Carnegie Moscow Center
Even as China becomes a maritime power to reckon with, Beijing has no desire to give up on its continental aspirations.
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.
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.
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.
As the debate over congressional authorization for action in Syria showed, the American public has lost its taste for unilateral military intervention that cannot be justified by a direct threat to American lives.
Moscow and Washington face the tough task of coming up with an enforcement mechanism to secure Syria’s chemical weapons that outlines possible consequences if Assad reneges or cheats on the deal.
The message that the president and the American people are sending at the moment is that the United States prefers even unlikely and temporary solutions over more war, more chaos, and possibly more Americans being put at risk.
For the moment, an idea that might ultimately seem to be in the interest of Obama, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and, arguably, the Syrian opposition has gained surprising traction.
Washington should endorse the Russian proposal and invest President Vladimir Putin’s prestige in winning Syria’s assent and full, timely implementation. Such an outcome would be better than military action and better than no action.