By Vestnik Kavkaza
In the past few days the West has begun to talk about the possibility of a military intervention against Syria, accusing the regime of Bashar al-Assad of being responsible for the alleged chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus. The situation is critical and controversial. Vestnik Kavkaza interviewed diplomat Peter Stegnii about the Syrian crisis.
- If an extreme scenario comes true, how will this affect the situation in the region and in Russia?
- I think it will affect it negatively. And it is difficult to calculate all the options. At the moment our situation is 50/50. The chances of a sensible, rational way out of the present crisis are still on the table. They are connected to the calling and preparation of Geneva-2, and our diplomacy is actively working in this direction. It is a pity that yesterday a meeting in The Hague was cancelled, but September is coming, and the chances of it are not lost. As for the impact of the military scenario, it depends, first, on the specific option chosen – a strike with cruise missiles or a missile-bomb strike, or a ground operation. Unfortunately, due to a heavy regional experience, we know that after taking up arms there will be a lot of blood. In Libya, too, they wanted to introduce only a no-fly zone, and considered that this issue would be closed. We had to help very actively on the ground. If such action unfolds in Syria it will be a minefield in which passing without an explosion will be very hard. On the one hand, there is Israel, on the other hand – all the Iranian issues.
Extremists from the Caucasus, former commanders, as we know, are involved in the fighting in Syria, although it is not the main group, but I think that the situation in the North Caucasus has changed dramatically in recent years. And here we will not only stand, but also find some possible healing effect of the Russian experience in Chechnya. What is happening now, the search for models in Dagestan, will also be interesting for the Middle East.
- It was once thought that the leader of the region is Egypt, but due to the events that are taking place in this country, which country would you call the leader?
- As for the forefront of regional policy, these are, of course, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. I think that the second chapter of the "Arab Spring" will be associated with the high profile of these states.
***
Peter Stegnii thinks “the Americans themselves fall into their own ideological trap. They imperceptibly turned democracy into an ideology, a rigid system, from which the third world and the Arabs, they find democracy acceptable as a system of government, but not as a system of values, at least not the neo-liberal values. We see it perfectly. This is the dividing line, which now affects, unfortunately, the political evolution of the situation in the region.”
As for the motives of the Obama administration. the expert thinks that “Obama personally does not want to use force. There is a feeling of a somewhat artificial injection of passion, demonstrating muscle and sabre-rattling. A feeling of déjà vu. It was the same before the operation in Iraq in 2003, in Libya we can recall the same situation. What has really happened? There has been something very close to a farce, considering that's the effect of the déjà vu that I mentioned. There is information about the victims, from 300 to 1,300. Symptoms similar to those of chemical weapons. But the classic question of Roman law is cui prodest? Who benefits? I think, if we are guided by formal logic, you can point the finger at the regime of Bashar al-Assad as the very last option. Once upon a time the Americans made a red line. The same thing repeatedly was communicated to the regional public and the Syrians by Israel. The use of chemical weapons, or even the possibility of them leaking and falling into the hands of the radicals is a red line beyond which the Americans and their allies retain the possibility of using a military scenario.”
Peter Stegnii recalled that Karla Delponte, “who can hardly be suspected of bias or that she communicates a point of view in which she does not believe herself, clearly said about the May case that chemical weapons could have been used only by the militants.”
