The foreign ministers of Russia and France did not agree on Syria. The reason for the disagreement was the previously published UN report, which confirmed the use of chemical weapons in the country. Sergei Lavrov criticized the document, while Laurent Fabius considered it completely objective. Columnist for the Kommersant newspaper Maxim Yusin wondered why France is the most persistent in seeking the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.

Photo: Dmitry Lekai, Kommersant / buy photo

It has always been believed that Moscow and Paris have a special relationship. Even in the most difficult moments of the Cold War, they often managed to find a common language to the envy of London and Washington. And in the era of the Soviet Union, and under Yeltsin, and under Putin, and under Medvedev.

And it is no coincidence that it was France, together with Germany and Russia, that until the last moment tried to dissuade George W. Bush from the war in Iraq in 2003. It is no coincidence that it was French President Nicolas Sarkozy who helped broker a truce with Georgia five years ago. It is no coincidence that Paris is considered the main lobbyist for Moscow’s interests in the European Union. But when the Syrian conflict broke out, everything changed beyond recognition. Moscow and Paris not only found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades, they became symbols and ideologists of two opposing positions.

France's attitude towards Damascus is much harsher than the approach of its EU partners, not to mention the Barack Obama administration, which is clearly in no hurry to get involved in another Middle East war, no matter how its allies in the East and West persuade it to do so. But France doesn’t need to be convinced. If she had the technical capabilities, she would have long ago acted as the head of the anti-Assad coalition. But Syria is not Libya or Mali, Damascus has a powerful air defense system, and it cannot be overcome without the help of the United States. And therefore, French diplomacy joined the Saudis, Qataris, and Turks in besieging Washington and pushing it to take active action.

But why? Why is France so eager for the fall of Assad? When I asked this question to a high-ranking interlocutor in Paris, he answered succinctly: “Think Beirut, 1983.” At that time, there was a civil war in Lebanon; France, among other states, sent its troops there under the UN flag.

On October 23, a truck loaded with explosives drove up to their barracks. 58 paratroopers were killed (and on the same day, 241 Americans were killed in a similar way). Never before or since have terrorist attacks of this magnitude been carried out against the French military.

It was a shock for Paris. The French are convinced that the security services of Damascus were behind this action. For several decades, Syria was France's main opponent in the Middle East. This antagonism had many underlying reasons: both the merciless competition for dominance in Lebanon and the phobias that inevitably arise between the former metropolis and the former colony (after the First World War, Syria was under French rule).

More than one generation of politicians and diplomats grew up in Paris, accustomed to considering the regime in Damascus a stronghold of evil. And even though Hafez Assad has long been in his grave, on whose orders, as the French are convinced, their paratroopers were blown up. His son in Paris is perceived as the successor of the criminal dynasty. The French often say so – Assads. In plural.

For Paris, the desire to overthrow the Assads is a matter of principle; to some extent, it is a manifestation of complexes. But what great power with global ambitions does not have such complexes and unavenged grievances? Moscow also has all this in abundance.

But the French, we must give them their due, always understood our difficulties (especially in relations with the former Soviet republics) and approached them tactfully and respectfully. And now, it seems, it is Moscow’s turn to show tolerance and condescension.

Defend your position, but at the same time do not bring matters to confrontation with a long-term reliable partner. After all, the Syrian war is just an episode in our special relationship with Paris. And this episode should in no way call them into question.

“It’s Moscow’s turn to show tolerance”