- Editorials
- Posted
Kassioun Editorial 1203: Why Did We Propose “Moscow 3”?
Last Wednesday, November 27, during its press conference following its expansion with the addition of new forces, the Moscow Platform for the Syrian Opposition announced an initiative for a meeting between the opposition and the regime in the Russian capital, Moscow, similar to the “Moscow 1” and “Moscow 2” meetings that took place in 2015. At the time of issuing this call, the latest developments on the ground had not yet begun to appear, but they were nevertheless expected to some extent, and were one of the reasons for launching this initiative.
The crux of the matter is as follows:
First: We have repeatedly said and warned that the de-escalation zones, despite their importance in stopping the Syrian bloodshed, are not a sustainable solution in any way. Their function was to stop the bloodshed in order to move towards dialogue and negotiations to reach a real political solution that would reunite the Syrian people and the Syrian territory through the implementation of UNSC Resolution 2254, and through a real political transition towards a new political, economic, and social system that the Syrian people determine.
Second: During the past 13 years, Syria has gone through a phase of violent battles across the country, which Astana was able to stop through de-escalation agreements, leading to a near-complete ceasefire since mid-2019, i.e., 5 years ago. After that, the economic phase of attrition began, which included sanctions and the escalation and deepening of the brutal liberal policies of successive Syrian governments, which, along with the sanctions, led to a multiplied deepening of the Syrian tragedy, and laid the foundation for the subsequent explosion by crushing the society’s immunity and pushing it to search for any solutions, most notably fleeing the country.
The renewal of the cycle of violence and battles means that a political solution is more necessary today than ever before, and more possible than ever before. None of the sides concerned with sitting at the negotiating table can claim the ability to achieve a crushing victory that will destroy the other side, and this has been tried for many years at the expense of the blood and suffering of Syrians.
The only possible solution is to head directly, not just to a consultative meeting as the Platform initiative proposed a few days ago, but towards a direct dialogue to fully implement UNSC Resolution 2254, to stop the renewal and expansion of the circle of violence. In parallel, work must be completed on moving forward with the Syrian-Turkish settlement, the importance of which we have stressed for years and which would have been sufficient (if it had happened at the time) to prevent the possibilities of renewed fighting that we see today, and it is still important now because it is one of the key ways to contain the fighting today, and reduce the losses of the Syrian people who have lost more than enough.
Heading directly to a political solution through UNSC Resolution 2254 is the only way out. Repeating the illusions of “resolving militarily” and “toppling [the regime]” by the extremist sides will not only be disastrous as in the previous time, but will also threaten Syria’s survival and its geopolitical presence.
