{
"authors": [
"Judy Dempsey"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Europe"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Russia"
],
"topics": []
}
Source: Getty
At the annual security conference in Munich, Russia’s foreign minister stunned the conference by saying that Moscow was not on the side of President Bashar al-Assad.
Source: New York Times
Hardly a word.
This was despite the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was expected this weekend to try to persuade her Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, to support more sanctions against the Islamic Republic, but behind the scenes.
But what hit the top of the agenda here was Syria.
In her speech to the conference, Mrs. Clinton said she was trying to win wide support from the international community for the U.N. proposal, initiated by the Arab League, to end the violent crackdown by President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces and arrange a transition of power.Hours later, Russia and China vetoed that proposal. But before that happened, Mr. Lavrov delivered a rather polemical speech. The question and answer period was dominated by Syria.
Why, asked participants, wouldn’t Russia support the Arab League proposals? Why was Russia still supplying arms to the Syrian regime? Why was Russia supporting President Assad?
Mr. Lavrov took the questions in his stride. The veteran diplomat said from early on Russia had supported calls by the Syrian people for change.
But while it was all very well to ask the security forces to stop the violence and return to their barracks, he said, what about asking the armed groups who were causing mayhem to disarm? They were not being criticized at all, Mr. Lavrov said.
As for Russia supporting the Assad regime, Mr. Lavrov denied that. “We are not friends or allies of Assad,” he said — despite Moscow’s decades-long political and military support of Damascus.
“Whether we sold weapons to Syria did not change the balance in the Middle East. Whatever we sell to Syria does not affect the international balance,” Mr. Lavrov said.
Senator John McCain was having none of it. “It’s time to stop the talking. It’s time to demand Assad’s departure, and now,” he said. The audience applauded.
After the Russian and Chinese veto, Mrs. Clinton held a press conference. She said she had spoken to Mr. Lavrov.
Then, she asked, “Are we going to be complicit in the violence and bloodshed in Syria?”
Reports circulated Saturday night that Mr. Lavrov would head to Damascus next week for talks.
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
2026 has started in crisis, as the actions of unpredictable leaders shape an increasingly volatile global environment. To shift from crisis response to strategic foresight, what under-the-radar issues should the EU prepare for in the coming year?
Thomas de Waal
Europe is designing a new model of collective security that no longer relies on the United States. For this effort to succeed, solidarity between member states that have different threat perceptions is vital.
Erik Jones
Beset by an increasingly hostile United States, internal divisions, and the threat of Russian aggression, the EU finds itself in a make-or-break moment. U.S. President Donald Trump calls it a decaying group of nations headed by weak leaders. Is Europe able to prove him wrong?
Thomas de Waal
The debate on the future of European deterrence has intensified, as NATO allies seek to balance three key aims. Going forward, they will need to cooperate more deeply to craft a coherent strategy for confronting new threats.
Sophia Besch, Jamie Kwong
By negotiating directly with the Kremlin, the Trump administration has broken the taboo on diplomatic contacts with Russia. With Ukrainian and European security at stake, is it time for Brussels to open its own communication channel to Moscow?
Thomas de Waal