In the circle of LIGHT 20:08 , April 11, 2017 Away

Alexander Shumilin, Head of the Center for Europe-Middle East, Institute of Europe, Russian Academy of Sciences

Vladimir Sukhoi international journalist, Americanist Presenters Yuri Kobaladze , Svetlana Sorokina

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

S. Sorokina - Hello. This is the “In the Circle of Light” program. Yuri Kobaladze, Svetlana Sorokina are here.

Y. Kobaladze - Hello.

S. Sorokina - And next to us are Alexander Shumilin, director of the Center for Analysis of Middle Eastern Conflicts at the Institute of the USA and Canada, editor-in-chief of the online newspaper Mideast.ru and Vladimir Sukhoi, journalist, Americanist. Hello. We are, of course, talking about the main event that everyone is talking about today. In the first lines what is called. He came to us, he came to us. American Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. And we were just wondering if he was taking a rest before tomorrow’s meetings or if some meetings were already taking place.

Y. Kobaladze - In this audience we can say that he is meeting with Venediktov now.

S. Sorokina - Well, if so, then perhaps he will come tomorrow and give an interview to Alexey Alekseevich, but it is quite possible that this will not happen, the program is probably dense. Do you think that in addition to the announced meeting with Lavrov, he will also have a date with someone else?

V. Sukhoi - I think it’s a common intrigue that the meeting has been cancelled. It's not on the agenda. I think there will be a meeting.

S. Sorokina - With the president.

V. Sukhoi - The last four visits of the Secretary of State, even during the worst ones, at the peak of our relations, our president met.

Yu. Kobaladze - Maybe by chance.

V. Sukhoi - He will sit there diagonally.

A. Shumilin - I give it eight out of ten.

S. Sorokina - Why this fog, why not immediately declare it.

A. Shumilin - This is normal in this situation. Because it seems that the Russian leadership should look offended and the offense is not hidden. And if so, then the red carpet doesn’t seem to roll out for the offender. But at the same time he is invited. Consequently, he is invited formally for conversations with his counterpart. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs. But the situation is so important, it is complex, not only related to Syria and the Middle East, which will be the main thing. But for Russian-American relations, such a meeting will probably take place.

Y. Kobaladze - Then there must be some kind of breakthrough.

A. Shumilin - It won’t happen right away, in any case, there will definitely not be a breakthrough in official reports. In general, I would say that from this moment of the last few days, maybe from the moment of the strike or specifically from today’s visit, a distinct two-level diplomacy begins, when very discreet information will be made publicly available, but there will be very active contacts at the second, lower level.

S. Sorokina - Maybe at a higher level.

A. Shumilin - Maybe at a higher level. But on the second level, choose one of them as you wish. Construction of these floors. But at another level, let’s say, active work will be carried out to establish contacts, to search for mutual understanding and smoothing out...

S. Sorokina - Because it is rightly said that our relations are at a level that has not been worse since the Cold War. Do you also assess the level of these relationships?

V. Sukhoi - They are still a little better than they were under Obama. Certainly. Because there were some hopes, and they still exist.

S. Sorokina - What hopes. After the Syrian tragedy, in my opinion...

V. Sukhoi - Although after the missile strike everything, there is no enthusiasm at all. However, look, the British Foreign Secretary still hasn’t arrived. But this was discussed, however, with Washington. And it was decided that Tillerson would be such a general guest. And he will express the opinion of Great Britain as well. That’s why everyone is saying that the ultimatum will be either us or Syria.

S. Sorokina - It practically sounded like that.

V. Sukhoi - This is not entirely true. We live in the 21st century, and politics are not black and white. Either an ultimatum or not. Of course, everything is more subtle. There will be bargaining, naturally. It seems to me that our position on Syria is not so tough now, it is not unconditional, that is, we can discuss some points.

S. Sorokina - But just from the statements of the same Tillerson at the G7 in Italy. “Russia must decide whose position it is ready to support on the Syrian issue. The United States and the country's allies or the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Iran and the Hezbollah movement." Much more definite.

