CC BY
17
on the form of the state structure and determining of democratic ways out of the political impasse is going on.
Author of the abstract - V. Schensnovich
2017.03.006. ANNA ZURKAN. SYRIA'S CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS FOR RUSSIAN-AMERICAN COOPERATION / / "Problemy evropeiskoi bezopasnosti", № 2, Moscow, 2017, P. 124-144.
Keywords: Syria, Russia, USA, the U.S.-Russian relations, cessation of hostilities.
Anna Zurkan,
PhD (Politics), research fellow,
Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies, RAS
In the article, the author analyzes the cessation of hostilities in Syria in February 2016 as a result of cooperation between Russia and the United States as co-chairs of the International Support Group for Syria (hereinafter ISSG). The author notes that at that time there was no confidence in the U.S. ability to influence the opposition, as it lost control over it, as well as in the fact that the Russian Federation would stop striking at the ranks of the opposition under the pretext of combating ISIS and "Jabhat an Nusra" as In the possibility of halting a five-year civil war and moving to a political settlement process. ISSG called on the conflicting parties to a cease-fire in October, 2015. A separate task force was established, chaired by Russia and the United States, to carry out the assigned task, which was to conduct intra-Syrian consultations involving the government and the opposition.
The author emphasizes that the process of intra-Syrian consultations, as well as the coordination of the positions of the two ISSG chairmen, was far from smooth - the existing peace initiative was not developed because of the critical impossibility
of Moscow and Washington to agree among themselves in the context of the aggravation of the relations between the two countries that occurred after the Ukrainian events.
In previous years, Russia and the United States could not find common ground on the further development of the political process, despite the fact that relations between the two countries were in a better condition than in 2016. The stumbling block to both then and now was the fate of President Asad, but at the time of writing the article, the fight against terrorism came to the fore.
The author notes that the military forces of the United States and Russia, participating in the struggle in Syria, were on opposite sides of the barricades. The author notes that both the U.S. and Russian efforts and the general fatigue of the protracted conflict not only among its immediate participants but also in the countries of the involved Middle East region, as well as the necessary guarantees, received from certain ISSG participants, played a role in concluding real Agreements. The regime for the cessation of hostilities was respected until the end of April 2016, which did not mean the cessation of all bombings on the territory of Syria. Russia and the coalition of countries led by the United States, as well as official Damascus and opposition groups continued to conduct military operations against the terrorist organizations of ISIS and "Jabhat an Nusra". Nevertheless, the number of human victims in the conflict area has been reduced by several times.
Consultations were held, the result of which was the statement of the Russian Federation and the United States of 9.05.2016 on the commitment of both sides to the observance of the ceasefire, and certain steps were taken to implement it. An agreement was reached on the creation in Geneva of a joint Russian-American Center for rapid response to violations of the ceasefire.
Nevertheless, the situation in a number of areas could not be stabilized as before, although the ISSG co-chairs periodically
left no attempts to implement the ceasefire process after the establishment of the center in Geneva.
It was known that the Russian and American groups held regular meetings in Geneva. As a result, on September 12, 2016, at midnight, the seven-day ceasefire was reintroduced. The banning of air operations against moderate opposition groups for Syrian government troops, the actual status quo on the ground based on the ban on the conquest of the territories of the warring parties, and the opening of roads for free humanitarian access was a fundamental difference. Russia and the United States have traditionally made commitments to guarantee compliance with the regime for the cessation of all military operations by the official Damascus and the opposition, respectively.
However, a number of armed groups refused to follow the agreements, as a result, the very existence of the ceasefire regime, co-sponsored by Russia and the United States, was questioned. Thus, Russian-American cooperation stalled because of the changed perception of Russia in the political arena because of the situation in Ukraine and the referendum in the Crimea.
The author asks the question whether the settlement of the conflict in the foreseeable future is beneficial to Russia. If the so-called image of enemy leaves the information field of Russia, then internal problems will come to the fore, in particular, the budget deficit in terms of sanctions, anti-sanctions, the general economic crisis.
The author believes that unlike Russia, which actively supported the Asad regime, America did not take active steps to overthrow his regime. America needs Russia as a partner capable of influencing Asad. The author also notes that neither the U.S. nor Russia sees an alternative to the process of bilateral contacts despite frequent violations of the cessation of hostilities, since both parties involved and external actors have not yet been able to offer another way to stop the bloodshed in Syria.
It is still difficult to imagine any long-term program to revive the Russian-American dialogue in the conditions of a
change of administration in the United States. It is especially important for Russia to try to reach certain agreements with the new American administration. Although the next U.S. president will have to work with the agenda that Obama has shaped, but the situation with his arrival can radically change for Moscow -and not for the better.
Author of the abstract - N. Ginesina
2017.03.007. GEORGY KUTYREV. ITALY'S POSITION IN THE SYRIAN CRISIS: BETWEEN THE WEST AND RUSSIA //
"Problemy evropeiskoi bezopasnosti", № 2, Moscow, 2017, P. 145-172.
Keywords: Italy, Syria, Russia, Syrian civil war, international relations, Arab Spring, Middle East, IS.
Georgy Kutyrev,
PhD (Political sciences), senior research fellow, the Department of Europe and America INION RAS
In the article the author analyzes the foreign policy position of the Italian Republic in relation to the civil war in Syria, considering the internal and external factors affecting the process of foreign policy making by official Rome. In this context, the author pays special attention to the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis, which turned Italy into one of the most "sick countries" of the European Union.
The author examines the phenomenon of the "Arab Spring" -anti-government movements that took place in Egypt, Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries of the Middle East. He points out that scientists differed in assessing the factors underlying the phenomenon, noting certain symptoms of the crisis in the Arab world, and proposes dividing the experts' opinions into three large groups.
