The solution of the Syrian conflict depends on the satisfaction of external interests

***

- A trilateral summit of the presidents of Iran, Russia and Turkey was held in Tehran in connection with the Syrian problem, which resulted in signing a joint declaration. Do you think that the signed declaration will have a positive impact on the solution of the Syrian problem?

- Before going to the issue, I would like to note that in connection with the Syrian crisis, the Geneva format is more extensive and legitimate from the point of view of the international community. It has been going on since 2012, and more than eight meetings have been held. After the third meeting in February 2016, which is considered to be unsuccessful and ineffective, in connection with the Syrian crisis, tripartite meetings of the countries having direct influence on Syria-Iran, Russia, and Turkey started. In December 2016, these three countries agreed on a ceasefire in Syria. In January 2017, in order to solve the problem systematically, it was decided to hold a summit in Astana. In the final declaration of the summit in Astana it was noted that there is no military solution to the Syrian problem. All three countries have established a tripartite mechanism for monitoring the cease-fire regime between the Syrian government and the military opposition. At the same time, calls have been made to various groups to stop contact with such terrorist groups as ISIL and Al-Nusra, starting a fight with them. All three countries give guarantees not to violate the territorial integrity of Syria. A month later the second meeting in Astana was agreed upon. The most important issue was to introduce at the Astana meeting the representatives of the Assad government and military opposition, as well as the establishment of joint control of the three countries - Iran, Russia and Turkey. Then in Astana several meetings were held. The meeting in Istanbul and the meeting in Tehran on September 7 - are a continuation of the summit in Astana. An important difference of the last Tehran meeting from the previous ones is that the issues discussed did not concern the entire Syria, but only Idlib, not under Assad's control. This region is controlled by the opposition and terrorist groups, in which about 3 million people live. At the Tehran meeting on Idlib, the main issue was the new discussion of the declaration signed at the 4th meeting in Astana on declaring the Idlib region, as well as Lazkia, Aleppo, Ham and parts of other regions, a zone without military actions. Although a few days before the Tehran meeting, Russia had already caused air strikes against Idlib, declared a zone without military action. This new situation indicated that the meeting would be held in a tense situation. The resumption of hostilities in Idlib is a blow to the interests of Turkey, as this region is very close to its border. If hostilities resume, Turkey will have to shelter about three million Syrian refugees, although the same number has already been taken before. From the point of view of the possibility of influencing Syria, Turkey is a country with a weak position. Russia and Iran work directly with the Assad government, which currently controls most of the country. Simultaneously, a certain part of Syria is controlled by the Shiite Hezbollah, which is the actual presence of Iran's military force in Syria. In addition, the people of Hezbollah are represented in the Assad government and have a special weight in the struggle against the Syrian opposition and Sunni organizations. This, in turn, provides an opportunity to see the extent of their influence on the Assad regime as the most loyal members of the government. Russia has had its political and military presence in Syria since Soviet times. And now it has the largest military contingent in this country, which gives grounds for a freer and decisive position at the negotiating table on the Syrian issue. From the final declaration of the Tehran meeting it is clear that Russia and Iran insisted on Turkey's acceptance of their position.

-If we return to the main part of the question, how can the Teheran meeting influence the solution of the Syrian question?

-It is very difficult to answer this question. According to the results of seven or eight meetings held in Astana, it is the last meeting that meets the interests of Turkey little or much. The question is very serious. In addition, the discrepancies between the sides arising at the last meeting create fears that the Astana summit, like the Geneva format, can be unsuccessful given that Turkey, in conjunction with the Syrian problem, is in close talks with the US in conjunction with the Astana summit. Several military operations conducted in Syria were also agreed with the United States. It is possible that Turkey will subsequently implement its issue in Syria with the United States. And in the international negotiations related to Syria, will give preference to the Geneva format. From this point of view, instead of expecting a positive result from the Tehran meeting, it is better to focus on a more likely version, that is, the future of the Astana process.

- Can the unity of the three countries in any way contribute to the solution of this problem in any form? Or on the contrary, will prolong this problem?