V. Sukhoi - It’s always very tough before the start, and then everything is a little bit...

S. Sorokina - The thesis has been formulated: Russia must decide. How else to understand? Sasha.

A. Shumilin - This is what is called a stated negotiating position. And in this case it's serious. It’s serious in the sense that all the processes that took place under Obama have reached a stage where decisions really need to be made and the players have changed, mainly in Washington. Main player. And now the situation is really changing in a psychological and political sense. And as we see in the strategic and military, apparently, there is also some progress. Over the last 2-3 days. At least in the minds of the generals. From all sides. Therefore, of course, we are talking about creating at least the appearance of a new agenda. The processes are all old. Nothing new happened by and large. There is a moment in this, maybe some positive, but certainly negative. And to say, in this case, the highlight of the program is chemical weapons, to say that they either were not used, or were used by the rebels themselves against themselves, and so on in one form or another. This is already in the new situation emerging in the West, consolidation around the new leader in Washington and the leader, apparently, of the Western world, precisely on this Syrian wave. He becomes one. A new agenda with new impulses is emerging. And now this impulse may indeed sound like an ultimatum, but as an agenda it is formulated quite clearly.

A. Shumilin: From the moment of the strike or specifically from today’s visit, a clear two-level diplomacy begins

Y. Kobaladze - I don’t understand. Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

A. Shumilin - Assess this formulation. She had to be.

S. Sorokina - What a wording. This is what I read from...

A. Shumilin - This formulation should have sounded...

S. Sorokina “ Russia must make up its mind,” says America.

A. Shumilin - The whole world. "Seven" speaks. Let’s not just pin this all on America. And in this particular situation, the use of chemical weapons in Syria and, accordingly, missile strikes, Russia really must draw some conclusions for itself and begin some movements to, I’m already saying this from the point of view of Russia, some movements to reduce the level of conflict . Because Russia found itself in an extremely unpleasant situation. Specifically in Syria specifically because of this incident.

S. Sorokina - How can she reduce the level of conflict if there is a feeling that she can’t really influence Bashar al-Assad. There's a big question here.

A. Shumilin - If we immediately turn to the essence of this issue, then it can influence. And very much so. But is there a desire and to what extent to influence? This is on the one hand. That is, one cannot say that Russia cannot influence. Maybe. But to what extent should one go in one’s desire to influence Assad so as not to destroy the structure that currently exists. That is, Russia is Assad’s ally, Russia is an ally or partner, I still prefer the word “partner” of Iran and at the same time Russia is Turkey’s partner. Looking ahead, I can say that this is, of course, a dead end situation, because...

S. Sorokina - This is impossible.

A. Shumilin - No, because there is a tangle of conflicting interests here.

S. Sorokina - Because it is impossible.

A. Shumilin - And how to act in this situation, who exactly to influence, this is a serious question. If you allow, I will clarify this situation even more.

S. Sorokina - I want Vladimir Vasilyevich to talk.

A. Shumilin - The main thing is what.

S. Sorokina - Well, okay.

A. Shumilin - The main thing is the following. That the situation has changed quite radically after Aleppo. Let’s call it whatever you like, a military victory or whatever it is called differently in the West, including a war crime. It is important that the situation has indeed changed strategically. And now Russia’s task in this situation is to transform, convert military victories into a political process, political achievements. In order to gradually but seriously begin to reduce its presence in Syria, with the withdrawal of a significant part of the units from there. By maintaining at least two bases and some kind of political influence. But at the same time, Russia faces the opposing interests of Iran and Damascus. And if Russia is interested in establishing a political process, then Iran, Tehran and Damascus are interested and do not hide their interest in maintaining the status quo, slowing down the political process by imitating it. Without pushing too hard in order to still preserve all those military gains that...

Y. Kobaladze - So in whose favor will the choice be, Russia after all...

A. Shumilin - How can we predict. We are talking about that contradictory node, one might call it a trap.

Y. Kobaladze - How will we get out?

S. Sorokina - Well, wait.

A. Shumilin - It depends solely on the vision of this problem up there. And by the way, there is an ambiguous vision, believe me.

