Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov keeps stressing the necessity of implementing the Geneva Declaration issued by the action group for Syria on June 30. But he is at the same time fiercely opposing the transformation of this declaration into a binding decision by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII, regardless of the validity of this declaration as a mechanism for a solution, after all that was witnessed in Syria since its issuance in terms of killing, destruction and the accumulation of complications. Nowadays, the Russian minister is touring the region to speak about the qualities of this Declaration and attack the Syrian regime's oppositionists and the Arab and Western states supporting the opposition's demands. But how can Russian diplomacy praise the Geneva Declaration while refusing its transformation into an international decision? How can it claim to be neutral at the level of the Syrian conflict while waging the largest campaign against one of its parties? Lavrov is engaged in the greatest diplomatic camouflage campaign, if not the greatest scam, in order to justify his country's ongoing support to the current Syrian regime, its sustainment, and the protection of its figures who are currently carrying out the widest organized destruction campaign targeting Syria and its people, and are facing international accusations of genocide and crimes against humanity. The Russian minister knows very well that the discontinuation of the violence will not serve the Syrian regime for a simple reason: the majority of the Syrian people will take to the streets throughout the country to protest and demand the departure of the regime as soon as the regular troops stop targeting the civilians. This is what happened with the Arab and then the international observers. And this is why the regime thwarted the Adha truce which was proposed by Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, considering that as soon as the truce started, demonstrations were organized in the streets and targeted by the regime with snipers and humiliation at first, and then with tanks, heavy artillery and air raids. This means that the regime which thwarted the truce will also thwart any ceasefire stipulated by the first article of the Geneva Declaration, and in this case, the Russian protector will be in a difficult position, especially if there is a binding international decision to implement that article. In the meantime, the formation of any transitional government with full prerogatives to handle the management of the political solution, will naturally marginalize the regime and its figures, knowing that Moscow was the only one which saw qualities in this regime and perceived it as the protector of the minorities and guarantor of stability. So how can it accept its marginalization in a transitional stage that will lead to its replacement? It does not want such a scenario and is consequently trying to elude it by asking that everything be done under its command and ceiling. The biggest proof for that is its insistence on defending its figures and its head. And to add further ambiguity, the Syrian problem resides – according to Lavrov – in the states supporting the opposition, in a repetition of what is said by the regime itself in regard to the foreign support offered to the armed gangs. Hence, the Russian insistence on the Geneva Declaration is mere political hypocrisy, considering that what is being done by Russian diplomacy opposes the articles and spirit of this Declaration. At this level, the Russian statements in regard to the Declaration are misleading and fall in the context of the attempts to support the stay of the regime and its approach. It does not seem that Moscow truly wants to put an end to the disaster in Syria or cares about the fate of the Syrian people. Had this not been the case, it would have rushed to turn its announced position towards the Geneva Declaration into binding practical steps, which can only be ensured via an international decision to see it implemented.