-In the first question we touched a little this issue. The strategic interests of these three countries do not coincide. Turkey's strategic interests are largely connected with the West, with the United States. Russia and Iran are more a country of geopolitical contradictions than common interests with Turkey. Simply in the direction of such complex strategic games, Turkey was forced to turn around the following factors: the traditional security system, the tensions between the US and Europe, the problems of the disintegration of the EU, the graters between the government of Turkey and the West, the authoritarian attitude of the Erdogan government in domestic policy issues. If you look specifically at the Syrian question, then, as it was noted, Russia and Iran protect the Assad regime, and Turkey considers this issue within the framework of the "Free and Integrative" Syria, which is not the Assad regime. The harmonization, to which three countries have so far reached the Syrian problem, are not final. The main thing is to demonstrate the possibility to proceed from the common interests that exist in the approach to solving certain aspects of this crisis to a certain stage. As the Syrian problem approaches the outcome, the clash of Turkey's interests with other countries will intensify. I believe that the period of making possible contributions of the three countries to resolve the issue has been left behind. Henceforth, the question of the continuation of the Astana format in the Syrian issue will depend on the events that will take place before the Moscow meeting.

-One of the main issues of interest to us is the place of Azerbaijan in this process. After this meeting, the Azerbaijani President visited Russia. And after the current summit, Turkish President's visit to Azerbaijan is expected on September 15. At the end of the month the Russian president is expected to arrive in Azerbaijan. It is likely that the Syrian issue will be discussed at these meetings. In your opinion, what can be demanded from Azerbaijan in the context of the settlement of this problem?

-The question is complicated. A constant problem is the lack of information in connection with the policy of the Azerbaijani government. There is no official information about the reason for Ilham Aliyev's visit to Russia, as well as visits of the Russian and Turkish president to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is the weakest link in the Russian-Iranian relations, if not to say a victim. Unfortunately, over the past 200 years, there are many sad facts confirming this. If we add addition inexperience of the Aliyev administration's diplomacy, there is nothing positive for Azerbaijan in these visits, as well as in this tripartite format. As for Azerbaijan's view of the Syrian problem, the position of official Baku remains silent. An open expression of official Baku's position in connection with this problem was voiced by Deputy Foreign Minister, Araz Azimov, in an interview with the Austrian Newspaper Die Presse in February 2016. He stated that "At present, Bashar Assad is the only guarantor of territorial integrity and security. His army is a legal institution. We support all the political processes that presuppose the presence of Assad as president before his replacement by a successor. " This statement was given after the Astana summit, it supports the position of Russia and Iran, and opposes the position of the West and Turkey. If we proceed from this context, disagreement in the Tehran summit and subsequent discussions by Erdogan and Putin in Baku, which will try to ignore the position of Ilham Aliyev on the Syrian issue. However, practice shows that if Ilham Aliyev has an open position on the Syrian issue, then it will be in the form of supporting Russian policy in Syria.

- Can Azerbaijan's security be guaranteed in this case? Is there any danger for Azerbaijan in any form? What position should Azerbaijan take in the settlement of this problem? And in what form should the policy be implemented?

-The question of Azerbaijan's security guarantee is rather painful. Unfortunately, in matters of security, official Baku takes decisions on cooperation, both regionally and internationally, because of Russia, which in fact represents a threat to the national security of the country. As for the political issue, for Azerbaijan at present one of the important issues is the country's participation in the Syrian process and the role it occupies in it: the processes around Syria are a significant point of the way leading to the creation of an absolutely settled international security system in the new format. In connection with this issue, against the background of open and hidden influence on Azerbaijan, the desire of the country's authorities to stay away from the process is too far from the concept of real politics. It is possible that the new security system will not be formed as ensuring the observance of national interests in the very system of international security created after the Second World War, but in the form of a "strategic alliance" existing in the preceding period. In this case, it will be necessary to determine who will be the real strategic ally of Azerbaijan. Wavering, as now, between Russia and the West or between Russia and Turkey, it is impossible to guarantee security.

-How do you see the solution to the Syrian problem? How can it be settled?

"It's impossible to see how this problem will be solved yet." As I have already noted, Syria is one of the significant points of geostrategic conflicts. The solution to this problem depends on when the chaotic ruling global politics becomes clear. In Syria, global forces in the face of the US and Russia, whose positions are diametrically opposed, such regional forces as Turkey and Israel are directly or indirectly military participants. It is unlikely that until the interests of these forces outside Syria are fully satisfied, this problem can be solved.