S. Sorokina - Vladimir Vasilievich, connect.

V. Sukhoi - There was also a rather offensive statement for us with chemical weapons. Tillerson said that either we do not control and cannot fulfill our obligations to eliminate Syria's chemical weapons, or we are incompetent. This is of course very disappointing.

S. Sorokina - What of this really?

V. Sukhoi - I think it’s both. We have no control and we are truly incompetent. We don't know which warehouses remain and where. And yet they definitely meant something. I think.

S. Sorokina - But still, this is really the result of some kind of accident, it was bombed, or it was a deliberate use.

V. Sukhoi - I don’t believe it. I think that there were small caches at the Shayrat base and they were taken in a situation that for some reason the government troops considered hopeless, and this was exactly what had to be done.

S. Sorokina - But this is a blatant case. How could they deliberately do this?

V. Sukhoi - I think that we were not informed. In any case, there is no doubt in the American press that it was dropped from the air. Here you can make excuses, look for other options. And this is a decisive change in the situation. Just two weeks ago, the same Trump and his entire headquarters stated that we do not insist on Assad’s departure, we hope that chemical weapons have been destroyed and all obligations have been fulfilled. And here is the famous red line. Now Ivanka advised, not Ivanka, it is unknown, but, nevertheless, Trump made a choice. That's all. I agree with Sasha that there is a whole tangle and a trap here. But here you need to make a choice, I seemed to say that this is all subtler, more complicated. But this is true. I believe that we must choose America.

A. Shumilin: There is an understanding that Bashar Assad is the main factor generating the conflict. And indeed it is

Y. Kobaladze - What we are declaring, just the opposite, indicates that...

V. Sukhoi - Yura, declare...

Y. Kobaladze - The fact is that Putin directly compared the situation with the war against Saddam Hussein. That we were also deceived as now, they showed footage that turned out to be fake. They insisted that everything was established there, and then he confessed, the same Blair said that I’m sorry, I was lying.

V. Sukhoi - This is still rhetoric. And depending on the exchange. What a swap. What to change for what. What America will offer, and what we will offer.

S. Sorokina - What can we offer?

V. Sukhoi - Much.

S. Sorokina - Abandon Assad.

V. Sukhoi - Ukraine. We can offer all kinds of military matters. ABM - some kind of concessions and so on. We have quite a lot of cards on the table. Another thing is how ready the Trump administration is now to talk, even in some modality, about even Bashar al-Assad’s temporary stay in power.

Y. Kobaladze - Why are they doing this to Bashar Assad? Right across the throat.

V. Sukhoi - Now at the “seven” everyone said, that’s it, we rushed around with this for too long, we believed for too long...

Y. Kobaladze - All history shows that getting rid of such a dictator does not mean peace and tranquility. And nothing could be worked out with Saddam Hussein. In Libya too. What this solves: why they clung to Assad’s personality so much.

V. Sukhoi - The fact is that the American press and many in America believe that it is Assad who gives these criminal orders.

A. Shumilin - Yes, such a moment is on the surface. But in fact, there is an understanding that Bashar Assad is the main factor generating the conflict. And this is really so in my opinion, tracking the course of all events.

S. Sorokina - As if there is someone who can put out this conflict.

A. Shumilin - The fact is that now I’ll tell you, by the way, this is no longer news, I already had to say it at this table. The fact is that maybe it was not even Bashar Assad who gave this order. In general, everything related to the use of chemical weapons in Syria from the government side, there is such a double interpretation. Some people blame everything on Bashar al-Assad, but another point of view still prevails. That he had nothing to do with it. That these people around him are generals, Assad in a white coat and white uniform, white gloves has nothing to do with it.

V. Sukhoi - I didn’t know.

A. Shumilin - So it’s present. And in any case, he is responsible for what is happening. And when I say that he is the source and main generator of the conflict, I am not just talking about him as a person, but about his regime and the actions that the Syrian leadership has been taking since 2011. And everything that happened next. But here and now, with recent events in mind, something happened that went beyond all red lines and truly reasonable ideas. And how this could happen is the question... There is information that suggests that this airport, the Shayrat airfield, was under almost complete control of Iran. This is a normal situation. Certain territories, certain regions, certain points in Syria are under the complete control of Iran and the Syrian authorities openly shrug their shoulders, saying that we cannot do anything. Why - because Iran has a special interest there, strategic in contrast to Russia. And therefore he is not going to give up.

