British Foreign Secretary suggested that Russia join the Americans created a coalition at war with LIH * to provide a controlled withdrawal of Assad. In an attempt to make Russia's position change in Syria Boris Johnson pretends he does not remember the relations between Moscow and the coalition to President Assad. Hence, it is necessary to recall.
Russia could join the Western coalition to fight LIH c * - I wrote in the Daily Telegraph British Foreign Boris Johnson. Russia should promote the issue of real cease-fire in Syria, to put an end to the use in the country of chemical weapons and barrel bomb, as well as to implement the project in Syria and comprehensive settlement of the "liberation" of the people from the government of President Bashar al-Assad, writes Johnson:
«Russians saved him. They are able to help secure his departure through a controlled transition process that preserves the key institutions of the state and bring the country a stable pluralistic future. "
For these purposes, Russia could join the Western coalition, while maintaining its strategic interests in Syria and also received "over the prospect of a fruitful relationship" with the US president, Donald Trump, Johnson points out. Another bonus for Russian Johnson, apparently believes that "over time, the West will help rebuild the country." In Russia, writes Johnson, "there is still time to get up on the right side."
That is, Johnson urged Moscow for the sake of improving relations with Trump and preserve its strategic interests in Syria to join the US coalition to fight with her against LIH and provide care Assad.
What does this mean and that Russia would respond?
Firstly, the establishment of relations between Russia and the United States is not in the purview of Johnson - more so as rightly noticed. about. Russia's permanent representative to the UN Safronkov, the British were afraid and "losing sleep" because most of Russia and the US co-operation opportunities. Indeed, the United Kingdom, especially in the period of "Breksita" makes the main rate at all possible strengthening of the alliance with the United States, the fact that the use of Washington in his game, both in Europe and in other parts of the world. Trump rapprochement and Putin categorically does not meet the interests of the UK. Thus, the "care" Johnson's fruitful relations between Moscow and Washington can only be perceived as a mockery.
Secondly, and most importantly, Russia's position on the US-led coalition set up well-known and can not be changed. Barack Obama announced the formation of the coalition against LIH 10 September 2014-th - the day before 13 9.11-th anniversary of the events. That year LIH successes in Syria and Iraq were so impressive that Washington had to somehow demonstrate their serious attitude. a coalition of Atlanticist and Arab countries has been collected - from the UK to Saudi Arabia - which was supposed to win LIH.
Russia, against which for half a year before Obama announced the blockade, the coalition was not invited - after the Crimea, our country has been declared in the West, the main threat to the world, along with the same LIH, so that it was impossible to call the evil one to fight the other. In reality, Russia, and would not have joined this coalition, because its creation did not meet either our interests or positions of Syria and Iran. Fighting LIH impossible without the support of Assad, and even more so in an environment where coalition members at the same time fighting with LIH and against Assad (not directly, but by supporting Islamists at war with him) - said Russia, but Washington did not agree. That is why Russian originally did not support the creation of a coalition.
Here's what he said back in the fall of 2014-Vitaly Churkin:
"We will not join the coalition, which operates outside the Security Council decisions, without the authorization of the Security Council. They bombed Syrian territory without the consent of the Syrian government, without the authorization of the Security Council. In Iraq - we still understand - at least they reached the Iraqi government's consent or agreement with him. But not in Syria. "
During the first year much success either in Iraq or in Syria coalition, which included 65 countries (the real backbone of about a dozen, but by and large these are just decoration for the US), is not reached. LIH not receded, but only expanded its territory, the government army of Syria was harder to keep under the blows and the conventional Islamists and igilovtsev. 2015 summer, Russia began to actively promote the idea of creating a new global anti-terrorist coalition - referring to both the US and the West, and to the world community. Its main purpose was to be the "Islamic State *", but unlike the American would be like getting a UN mandate, and part of the Government of the country in whose territory is a war against a common enemy, that is Syria.
Once our proposal - and Vladimir Putin spoke with him and the UN General Assembly in September 2015-th - was rejected by the United States, Russia launched an independent operation in Syria. The principal difference between Russia's actions in Syria from the US-led coalition operations - Moscow is acting on the invitation of Damascus and with the Syrian army. At the Russian side acts Asada and Iran.
At the same time Russia offered the US to coordinate the actions of the two coalitions, but the Americans disagreed, while continuing to insist that Assad must go. Russia accused the United States is that it is more important than the fall of Assad than the defeat of LIH.
"Our American partners are either not initially very carefully created their coalition, or conspired to her so that she does not have the goals that have been declared. The coalition was created very spontaneously: just a few days, it was announced that it includes a number of countries have begun some blows,- said the fall 2015-of Sergey Lavrov. -I hope that will not disappoint anyone, saying that some of our colleagues in the coalition countries say that they have is information about where exactly in which positions are those or other of the IG unit * and coalition commander does not consent to striking ".
Position on Assad began to change gradually in 2016-m - when it became clear not only that the war change occurred in Syria, but when Russia failed to agree on coordinating their actions not only with Iran, but also with Turkey. Although the Obama administration has not formally abandoned the requirement of care Assad, everyone understood that it is no longer relevant.
When Donald Trump on "first departure of Assad, and then setting" no longer remembered. Washington has publicly talked about understanding that you first need to achieve victory over the LIH, and then negotiate on the future of the Syrian leadership. Moreover, in February-March, two meetings Chief of Staff of Russia and the US - the first time in recent years - to discuss its naturally closed, coordination against LIH in Syria.
But the chemical attack in Idlib and the ensuing impact on the US air base of the Syrian army blew up the situation. US again began to talk about the unacceptability of the Assad - and at that moment, and you are prompted to Johnson.
What is its meaning? It is not the primitive "Assad must go", no. We understand your interests in Syria, Russia says London - and we can even guarantee their compliance. But under the new government, which is under our supervision with you formed in Syria. To do this, you need to join our coalition, leaving aside Iran (not blurts, but needless to say in the hands, the Anglo-Saxons - "Shiite ayatollahs", "sponsor of terrorism" can not be in a coalition with the democratic West and the Sunni monarchies) eventually take to his Russian Assad.
In Russia there is no reason to even discuss the proposal Johnson - no entry into the US-led coalition, nor the "software" Assad's departure does not meet our national interests. As for the relationship with Trump - then Putin somehow by itself, without "help" Boris will understand ...