russia
Russia’s diplomatic intervention in the Syria crisis has received much praise from politicians and media outlets around the world. In a sense, the praise is deserved: by finally pushing the Assad regime into negotiations, Russia has halted – at least for the time being – a universally undesired military action.
The 2008 Republican presidential nominee, criticised Mr Putin and his associates for rigging elections, imprisoning and murdering opponents, fostering corruption and "destroying" Russia's reputation on the world stage.
As U.S. and Russian diplomats reached an agreement over the weekend to dismantle Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles, the public expresses support for a diplomatic approach to the crisis but is skeptical about its effectiveness. By a 67% to 23% margin, the public approves of Barack Obama’s decision to delay military airstrikes and pursue a diplomatic effort to convince Syria to give up its chemical weapons. However, just 26% think Syria will give up control of its chemical weapons, while 57% think it will not.
In the former Soviet Union, when officials thought a citizen was stirring up trouble, they simply shipped him off to the Gulag. Today, authoritarian leaders have become more subtle about reining in those who would challenge the government – especially nongovernmental organizations promoting democracy and greater civil rights.
The United States doesn't have to trust Russian President Vladimir Putin, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Sunday on "Face the Nation," over his tentative agreement to help identify Syria's chemical weapons, place them under international control and ultimately dismantle them was "the only way to solve" the country's raging civil war.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Geneva, Switzerland, September 12-14, to discuss matters concerning Syria, including the use of chemical weapons and steps to address these developments.
All this excitement over recent Russian public diplomacy on Syria is a bit odd to those of us who have been following that diplomacy strategy for over a decade. That Vladimir Putin chose to write an op-ed in The New York Times this week is not at all shocking. It is part of a broader pattern of Russian outreach that began in 2001.
With the Russian proposal for Bashar al-Assad to allow the international community to take control of his chemical weapons stockpile, the Obama administration happily claimed that coercive diplomacy worked. The details of such transfer remain complicated, and it’s certainly possible that ultimately there will be no actual transit of the weapons.