Kassioun Editorial 1051: The Political Solution, Between Statements and “Gaffes”

This is understandable and expected based on two basic considerations: the first is the position that the man occupies; and the second, which is the most important, is the main reason for the current uproar, which is that these statements were “contrary to the truth, favorable to the government, and not objective in presenting the reality of matters.”** This prompted some to consider it a deviation in Russia’s official policy towards the Syrian file, which constantly stressed – before and after Lavrentiev’s statements, especially in the most recent statements of the Russian Foreign Minister during a bilateral communication between him and the Syrian Foreign Minister on December 27 – “Russia’s commitment to continuing efforts to achieve the goals stipulated in UNSC Resolution 2254” as well as the necessity “to move forward with a comprehensive political settlement”.

At the core, both of Lavrentiev’s statements and the uproar around them, are two sides of one problem, the source of which is the long-standing obstruction of the implementation of Resolution 2254.
If this resolution is the principled essence of the political solution process, which talks about the Syrian people’s right to self-determination, and their right to change and political transition, then the “gaffes” that we hear are, in essence, a repetition of the proposals of “resolving militarily” and “toppling”:

On the one hand, Lavrentiev’s statements were interpreted as a Russian shift towards the regime in an attempt to persuade others to submit to what it wants in terms of evading 2254, change, and transition, which is best expressed in the slogan of “resolving militarily”.

On the other hand, the responses of the extremists in the opposition ultimately went the same direction, by talking about ending the Constitutional Committee and 2254, and through a number of “practical” and unworkable proposals! All of these, in one way or another, are forms of the slogan of “toppling”.

Since the two slogans, in their essence, contradict reality, Resolution 2254, and fundamentally the idea of a political solution, they serve the same purpose and constitute a translation of the most direct and insolent statements by US envoy, James Jeffrey. By this we mean the talk about “the quagmire” on the one hand, and his most recent statement in Foreign Affairs on December 14, in which he explicitly demanded a new Security Council resolution, while avoiding any mention or even reference to resolution 2254. This was not the result of an oversight or forgetfulness, but rather it is completely intentional, especially that he was the one who repeatedly hyped up the same decision to Syrians with the conventional American hypocrisy.

The essence of 2254 is not only ending the military and economic war, but also ending the crisis in all its aspects, and reunifying the country and its people, under a regime chosen and accepted by the Syrian people. Whatever practical recipes and “gaffes” are suggested here or there, they should all be subject to these principled criteria.

In this sense, the thick dust that has been raised is an expression of the desire of the extremists on both sides to take a step backward, to the days of “resolving militarily” and “toppling”. This desire has no place in reality, and therefore, its effects will soon disappear. However, its eruption again and with greater force is always a possibility unless and until the practical formula for implementing the solution is reached, which in essence corresponds to the principled formula. This is what must be worked on continuously and relentlessly.

-------------
** A quote from the commentary by head of the Moscow Platform for the Syrian Opposition on Lavrentiev’s statements on 21 December 2021

(النسخة العربية)