S. Sorokina - And what happens...

A. Shumilin - And accordingly, this strike was mainly inspired and organized by the local Iranian generals. For what purpose. The SU-22 plane is known, the name of the pilot, his wife, and his children are known. Where are they and what are they. I say this figuratively. Call signs are known. Given. This is known from local networks, which even filmed something live. I mean human rights defenders and observers, and those informing international organizations. Because international organizations have practically no formal presence there. For what purpose could Iran, the Iranian generals organize this strike. We make this assumption based on the information that exists, but which still gives a picture and an angle of understanding. With one simple goal - for it to cause, firstly, a tremendous noise, it is known on what scale.

S. Sorokina - So that Assad has nowhere to retreat.

A. Shumilin - Yes. But this is not about Assad. And it’s all about Russia, or about Putin, if you will. Because by doing so, the Iranian side intended to drive a wedge and slow down the rapprochement between Russia and the United States. Exacerbate the situation. To prevent rapprochement and create what we have. This can be created one and two times in extremely simple two steps. It is no coincidence that this happened on the eve of Tillerson’s visit, and it is no coincidence that it happened after Trump’s soft, conciliatory statements. They are now accusing him of saying that this was one of the reasons that gave Assad a free hand. But Assad? There is also a question here. I believe that Iran and Assad are now in the same boat. Russia is in a slightly different boat. Because it has a different strategic goal and other practical tasks. I repeat. Enter into negotiations and implement the scheme agreed upon within the Geneva process. But this is not at all included in the list of Assad’s goals and objectives. Because I repeat Assad’s task, Iran’s task is not to negotiate, because negotiations mean a compromise.

V. Sukhoi: The Foreign Ministry is not currently formulating our position in Russian-American relations. This is done in the Kremlin

Y. Kobaladze - That is, we are hostages of Assad and Iran.

A. Shumilin - Thank you, absolutely fair.

S. Sorokina - For the formulation.

A. Shumilin - For the wording, I called it a trap.

S. Sorokina - Hostage. Vladimir Vasilyevich, the question is, well, we’re not the only ones here who are smart and understand everything. About Iran, influence and possible participation. Well, both the Kremlin and Washington certainly understand this.

A. Shumilin - Do you want me...

S. Sorokina - He won’t let me tell you. Vladimir Vasilievich.

V. Sukhoi - I, since I represent the American side here, point of view...

S. Sorokina - The silent majority.

V. Sukhoi - In America there is a fairly clear position. If this is Iran, Syria, intrigues are Russia’s problem. You are the one who put yourself in this situation. You invited Hezbollah there...

S. Sorokina - That is, there is no time for subtleties.

V. Sukhoi - You are hobnobbing with Iran and so on, you sort this all out and come to the clearest conclusions about our relations. Russian-American. Speak up, because we believe that everything you did in Astana and Geneva, and all the negotiations we waited for, we gave time. It all failed. Assad must go. The meeting of foreign ministers in Italy - it was clearly stated that that’s it, patience is over. And Tillerson is authorized here to state the general position of the G7 that Russia practically must say, give some time frames, how long it will support Assad and when he should leave. If we are not ready for this, then America is not ready for any kind of construction of new relations.

A. Shumilin - A remark about the fact that we are not the only smart ones who know about Iran. Of course, everyone knows everything. And by and large they know who delivered these blows and how. Specifically the situation I was involved in. Not so long ago, a couple of weeks ago, at a fairly serious representative international forum in one of the countries, I made a message to show the points of common ground, the similarities with Iran, Russia and Iran in Syria, and the points of divergence, which are much more numerous. And next to me sat a representative of Iran, the director general of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and a large Iranian brigade. International, European, American, Arabic of a very high level, I would say. Bureaucratic. And I was just seriously afraid that now they would attack me: how come, we are partners, and here you are saying that we have such points of divergence. Nothing of the kind, they demolished everything, endured everything, did not make a single word, not a single comment.

