, and it will significantly reduce the degree of mutual concerns, including over the Euro-Pro.
Ian Lesser, Executive Director, Transatlantic Center, Marshall Foundation in Brussels
The world is changing, there are forces that disagree with the current state of affairs , and we see them in Egypt and other countries. Iran is a more stable society, but they exist even in Iran. There is some common understanding of the political measurement in this country, we discuss it. From a security standpoint, I don’t think that there is a big difference between our interests. Iran's threats to stop shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, I am not sure they will implement it but still, it is a threat not only to American interests, but also to the Europeans, Russians and Chinese, as the right to go through the straits is important to everyone, nobody will win. Nobody wins either when Iran develops nuclear weapons. We are talking about what Iran is doing in reality, but there are some basic common interests in the economy and security in Iran. Problems arise when the question comes to strategy, as strategic traditions, approaches and perceptions of national sovereignty are different. This is a critical issue that faces the world community. And there is no proper discussion about it. Many Americans are surprised that Russia does not express its concerns about the missile and nuclear programs of Iran, while Iran is closer to Russia's borders, and presents a bigger threat, because Iran cannot reach the USA.
The withdrawal of troops from Europe, lesser concerns with events in Europe – this is an old story of the last 20 years. We are used it, European countries are used to the fact that American troops are there not because of European interests but because of the Middle East. I think this is how it should be regarded. Yes, it reflects bigger concerns about Asia, strategic risks in military and economic terms are in Asia, and the hazards are likely to arise in Asia. This situation is not surprising. NATO has been doing this for a long time, it is not a new story. Europe will not spend much on defense and neither will the US. The situation is different, the population will not support it. NATO is looking for ways to implement its plans at a lower cost. We are talking about smarter defense. Of course, Europe keeps a military capacity for action on the periphery, not overseas. Of course this should be done more effectively and with the support of the US, so that the US will not be leaders here. Opportunities for cooperation in the defense sphere with Russia are very high. I hope we will look for them.
