Carnegie Moscow Center
The increase of Russian supplies and presence in support of the Bashar al-Assad’s regime is part of the Russian plan to start negotiations on the ground to resolve the Syrian crisis.
To the Kremlin, Assad is not the source of the problem in Syria—he is actually the way to solve it.
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.
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.
In his New York Times op-ed, Vladimir Putin asserts that Russia is not supporting Assad as an ally, but it is supporting the world order, centered on the U.N. Security Council.
Russia has submitted a plan for chemical weapons seizure in Syria.
Russia’s position on Syria is based in large part on Moscow’s concerns about the political repercussions of intervention. At the G20 Summit, Vladimir Putin attempted to create a de facto referendum on intervention.