S. Sorokina - What does this mean? We’ll agree after we listen to the news.

Yu. Kobaladze - The intrigue has been launched.

NEWS

S. Sorokina - We welcome you once again. We settled on Alexander Ivanovich talking about his recent participation in a large conference, where high-ranking representatives of Iran were also present.

A. Shumilin - Yes, the bureaucracy of Iran. And I repeat that my task was to describe the points of agreement between Russia and Iran in Syria and the points of divergence. There are many more of the latter. Especially after Aleppo. When it is assumed that the political process will be activated, in which, as it turns out, Iran and Assad are not too interested. And I was expecting some rather sharp direct reaction on the sidelines, an expression of resentment about why we are friends. We are in a hostile environment here, the Iranians are in a hostile environment everywhere. We rely on Russia, but you say that we have points of difference. Nothing of the sort happened. This is the answer to the question: does everyone understand everything? Everyone understands perfectly well at the appropriate level that relations between Russia and Iran in connection with Syria are now strained. They disperse. It is no coincidence that Rouhani recently visited Moscow. In order to try to tie Russia closer to itself, intriguing it and getting it interested in possible commercial projects. This is all under the pressure of Trump, the original pressure of Trump in an anti-Iranian spirit. And the fact that now the situation is completely different in principle than it was before Aleppo, in this situation the use of chemical weapons, there are many questions here, but the answer in my opinion is Assad and Iran. Consciously.

Y. Kobaladze - But we can’t hand them over either.

A. Shumilin - Well, we can’t hand over, because we never hand over anyone. Under pressure and so on.

S. Sorokina - Now in the news there is such uncertainty about the expectations of our Foreign Ministry from tomorrow’s meeting with the US Secretary of State. Does this also mean that in our Foreign Ministry, and maybe even higher, there is no clear idea of how we imagine a way out of the situation?

V. Sukhoi - The fact is that, unfortunately, I don’t want to offend our Foreign Ministry, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not currently formulating our position in Russian-American relations. This is done in the Kremlin.

A. Shumilin - Doesn’t produce, doesn’t consult.

S. Sorokina - Is there an idea in the Kremlin about what to do?

V. Sukhoi - I think this is a feature of our foreign policy in recent years, everything is somehow vague, everything is incomprehensible and everything seems to be at the last moment.

S. Sorokina - In Chapaev’s way, the main thing is to get involved and we’ll see.

V. Sukhoi - Get involved in battle. But it seems to me that the worst thing is that in reality there is no position.

A. Shumilin: The task of Assad and Iran is not to negotiate, because negotiations mean a compromise

S. Sorokina – This also seems very scary to me.

V. Sukhoi - That is, we are guided, we listen to what Tillerson will say, in what terms, how and then, as it were, draw some conclusions based on this. Because it seems to me that now is a historical moment. We have the opportunity, after 8 years of virtually ruined relations with America, when they deteriorated from year to year and reached the breaking point, to finally return to normal Russian-American relations. Well, just normal.

S. Sorokina - Vladimir Vasilyevich, do you believe this? You hope I understand.

V. Sukhoi - Historical chance. And if we don’t use it now, we will again seize on Assad, on the rhetoric, on the fact that during the election campaign Trump said one thing, now another. Let's be offended, turn our backs...

S. Sorokina - And we will embrace Iran and Hezbollah.

V. Sukhoi - Syria and who else, Venezuela, Nicaragua and South Ossetia...

S. Sorokina - Horror.

V. Sukhoi - Then that’s it, this is a historical chance.

S. Sorokina - I even have the feeling that it is no coincidence that they do not announce a possible meeting between our president and the Secretary of State for the simple reason that first there will be negotiations, sounding out at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and then maybe something will come to mind about the next steps and possible conversations. And until this moment there is no decision whether to date.

