The expanded international meeting for which Russia called yesterday with the participation of Iran and Turkey to discuss the situation in Syria and support UN Envoy Kofi Annan's plan, as well as the statement of Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in which he said that regime change in Syria would lead to “catastrophe," constituted a quick turn against the transformation detected by the international circles in Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov's statements, who said that his country did not perceive the stay of Bashar al-Assad in power as a precondition for any political settlement in the country. Indeed, Lavrov recognized yesterday that Annan's plan was dead and needed resuscitation, blaming its failure nevertheless on the Syrian opposition and the international Syria's Friends group and not on the regime in Damascus, one whose president denied a few days ago the existence of a political crisis in his country and stressed the continuation of the security solution. This is why the Russian minister suggested Iran's attendance – i.e. Al-Assad's closest ally – to ensure “balance" as he said, and pressure the opposition groups. The world had noted in Gatilov's position some sort of cooperation with the pressures exercised by the international community on Moscow to get it to recant its utter support to the regime in Damascus, after the Russians practically found themselves in a standoff with Europe, the United States and the Arab world. This confrontation was clear at the European-Russian Petersburg summit, during which it was confirmed that the future of cooperation between the two sides was linked to Moscow's amendment of its positions, especially in regard to the Syrian and Iranian files. It was also clear in the American secretary of state's stand in Stockholm, as she invited the Russians to play the required role to induce change in Syria, and during the Gulf ministerial meeting which cautioned Moscow – via the Saudi foreign Minister – that its insistence on supporting Al-Assad will cost it the sympathy it had previously earned in the Arab world, and prevent it from building its interests in the region in the future. Nonetheless, the ghost of Russian moderation which Washington has been trying to translate into specific points that would constitute the foundation of a transitional phase – as it happened in Yemen where collaboration between the two states was noticeable – quickly dissipated. This happened after it turned out that Moscow was primarily using it to absorb international disgruntlement following the Houla massacre and gain time to serve the interests of Al-Assad's regime. During the Soviet era, Moscow used to say it supported the Arab populations against their regimes, instigated the parties and sides loyal to it to impose change and fiercely criticized the West for defending the regimes. Today, when those people rose to get rid of the dictatorships which governed them for decades without any mercy, the “new" Moscow stood against them, without any regard for the populations whose friendship it always claimed it cherished. This transformation is due to the wish of Kremlin's current leaders to restore the aura of the superpower at whichever price, mainly by blindly opposing in advance any solutions and ideas put forward by the West in regard to whichever file, under the pretext that it threatens its security and interests. It is doing so while relying on its ability to obstruct any decision at the Security Council, but also on the truce imposed by the imminence of the American presidential elections. Yet, some still believe that Moscow is engaged in negotiations in other locations and is willing to cooperate at the level of the Syrian file in exchange for Western concessions over the missile shield, which it believes is jeopardizing its nuclear deterrence capability. Moreover, it is seeking strategic partnership with the European Union, including the annulment of the entry visas required of its citizens and its provision with additional facilitations in the context of the World Trade Organization. But until the Russians are able to secure their demands, or some of them, or until the international pressures on them move to a more efficient phase, the Syrian people will continue to suffer at the hands of the regime's military machine which Moscow is still providing with killing and destruction means.
