Feb 17, 2014

There were mixed feelings in Russia among those following news from Geneva when they heard about the end of the second round of peace talks between the Syrian government and opposition without any results. While it was good that the delegations agreed to take talks into a new, third round, the failure of the second round demonstrated the stubbornness of both sides, one of which insisted on confining talks to fighting terrorism and the other on establishing a transitional governing body in Syria, left little room for hope for the third round's success. At the same time, the mere fact that the conflicting sides, as explained by mediator Lakhdar Brahimi, compromised by agreeing to put fighting terrorism on the agenda the first day of talks, and the establishment of a new transitional governing body on the second day, inspired optimism.

Though Brahimi voiced the decision to launch a new round of talks, I believe that this time the sides need a longer break than that between the first and the second round. The new round might start after a couple of weeks or even later, if I’m not mistaken. The results of the second round will be thoroughly studied in Damascus. The opposition also needs time to prepare for a new meeting in Geneva, and the mediators — the UN, Russia and the United States, as proposed by Brahimi, should hold a trilateral meeting to evaluate the results and define their strategy for the future, as well as bridging the gaps between their positions.

What makes international observers nervous today is the approaching presidential election in Syria, scheduled for July 7, and President Bashar al-Assad’s declared intention to run for another term. It is clear that we cannot expect fair and participative elections in Syria under the existing circumstances. It is also crystal clear that Assad will provide for himself the “overwhelming majority of votes” and will be re-elected. In the view of some analysts, this will bury the negotiating process and will further exacerbate tensions between regional and global players over the Syrian crisis.

There is another opportunity for Assad to legitimize his grip on power — to extend his term for two years, as allowed by the Syrian constitution. I can hardly predict how Russia is going to shape its position toward the Syrian crisis under each of those scenarios. But both mean legitimizing Assad, making his voluntary departure still less realistic.

Though it is a totally thankless task to speak on behalf of either side, one can safely assume that the Syrian government will affirm its original interpretation of the transitional governing body: one formed on the basis of mutual consent, embodied in a power-sharing coalition government equally representing the regime and opposition, and Assad will not step down. Whether and how can it be reconciled with the opposite party’s insistence on Assad’s departure and the passing of all powers to the transitional governing body remain to be seen. There is a common belief in Russia that the only way to solve the crisis is through national reconciliation with the provision of a role for Assad.