Commentary
Montenegro and Albania are frontrunners for EU enlargement in the Western Balkans, but they can’t just sit back and wait. To meet their 2030 accession ambitions, they must make a strong positive case.
Dimitar Bechev, Iliriana Gjoni
{
"authors": [
"Karen Leigh",
"Petr Topychkanov"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [
"Eurasia in Transition"
],
"regions": [
"Levant",
"Middle East",
"Syria"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
How Would Russia React to a Strike on Syria?
Investigation of chemical weapons use is in the interest of both the United States and Russia. Russia will continue to support Assad only if there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons.
Published on Aug 26, 2013
Source: Syria Deeply
In a weekend call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, Lavrov reportedly warned that a U.S. strike on Syria would have “extremely dangerous consequences.”
Russia, a firm ally of President Bashar al-Assad, has vehemently opposed Western intervention against the Syrian regime. That position has put a diplomatic wedge between the Russia and the U.S., one that could widen as the West considers air strikes against Assad in retaliation for an apparent chemical weapons attack outside of Damascus.
Washington and its allies blame Assad for the incident, vowing to take action in response. Assad’s regime has denied responsibility, accusing rebels of using the deadly chemicals as a tactic to provoke foreign intervention. Russia officials have stood by that narrative, pinning the chemical attack on rebels and saying a Western military strike would be a “tragic mistake.”To better understand Russia’s position we spoke to Petr Topychkanov, an analyst with the Carnegie Moscow Center. He weighs in on how the Kremlin might react to a U.S. strike on its Syrian allies.
Syria Deeply: What would be the most likely Russian response to a Western-led air strike on Syria?
Petr Topychkanov: First of all, Russia doesn’t seem to be ready to play an active military role in Syria, because it would mean direct confrontation with the U.S. Russia doesn’t have such intentions or capabilities. So Russian reaction to a U.S. strike would depend on the legal and organizational framework of this strike. For example, Russia could agree with the participation of the U.S. in military operations under auspices of the U.N. Security Council [UNSC]. It’s more probable if the UNSC will obtain solid evidence about the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
But if there is not such evidence and the U.S. decides to act without any approval from the UNSC, of course Russia would strongly criticize military action from the U.S. and its allies, and would militarily support Syria. Russia would continue to supply arms and military equipment to the Assad regime, and Russia would develop close relations with the regime in Iran to help that regime to support and provide military help to Assad.
Russia will continue to support Assad only if there is no evidence that he used chemical weapons. It would be impossible to help Assad if he did. So this is the key issue. ...
About the Authors
Karen Leigh
Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.
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.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- How to Join the EU in Three Easy Steps
- Taking the Pulse: Can NATO Survive the Iran War?Commentary
Donald Trump has repeatedly bashed NATO and European allies, threatening to annex Canada and Greenland and deploring their lack of enthusiasm for his war of choice in Iran. Is this latest round of abuse the final straw?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- On NATO, Trump Should Embrace France Instead of Bashing ItCommentary
Donald Trump’s repudiation of NATO goes against the Make America Great Again vision of a U.S.-centered foreign policy. If the goal is to preserve the alliance by boosting Europe’s commitments, leaning into France’s vision is the most America First way forward.
Rym Momtaz
- Europe Doesn’t Like War—for Good ReasonsCommentary
The wars in Ukraine and the Middle East are existential threats to Europe as a peace project. Leaders and citizens alike must reaffirm their solidarity to face up to today’s multifaceted challenges.
Marc Pierini
- Rewiring the South Caucasus: TRIPP and the New Geopolitics of ConnectivityArticle
The U.S.-sponsored TRIPP deal is driving the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process forward. But foreign and domestic hurdles remain before connectivity and economic interdependence can open up the South Caucasus.
Thomas de Waal, Areg Kochinyan, Zaur Shiriyev
