ILHAM ALIYEV: "THE MAIN THING IS PEACE"

The virtually severed Geneva peace talks on Syria (officially frozen at least until 25 February) are a clear indicator of the increasingly mounting tension in the Middle East. Following the Russian-Turkish incident with the downed bomber, the situation in the combat zone of the SAR, if one may put it like that, has been developing as normal. However, the fiasco of the Geneva dialogue shows that this was merely the calm before the storm. As a result, many experts are now inclined to the view that there may soon be a major clash of forces between the strongest military powers in Syria, the outcome of which is hard and even terrible to imagine. The collapse of Syria - the dividing lines of that country have long been visible - is also a possibility. The hostages of any outcome will be the local civilian population, who have been basically living in a state of humanitarian crisis for some time.

Dispersed without even having met

Riad Hijab, the head of the Supreme Negotiations Commission (SNC) of the Syrian opposition, left Geneva saying that the opposition has no intention of returning to the negotiations table until there is a change of situation in the country. The opposition is demanding that "the humanitarian demands of the Syrian people are met" - i.e. the release of detainees from prison, the lifting of the blockade on towns and also an end to the Russian air strikes. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also linked the suspension of talks with the bombing of dispositions of forces opposing al-Assad by the Russian air force. At the same time, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that the Syrian authorities had demonstrated an intention to resolve the conflict by military means and urged Russia and Iran to stop attacking opposition forces, and Damascus to halt its offensive. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius accused Damascus and "its allies" of trying to "torpedo" the peace talks and condemned the Syrian army's offensive in the Aleppo region. Some of the respected media, such as the Financial Times, have concluded that the negotiations have "gone up in smoke" because of the offensive by al-Assad's troops on Aleppo, supported by Russian planes. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond stressed that Russian air strikes in Syria are preventing an end to the conflict in the country, are "frustrating the efforts of the coalition" and also inciting Syrians to flee to Europe. The Turkish authorities have also noted the impact of Russia's actions in Syria on the intensification of the migration crisis. 

Moscow has made no response to criticism of its actions in Syria. Gennadiy Gatilov, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister, said that the attempt to link the negotiations to humanitarian questions is aimed at disrupting them, because in UN Security Council resolution 2254 on Syria there are no links between the solution to humanitarian problems and the start of the negotiations process. As far as the bombing of opposition forces is concerned, Moscow is still calling them terrorists. In other words, despite the attempt at Geneva, a solution to the situation in Syria has not advanced a single millimetre. The trouble is, agreement could not be reached on the make-up of the participants in the meeting in Geneva. The sides negotiated this way and that and the main argument was a demand to exclude from the lists those whom they regarded as terrorists. But their views on this did not coincide.

The Syrian delegation regards the whole opposition as terrorists and believes that it is lined with IS. As regards the recent explosions in the southern suburb of Damascus, as-Sayyidah Zaynab, the Syrian foreign minister said that the aim of the terrorist act was "an attempt to wreck the efforts to open an inter-Syrian dialogue". Russia and the Syrian governmental delegation protested against the inclusion in the SNC of representatives of the Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar ash-Sham groups, which Moscow and Damascus do not regard as the moderate opposition. The Russian media said that Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar ash-Sham adhere to an extremist ideology and are supported by Saudi Arabia and Turkey. However, Ankara and al-Riyadh do not see terrorists in these groups and the rest of the opposition: they see them as forces opposed to al-Assad who is supported by Russia. After visiting Saudi Arabia, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that the two countries stand square by the delegation of the Syrian opposition in Geneva. The Saudi foreign minister added that the kingdom would continue to provide military support to the Syrian opposition groups "if the negotiations in Geneva fail".

On the other hand, Turkey - and Saudi Arabia, too - are categorically against including the Syrian Kurds in the negotiations process and regard them as terrorists. Turkey has more than once made it clear that it is ready to take - and indeed is taking - military action to prevent the emergence of a new Kurdish territorial formation either on Syrian territory or in neighbouring Iraq. In this context, Russia is insisting that the Kurds are a very integral part of the Syrian opposition because "they control a considerable part of Syrian territory and have serious political influence".

Extremely significant is the US' position towards the Kurds who, as is known, they have always supported, but at the same time they also support their ally, Turkey. The Americans have never expressed a clear opinion about the Kurds, preferring to leave this as it were to the future, but the Kurdish question has more than once clouded relations between Washing-ton and Ankara. Now Russia has forced its way into this scenario. It appears that the visit of the special envoy of the US presidential administration, Brett McGurk, to so-called Syrian Kurdistan, and Kobani in particular, at the beginning of February was linked precisely with this. This was the first officially endorsed visit by a senior American official to Syria since the American ambassador left Damascus.

