Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Vladimir Yevseyev , director of the Center for Public Policy Research
It was decided to hold a conference in late January; probably this was reasonable. Apparently , this is due to the fact that they could not collect convincing opposition representation.
Of course, it would be desirable to attract Iran's participation in this conference, but due to the fact that apparently the conference will be an intermediate one, it will not be the final step, because there is no fundamental victory on the battlefield in Syria, in these circumstances, the decision cannot be taken seriously and fundamentally there is a broken situation.
In such circumstances, Bashar Assad will not actually establish a transitional government, it can only be an imitation. Under these conditions, saying that "Geneva -2" can resolve the Syrian crisis would be absolutely wrong.
In addition, there is no clarity regarding the elimination of the Syrian chemical weapons.
The U.S. plans to destroy it, for example, with some mobile units or on a ship, I think, are rather a utopia.
Because destroying 1300 tons of chemical weapons in normal time is simply impossible, and I do not believe it.
From this point of view, I think that we should expect from the "Geneva -2" conference not a breakthrough but a restart of the difficult dialogue between Assad and the opposition.
I would like the opposition to come to this conference.
Apparently, in order to have a relative success, it would probably be desirable that Islamic Republic of Iran could not be involved in it.
And I say this not because I am against Iran, I say this from the point of view that it would be better just for this specific conference.
I believe that after the ´Geneva-2î conference the ´Geneva-3î conference must be held. Probably in spring the situation for this will be more favorable.
It is highly desirable, given that the decision will still be made on holding early parliamentary elections during next year's presidential elections in July.
I think it is necessary to insist on just such an election, because otherwise it is impossible to move towards the presidential election.
Overall, I think that now we can only talk about the approach to resolve the Syrian crisis, the formation of some roadmap. However, all the decisions evidently will be made later.
And I very much hope that in spring there will be more certainty about the prospects for a resolution of the Syrian crisis.
I do not believe in the success of this conference of the fundamental kind; most likely, it will not be that important.
Apparently, Bashar al-Assad has also taken this into account, deciding not to participate in the conference.
And there is one more possible basis ó this is the lack of opponents.
Because when it comes to real reasons, Bashar al-Assad does not see with whom he should talk.
If there was a man who could unite the opposition, who could promote some demands on which there could be an agreement, probably Bashar Assad could go there, but he cannot yet speak with anyone.
In these circumstances there is no need for Bashar al-Assad to participate in the "Geneva -2" conference.
This is my personal view.