Carnegie Moscow Center
The U.S.-Russian agreement on seizing and destroying Syria’s chemical weapons defused the threat of another war in the Middle East but left many wondering what it meant for the balance of power in the region, the course of the Syrian war, and the chances of further diplomatic breakthroughs.
Beijing is dipping its diplomatic toes in the turbulent waters of the Middle East. But it is not clear if Delhi is ready to do the same.
Every week leading experts answer a new question from Judy Dempsey on the foreign and security policy challenges shaping Europe’s role in the world.
If the joint efforts of the United States and Russia in Syria are to succeed, they must attain a ceasefire between Bashar al-Assad’s armed forces and the opposition, and discover and destroy all chemical weapons in Syria.
The world watches and waits to hear if the Assad government will give up Syria’s chemical weapons stock.
Although Vladimir Putin used his New York Times op-ed to reiterate his position on Syria in an aggressive tone, there is now a potentially productive discussion of Assad’s chemical weapons underway.
If the conflict in Syria is to be resolved, it is important to go beyond the chemical attack issue and work through a political process that would end the war.
U.S. reactions to President Vladimir Putin’s op-ed article in the New York Times, from outrage to ridicule, show just how badly much of the Western policy elite are misinterpreting Russia.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s New York Times op-ed does not complicate international negotiations over Syria’s chemical weapons. Contrary to common perceptions, Putin is pragmatic and capable of making deals.
Russia’s chemical weapons plan will require a serious re-launch of the political process in Syria.