Today, the tables have turned and the regime’s army is advancing , inflicting great losses on the FSA. This field change pushed the Russians to renege on their position from the Geneva I conference. They believe that under little pressure, the opposition would accept a solution that would save the regime and force it to join a government formed by Assad, where it would have a limited number of members.

In Geneva, the Russians reneged on the political solution, which is based on the Geneva Communique and UN Security Council Resolution 2118. This was the result of the changing situation on the ground. When Moscow and Damascus agreed on the Geneva Communique in mid-2012, the FSA was gaining ground, while the regime was being defeated.

The government delegation also implied that it wanted to work under a joint Russian-American umbrella, which would take a unified position against terrorism and would agree to combat it in coordination with the Assad regime, since it possessed the necessary power and expertise to fight and win this war.

The conference proved that Russia’s position is in line with that of Assad, who refused any interim solution that would push Syria toward an alternative democratic system. Assad wants any Syrian-Syrian understanding or American-Russian agreement to be limited to putting an end to violence and supporting the fight against terrorism. The Syrian government’s delegation to Geneva said that the Syrian opposition was a part of this terrorism, and that the regime’s army will continue to fight until the Free Syrian Army (FSA), which it labels a terrorist group, is eliminated.

Many Syrians believe that there ought to be changes in the situation of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces and the political opposition, and in the world’s relationship vis-a-vis their revolution and President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This is especially true in light of the Geneva conference , which showed that Russia does not seek a political solution to their crisis where the Geneva Communique and UN Resolution 2118 can be applied.

Russia’s new stance came as a surprise to the world, raising two major questions: The first is related to the means and tools employed by the Russians before and during the conference to resolve the Syrian conflict peacefully. Second, what must be done to persuade the Russians to change their position, and what is the amount of pressure to be exerted to this effect, in case they insisted on their position, which rejects the internationally agreed-upon political solution?

What was the argument used by the Russians to thwart the conference? Undoubtedly, it is the Syrians themselves who are seeking to find a negotiable solution without preconditions, considering any international effort in the direction of finding a solution as interference in their internal affairs and an aggression on their national sovereignty and freedom of decision-making.

The supporters of the Syrian revolution should have reviewed their position after the conference. Moreover, following Moscow’s onslaught on Ukraine, these supporters should have finally been convinced that their means and tools to face Russia are futile. This is especially true since Moscow has defied explicit international laws and the principle of noninterference, which it invoked to prevent the UN Security Council from interfering to stop the killing of the Syrian people, or to apply the Geneva Communique.

Today, the world is facing a crisis which was produced by Russia’s aggression on an independent state and on a revolution carried out by the people to oust a pro-Moscow president. Russia carried out its aggression under the pretext of defending Russian-speaking Ukrainians.

This has raised another question among the international community: What are the necessary means and methods to be employed to reach a satisfactory solution in Ukraine — one that could preserve its unity and freedom, on the one hand, and Russia’s interest and security on the other?

There is another dilemma posed by the Russians’ behavior in Ukraine: Russians cannot be confronted with military means. This entails risks to the international legitimacy, as Russia rises as a predominant force over the other great powers, especially at the moral and propaganda levels. Therefore, the United States has become portrayed as an increasingly weak state, unable to keep up with Russia, which is taking positions supporting the Syrian regime and defying the international community in general and the United States in particular. Russia is being seen as a strong rising country that plays an increasingly significant role in international politics.

Will Washington do what is necessary to remove this widespread impression in the Arab and Islamic worlds and face its repercussions in various regions? Will it settle for the methods it is using now, or will it develop new methods that will allow it to respond effectively to the Russian policies that are challenging the international community? The Ukrainian and Syrian issues depict the nature of international relations and the firmness of the choices of the Russian leadership after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism. Moreover, they assert America’s need for policies that can control the erratic behavior of President Vladimir Putin and his assistants and reduce their danger to international peace and security.

Regarding the failure of the Geneva conference and subsequent developments, the White House has certainly been facing more difficulties to maintain policies that have encouraged the Russians to take their support for Assad’s organized war against the peaceful Syrian people — a war of the highest military and political caliber — too far. The Syrian people persisted in their peaceful and civil protests for months and refrained from raising any Islamist banner or issuing any sectarian statement. They insisted that their revolution sought freedom and democracy for a united Syrian state and society. Meanwhile, Assad was making organized efforts to derail the revolution from its goal and coercively turn it into a sectarian conflict. He wanted to scare the international community and force it to choose between his regime and a terrorist regime that threatens the international community's security. According to Assad’s calculations, if he succeeded in forcing the international community to choose between him and terrorists, he would push the community to change its stance and cooperate with him against terrorism. Moreover, he would gain the international community’s support in a battle that would benefit from the experience of the international community’s authorities in battling Islamic organizations, whether radical or political, armed or peaceful.

The regime had played the terrorism card after the outbreak of the revolution. It released the jihadists from its prisons and refused the reformist demands of the people. Moreover, the regime refrained from holding any dialogue that would allow an internal political solution and close the doors to foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict. When the jihadists started to organize their followers in armed groups, Assad felt reassured. He was certain that his plan would derail the revolution for freedom and turn it into a violent one. Such violence would gradually undermine the role of politicians in the revolution and weaken their control over its developments and choices, while jihadists and extremists would gain momentum.

The international community fell right into the trap and started to see the Syrian crisis through the lens of terrorism and the fight against it, instead of viewing it as a crisis created by Assad’s regime. The international community adopted an approach that relied on results rather than reasons in its stances. It hesitated in confronting a regime that has killed, wounded, disappeared, disfigured, tortured and chased out around 1 million Syrians, and starved millions of others.

The Geneva conference has faltered and Ukraine has been invaded. Moreover, an international decision that legitimizes transborder humanitarian aid for the Syrians has been put forth. The FSA has been waging daily battles against terrorists by expelling them from wide regions they used to control. Decisive proof shows that the regime’s army, which has been deluding the world into believing that it is terrorism’s enemy, helped these terrorists directly or indirectly to occupy, defend and regain these regions. Given the current circumstances, will the White House change its stance vis-a-vis the heinous massacres in Syria?

All Syrians are asking this question, and global public opinion is widely and angrily condemning the daily murders against the Syrian people — yet no one does anything to stop them!