V. Sukhoi - We can’t even lay out our cards. Because we don't know how Tillerson will react to this. And in general, Gromyko was once called “Mr. No,” but Tillerson is very laconic. He doesn’t speak much at all, and in general there’s such a unique situation now that Nikki Haley, the American representative to the UN, she’s actually speaking on behalf of Trump now. Tillerson is in the background. And suddenly he also has an opportunity, he knows Putin. In 2013, Putin awarded him the Order of Friendship of Peoples. They can speak the same language. And suddenly they tell him that there is no meeting with Putin in your work schedule. And so Tillerson thinks: what does this mean? Did I say something, that’s all I said that was offensive. And I expressed the position of the United States.

S. Sorokina - I don’t think he has a complex.

V. Sukhoi - I’m not talking about the complex, he doesn’t understand...

S. Sorokina - Or maybe he understands. We won't get into his head. It is quite possible that he understands everything.

V. Sukhoi - You invited me. You want to see me in Moscow, I want to talk to everyone. This is Tillerson's position. I have words, I have a position.

S. Sorokina - He has a position on how to explain to him that we don’t.

Y. Kobaladze - Consolidated, he brought it from Italy.

V. Sukhoi - He brought her from Italy, he said almost everything.

S. Sorokina - Now if this all ends in nothing. Moreover, if there is no meeting at the highest level, it seems to me that this will also be such an unpleasant signal.

V. Sukhoi - At least for six months, a year. This is a very blank wall.

S. Sorokina - Please tell me, dear gentlemen, when we got involved in this Syrian epic, I will not forget, as soon as this happened, my conversation with Georgy Ilyich Mirsky, the kingdom of heaven. Which probably few people understood in all these Middle Eastern affairs. And how he really was in some very depressed mood, which was unlike him, and said that it was just terrible, why did we do this. And he predicted how it would end. How it will develop. Even he didn’t know how it would end. So here's the question. What did we want when we got into this Syria? Unlike what we received.

Y. Kobaladze - Declare yourself.

S. Sorokina - We are such players.

A. Shumilin - The fact is that, naturally, the official version needs to be announced to the public. What they wanted was to fight terrorism.

S. Sorokina - We remember this.

A. Shumilin - Well-known experts still make this argument first at various conferences. We are building an anti-terrorist coalition there, but against what and how it is not entirely clear.

S. Sorokina - We just don’t really understand who is who.

V. Sukhoi: We can’t even lay out our cards. Because we don't know how Tillerson will react to this.

A. Shumilin - Even we understand, but we’re bombing the wrong ones. This is known to the whole world, everything is well known. This is not discussed. But only from above do these theses come down. But in reality, of course, completely different matters were being decided here. By the way, Putin admitted this; in an interview with some European Western magazine, he, answering a correspondent’s question, directly said: yes, you are right, our task is to strengthen the Assad regime. And at the same time there is a fight against terrorism, but who to call terrorists is another question. Alas, Syria turned out to be, in the minds of the Russian leadership, the very card that needed to be played in the current situation at that time. After the conclusion of the Minsk agreements, the situation both domestically and abroad. In world space. Let me explain. Then the authority of the authorities rested on that very surge of, call it what you will, patriotism, militarism associated with Ukrainian affairs or victories. And suddenly the Minsk agreements, suddenly there was calm. Reducing the level of opposition and fire. And there’s nothing to talk about or show on TV. And then this just happened in February, and as summer approached it became clear that Assad’s fate was hanging by a thread. The rebels, the opposition, not ISIS*, not to be confused with ISIS*, are clearly bringing the end of the regime closer. And he will overthrow him. What I say is confirmed by Putin himself and especially Lavrov. He said this several times. That if it were not for our intervention, the Assad regime would not have existed long ago. That is, strengthen the regime, save it first. In order to turn it into an argument, a lever for Russia’s communication with the West. On what grounds is known. Support for the legitimate president, the legitimate regime. All these words are well practiced. How legal it is is a special topic for the whole program. There's nothing particularly legal there. Especially the last few years, when the powers expired. But that's not the point. In the big game he is called legal. And this is a really big game, and after the events in Ukraine, having strengthened Assad, Russia clearly planned to establish a dialogue with the West with the help of Syria, relying on this leverage.

