If the fiercest measure the US has taken is to break off somewhat fitful talks on Syria, and the strongest response Russia has chosen to offer is the suspension of a single arms agreement that Moscow anyway accuses Washington of breaking, that says a lot in itself. It could reflect how little the two countries currently have to talk about, in which case a break makes little difference. Or, more likely, it shows their concern to spare other areas of cooperation, such as wider arms control or the space station. Indeed, the US said talks about avoiding bilateral clashes in Syria would continue, while the conditions Moscow has set for resuming the plutonium deal suggest it is open to bargaining even as it stamps its foot.
To an extent both sides are playing to their domestic galleries. This is an often neglected aspect of many a diplomatic spat, but it is especially true of this one. The US is in the grip of a highly unusual presidential campaign that has barely a month to run. While Barack Obama is not running, the charges of foreign policy weakness levelled against him, not just by Donald Trump and the Republicans but by some on his own side, are a factor in the campaign. It is important for Obama and his legacy, but still more so for Hillary Clinton’s prospects, that the Democratic administration does not appear spineless – especially not before its old Russian foe. [...]
If the conflict has demonstrated anything, it is that neither erstwhile superpower has the clout to control its clients on the ground. The latest ceasefire failed not only because the US mistakenly bombed a contingent of Syrian troops, and not only because an aid convoy was destroyed, but because the sponsors of the deal – the US and Russia – were unable to control what happened next.
No comments:
Post a Comment