Carnegie Moscow Center
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.
Even as China becomes a maritime power to reckon with, Beijing has no desire to give up on its continental aspirations.
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.
The Syria crisis presents a great opportunity. If an international effort successfully disarms Syria's chemical arsenal, and that success is recognized, the positive repercussions would be felt far beyond the Middle East.
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.
The main goal of Vladimir Putin’s op-ed in the New York Times is to force the United States back into the U.N. Security Council-centered international system.