Paper
Yezid Sayigh
{
"authors": [
"Yezid Sayigh"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "menaTransitions",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center",
"programAffiliation": "MEP",
"programs": [
"Middle East"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Levant",
"Syria",
"Middle East"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Security"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
No Russin'?
The conflict in Syria is a complex one with different world powers and the Syrian opposition playing different roles that have changed over time.
By Yezid Sayigh
Published on Jul 17, 2016
Source: RT
Yezid Sayigh discussed Russia’s strategy in Syria in an interview with Oksana Boyko on the Worlds Apart program on Russia Today. He elaborated on the degree of Russia’s leverage over the Assad regime, its interaction with the West, and future prospects for a potential political settlement.
Sayigh argued that the regime is unwilling and unable to change, so it resorted to a military confrontation. The regime did not accept Russia’s proposal for a political settlement, which was the most realistic one. Sayigh pointed out that it does not have enough leverage to force the regime in accepting the proposal.
In the case of the Syrian opposition, Sayigh clearly stated its mistakes at the beginning of the conflict. He pointed out that the opposition should have considered several steps to be taken before demanding Assad to step-down.
On the US- Russian military collaboration to fight the Islamic State, Sayigh explains that the US has come to terms that Syria is a Russian battlefield. The new administration will eventually adopt a similar approach to Obama with less involvement and effective Russian collaboration.
About the Author
Yezid Sayigh
Senior Fellow, Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Yezid Sayigh is a senior fellow at the Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut, where he leads the program on Civil-Military Relations in Arab States (CMRAS). His work focuses on the comparative political and economic roles of Arab armed forces, the impact of war on states and societies, the politics of postconflict reconstruction and security sector transformation in Arab transitions, and authoritarian resurgence.
- Egypt’s Military Landlord Economy and its Limitations
- What Is Israel’s Plan in Lebanon?Commentary
Yezid Sayigh
Recent Work
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
- A Black Sea Truce Is About Global Food Security, TooCommentary
A summer of escalation in the Black Sea has hurt Ukraine economically and is exacerbating world food security. A truce is needed—as is a broader reframing of Europe’s Ukraine strategy.
Thomas de Waal
- Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a Germany Problem?Commentary
Are Germany’s economic, industrial, and political struggles becoming a liability for the EU’s ability to rise to the geopolitical moment?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Europe’s Overseas Countries and Territories as Geopolitical AssetsArticle
European states control several Overseas Countries and Territories around the world that carry strategic, economic, and environmental weight. As great powers challenge the rules-based order, defending them is a geopolitical imperative for Europe.
Marc Pierini
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