S. Sorokina - It’s clear, but it didn’t work out.

A. Shumilin - Nothing happened. But everything turned out the other way around. That sanctions may already be imposed. By the way, they are already overlapping, but so far bilaterally, not collectively. And it really turned out very bad. And it was easy to predict.

V. Sukhoi - Whatever goals we pursued there, tactical, strategic, to regain our role in the Middle East, to regain our role as a great state, to distract from Ukraine and so on - all this “tomahawked.” At the moment when Trump launched missile strikes on Syria.

A. Shumilin ― Absolutely correct.

V. Sukhoi - None of these goals have been achieved. And now we must clearly realize...

A. Shumilin - In addition to strengthening the regime.

V. Sukhoi - Strengthening it, like some kind of agony.

A. Shumilin - We are not a regime. We extended the civil war by three years.

S. Sorokina - True, I have a feeling that even with the departure of Bashar Assad, the civil war there will not stop. Because he is not the only one who decides.

A. Shumilin - There is a scenario, there are options, everyone is ready to negotiate.

S. Sorokina - Our regular listener asks: will Syria become our second Afghanistan? Well, I wouldn't want to.

V. Sukhoi - You remember with what pomp we announced that all the tasks had been completed.

S. Sorokina - Yes, and we are winding down. However, today there are deaths again.

A. Shumilin - Why in the future tense. She will become narrower.

S. Sorokina - Well, after all, we don’t lead any ground forces like that...

A. Shumilin - This is not the point.

V. Sukhoi - This is also a question.

S. Sorokina - And people die. This is true.

A. Shumilin - Big question. But the Chechen battalion is not ground forces.

V. Sukhoi: Our position on Syria is not so tough now, it is not unconditional, we can discuss some points

S. Sorokina - Following up with a question: can we leave Syria without losing face? I think it’s already here...

V. Sukhoi - Not now because we have already lost.

S. Sorokina - There’s really nothing to lose. Therefore, it seems that this is some kind of way out of the situation. Really join the coalition and not fight for the extension of the regime and the good mood of Iran and Hezbollah.

A. Shumilin - Now the attitude is already different in the minds of those involved in the decision making. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as rightly said, is somewhat aloof. And its function is to formalize the decisions made. To bring awareness, to speak publicly, famous ladies do this in their own style. And we know very well who makes the decision. And no one actually knows who influences the decision. In the sense of personalities, some groups. We can only talk about the structures involved, but when there is a war, it is clear that the role of the military prevails over others. To what extent does it predominate? And the military, including Russian ones, with a penchant for “doves” are not particularly noticed.

S. Sorokina - As they said, this is too serious a matter to entrust it to the military.

A. Shumilin - Absolutely right. The question is which mentality, reflecting the interests of which groups and structures, will prevail in those circles or corridors where decisions are made. Here no one can predict anymore.

V. Sukhoi - I wish I knew where these corridors are.

S. Sorokina - I have a feeling that right now at this time, the people most involved in this issue are probably sitting somewhere in a narrow circle and are probably somehow discussing all the pros and cons of this moment. Because we are not the only ones who understand that the moment is truly historical. Their circle is narrow and the moment is truly historic. Because no matter how you dismiss it, there really is a lot at stake today.

A. Shumilin - And most importantly, believe me, I feel the atmosphere, the chemistry of what is happening...

V. Sukhoi - No need for chemicals.

A. Shumilin - No less than you think, but, perhaps, due to the specifics of one’s specialization, there is an awareness that they have come to the line. This is the answer to the question why the questions are posed so sharply. Everyone has come to the line. And Russia realizes that there are already problems everywhere. By and large, what is Syria for Russia now? This…

V. Sukhoi - Suitcase without a handle.

A. Shumilin - Figuratively good, but these are explosions in the St. Petersburg metro indirectly. This has not been directly proven, but something similar in the North Caucasus has been directly proven. Individual smaller-scale terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg...

