On October 20, 2015, the Russian International Affairs Council hosted roundtable "Russian and Western Views on International Conflict Settlement and Security Challenges" attended by pundits from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, the Brookings Institution, Johns Hopkins University, Centre for European Policy Studies, RAS Institute for Oriental Studies, IMEMO, Lomonosov Moscow State University and other institutions, who focused on the Ukraine and Syria crises
On October 20, 2015, the Russian International Affairs Council hosted roundtable "Russian and Western Views on Conflict Resolution and Security Challenges" attended by pundits from the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, the Brookings Institution, Johns Hopkins University, Centre for European Policy Studies, RAS Institute for Oriental Studies, IMEMO, Lomonosov Moscow State University and other institutions, who focused on the Ukraine and Syria crises.
The Ukraine discussion covered:
— Attitudes of Russia, the EU and the U.S.A. on Ukraine's future, including prospects of settlement, reinstatement of territorial integrity and healing the civil war consequences.
— Steps to be done by Russia, the EU and the U.S.A. to expedite the settlement.
— Steps of Russia, the EU and the U.S.A. to restore mutual trust.
Some Russian experts believe that a likely positive scenario should provide for freezing the conflict and fulfillment of the Minsk accords, so that the sides could take a respite for definition and articulation of their long-term strategic goals, switch over from fighting to talks, and amend their legislations and hold elections matching global standards with international monitoring. According to American participants, freezing may cause conflict deepening and solidification. Despite differences, Russian and foreign discussants agreed that a pragmatic and technical approach is needed to deescalate the conflict.
As far as prospects of restored trust between Russia and the West are concerned, some European analysts focused on the graveness of the situation, as Moscow's policy toward Ukraine has been perceived as a threat both to Ukraine and the "entire European project," which means that confidence building should be thorny and lengthy. Besides, the Middle East experts stressed that Russian actions toward Ukraine are supported by certain non-Western states fatigued by the de facto monopolarity during the past 30 years, offering Russia a room for foreign policy maneuvering.
Syria was debated along the following lines:
— Approaches of Russia, the EU and the U.S.A. to prioritizing security challenges.
— Russian and Western perceptions of their counterparts' actions in Syria.
— Opportunities for trilateral coordination of steps on Syria.
The discussants found that Russia and the West share a common approach in countering the ISIS, although they differ on approaches and methods. According to the Westerners, Russia is targeting groups supported by the West, implying the need for a consensus on defining the enemy. At the same time, Russian experts believe that there is not a single force in Syria that could be unequivocally rated as positive and constructive. Due to the varied political and social landscape, Syria may hardly become free and democratic even after 15-20 years.
Despite divergence in attitudes and assessments, the emerging situation offers Russia and the West opportunities for partnership in settling the crisis. A Russian expert said that Moscow's clout in Damascus is significant as never before and could be used for softening the Assad regime, which means that a common stand on the matter is required.
According to a foreign participant, Russia's operation in Syria may add to its tarnished image in the EU since it generates one more driver for the refugee flow to Europe.
The participants agreed to continue their exchanges on the international security issues.
Roundtable "Russian and Western Views on International Conflict Settlement and Security Challenges"