Generally speaking, the US favours those sides in the conflict that are opposed to al-Assad, with the exception of al-Nusrah and IS. But "those sides in the conflict" have recently suffered defeats against al-Assad's troops, which is in no way conducive to an effective struggle against IS. And that is why there has been more and more talk about a possible US' ground operation in Syria, although Obama has said more than once that ground troops will not be used in a Syrian-Iraqi operation against IS. After his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, US Vice President Joe Biden said that if they cannot achieve what they want by political methods, the US and Turkey are prepared to seek a "military solution" to the struggle against IS in Syria. US Secretary of Defence Ashton Carter also said that the coalition against IS would engage ground troops to accelerate the victory process. The question is would the US do this directly or by using the forces of their allies in the region?

Messages are coming from the Saudis that al-Riyadh is prepared to send troops to take part in a ground operation in Syria, if it is begun by the international coalition led by the US. The Guardian writes that Saudi Arabia could send troops to Syria to fight IS, coordinating its actions with Turkey. Al-Riyadh and Ankara apparently several weeks ago even created the appropriate bilateral body. Pentagon head Ashton Carter welcomed al-Riyadh's statement, adding that discussions of this question are being prepared, and an official US State Department envoy John Kirby said that, in general, the coalition supports the intention of the members of the coalition to step up efforts in the fight against IS. Moscow's suspicions about Turkey's possible military plans were intensified by Ankara's refusal to allow a flight over its territory as part of the Open Skies treaty, which allowed for observation of areas on the border with Syria and aerodromes using NATO aircraft. Igor Konashenkov, a spokesman for the Russian Defence Ministry, said that the Russian authorities had "serious grounds to suspect an intensive preparation by Turkey" for a military intervention in Syria.

The big question is what will the Kremlin do and how will Iran behave in this situation? Although only two options remain here - either supervise how al-Assad's troops give up the ground they have won or enter into a confrontation with Turkish (i.e. NATO) and Saudi forces. The fact that such options are not being ruled out is shown by the active negotiations being carried out by all the countries in the region drawn into the Syrian conflict.

The humanitarian crisis

In this context, virtually the same day the focus shifted from the disrupted Geneva talks to London where a "Support for Syria and the Region" conference was held of the donor-countries in order to continue the meetings with the same world leaders who might influence the situation in Syria. The event was organized by Britain, Germany, Kuwait, Norway and the UN. At the invitation of the organizers, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev also took part in the event. 

The member-countries of the London conference agreed to collect over 10bn dollars in aid to the Syrian people. The money will go partially towards direct supplies of humanitarian aid to Syria, to various projects for the development of Syria and the neighbouring countries and to aid for Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon, who together have taken in 4.5m Syrian refugees.

One gets the impression that, having failed so far to find a political solution to the Syrian crisis, the biggest countries of the world have decided to sort out the humanitarian crisis as best they can. However, as Ilham Aliyev recalled yet again, a political settlement remains paramount. The Azerbaijani leader knows what he is talking about because, unfortunately, Baku has a lot of experience when it comes to solving questions of refugees. As a result of Armenia's aggression, over a million Azeris found themselves in the position of refugees and forced migrants, which is one of the highest numbers in terms of per capita refugees. Ilham Aliyev expressed gratitude to humanitarian organizations, especially the UN Commissariat for the Affairs of Refugees, which had supported Azerbaijan at a difficult moment in its history, and stressed that today Azerbaijan is a donor-country which is providing financial help, including to the Syrian refugees. But, as Aliyev added, "the country can develop and cope with the great difficulties only in a situation of stability and peace".

"The main thing is peace. That is why finding a political solution as soon as possible to the Syrian crisis is item number one on our agenda. I am confident that the discussions we have had today will play an important part in the search for a political solution. Azerbaijan, as a country which today possesses sound financial and economic potential, has been able to achieve this in conditions not of peace, but only a cease fire," Aliyev said during his speech in London.

But at the moment it is a ceasefire for Syria that is, in fact, an unrealistic task. This Middle Eastern republic finds itself at the crossroads of the interests of the leading world players. And the outcome of this battle remains unclear, as is the future of Syria.