S. Sorokina - And this, by the way, was also predicted a long time ago.

A. Shumilin - In addition to the plane over Sinai, there are many other incidents. These are echoes of Syria within the country. And suddenly we are faced with the prospect of a collision with the United States in Syria. Because of Syria. And I wouldn’t like to say that it’s because of Assad. I think that our top leaders also don’t want to say that this is happening because of Assad.

S. Sorokina - The last thing I wanted to ask. What do you think is a bad development of events? We hope for the best that we will not cling, for example, to Assad and will begin some kind of rapprochement with the coalition. A bad development of events. We don’t rent out, as they say, our own.

Yu. Kobaladze - Send in ground troops.

A. Shumilin - Whose.

V. Sukhoi - Firstly, a second strike is not excluded, and the third strike is a missile strike. You can always say that there is a suspicion that chemical weapons are about to be used or used again...

S. Sorokina - Now why not.

V. Sukhoi - The second terrible danger is that if we really insist that we do not coordinate everything with the Americans in the skies of Syria, this is a terrible thing. And third - our S-300 and S-400. If, God forbid, some missile is stopped by our anti-missile system, it will be worse than the Caribbean, than the Cuban Missile Crisis. Therefore, I am still an optimist. The more they explain to me that everything is uncertain, that it is unclear why Tillerson came, that he is unlikely to meet with Putin. I am sure that he will meet with Putin. And I'm sure we'll agree on something. They won't necessarily tell us about it. But we will definitely agree on some trend.

S. Sorokina - If only this trend was already clear. Do you think Erdogan is the third rejoicing here?

V. Sukhoi - Erdogan remains Erdogan. That's how he always was and is. We somehow portrayed him as saying that he now does not want to join the EU, he is already thinking about leaving NATO, and so on. He never thought about leaving NATO. He always understood that Türkiye was, is and will be part of...

A. Shumilin - Interesting question about Erdogan. To grasp the situation. More recently, he was the main enemy and main oil trader (remember, this is useful to say) with ISIS* and so on. And other options that are close to delirium. Then he became my best friend. And now he is the only friend, or rather potential partner, whom Russia can rely on on the battlefield. Iran is working in a different direction, Assad is working in his own direction, close to Iran. And Russia can only cling to Turkey to some extent.

S. Sorokina - But there’s no way to attack him...

V. Sukhoi - Take our history of relations with Turkey.

S. Sorokina - This is impossible. It's simple…

A. Shumilin - And despite the fact that Erdogan applauds the missile strikes. And he declared, declares and will continue to declare the need to overthrow Assad. The Russian leadership is forced to communicate with him, because there is simply no one else to talk to. There are no such players on the battlefield.

S. Sorokina - How we became impoverished as friends, listen.

A. Shumilin - There are no such people in the world. And Türkiye is not a friend either. Russia has no friends. Besides the famous two.

V. Sukhoi: Whatever goals we pursued there, tactical, strategic, it all “tomahawked”

V. Sukhoi - And this is a big question.

A. Shumilin - You can also have missile forces and strategic space forces.

S. Sorokina - Well, let’s sum it up. What do we still hope for this evening on this Tuesday.

Yu. Kobaladze - On Tillerson.

S. Sorokina - April 11. Yuri Georgievich.

Y. Kobaladze - I am a positive person, I hope that they will finally agree on something. Otherwise there was no point in going. And I’m sure there will be a meeting with Putin.

S. Sorokina - Well, let’s hope that this meeting, if not taking place now, then maybe will take place tomorrow. And that some positive trends will be identified. Let me remind you once again with whom we spoke today about Syria and Russian-American relations in connection with the latest events in this country. Alexander Shumilin, director of the Center for Analysis of Middle Eastern Conflicts at the Institute of the USA and Canada and Vladimir Sukhoi, journalist, Americanist. Thank you for the conversation. And thank you all for your attention, goodbye, see you in a week.

* “Islamic State” is a terrorist organization banned in Russia.

Syria - an “apple of discord”? — Alexander Shumilin — In the circle of LIGHT — Echo of Moscow, 04/11/2017