G20 SPLITS UP

The fact that the Syrian issue dominated the summit, which was originally meant to be a platform to discuss economic and financial issues, did not surprise anyone. The G20 meeting was planned in advance, and therefore the heads of the leading players on the world stage had no other choice but to face each other. And, of course, this dialogue at the highest level was followed closely around the world. After all, the situation is very nervous. Considerable military forces have already been dispatched to the Middle East, and the potential number of participants in the conflict forces the most impressionable commentators to warn of the possible beginning of World War III. Suffice it to mention that, according to The Wall Street Journal, in the event of strikes on Syria Iran allegedly promised to attack the US embassy and other facilities in Baghdad. The Americans also have some concerns about the Hezbollah group. Against this background, it is clear that the situation around Syria is of paramount importance to the economy - hostilities may break out in the region, which is a major supplier of energy to the world economy.

However, the G20 leaders demonstrated their willpower and did not deviate from the main agenda - they talked about the gradual recovery of the global economic system, taxes and the fight against unemployment. Syria, as it were, was left for the breakfast, lunch and dinner, when the heads of state could chat informally and without journalists. However delicious dishes failed to reduce the degree of tension. It is not known after what meal it happened, but according to the Western media, directly from St. Petersburg, US President Barack Obama demanded that the Pentagon expand the list of targets for strikes on Syria. For the first time it was suggested that American and French aircraft could be used to attack Assad's army, although previously they spoke only about the launch of missiles from ships and submarines, which are already in the Mediterranean and Red Seas, as well as in the Persian Gulf.

Moreover, it was the first joint dinner where the G20 countries split up approximately equally. For example, it is noted that a peaceful solution to the crisis in Syria is backed by Russia, China, India, Indonesia, Argentina, Brazil and South Africa. Among those who hold a different view are France, Australia, Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, Spain and the United Kingdom. The situation with the latter, however, is more complex since the British Parliament did not support the idea of missile strikes on Syria. Germany and Italy are apparently in the camp of the hesitating ones.

There seems to be a total disorder on Syria in the ranks of the EU. While the European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Parliament President Martin Schulz seem to have clearly opposed the invasion, Lithuania's Minister of National Defence Juozas Olekas said that the EU defence ministers have acknowledged the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is also noteworthy that NATO is not making any resounding statements and is behaving strangely quietly. "NATO is not going to expand its role in the Syrian conflict, except for providing a platform for debates between the allies and doing everything possible to defend Turkey," Director of the NATO Information Office Robert Pszczel said at a press conference in Moscow.

However, Obama cannot get unanimous support for his plan to bomb Syria even at home. The thing is that Republican congressmen not only want Bashar al-Assad to quit, but also do not mind tarnishing the Democratic president's image. In turn, Democratic congressmen are thinking about the "opinion of their own voters, most of whom oppose the new US military intervention". Indeed, according to a recent survey, 48 % of Americans do not support the idea of missile and bomb strikes. The same number of respondents believes that Obama never clearly explained why the United States should bomb Syria.

Against this background, all Western political analysts speculate what is behind the position of Putin who supports Syria at the very forefront. Most of them believe that this is not a desire to save Assad, but an intention to preserve or rather restore Russia's status as a global player, without which vital decisions cannot be made. And Putin has already achieved some success here. He has actually been recognized as a key figure in solving the Syrian crisis, and, of course, the summit "at home", which happened to be so successful, only intensified this effect. Even Pope Francis wrote a letter to Putin as the chairman of G20 and called on the president of Russia to continue to fight for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. The pontiff called the military solution "vain and empty". It is argued that the publication of a letter at such a level is a unique fact. So this message is not an appeal to Putin himself but rather the recognition of his position and his arguments against the position and arguments of the party that calls for a military operation. In addition, Russia, of course, fears that the conflict might spread and lead to possible destabilization in the North Caucasus, which is difficult to call stable anyway. Therefore, at the final press conference of the summit, Putin directly and clearly stated that Russia will help Syria: "We are helping them anyway. We supply weapons and cooperate in the economic sphere."

Moscow itself explains its position by the fact that it considers the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August to be a provocation. "Why did Assad's army, which is winning in many areas, need to frame itself?" the Russian side asks. And they add: "Prove to us that Assad is guilty and we will join those who yearn to punish him." The difference in terminology in all the statements of the West and Russia on Syria is also quite remarkable. Thus, the force opposing Assad is referred to as the "opposition" in the West and as "militants" or at best, as "rebels" in Russia. One gets the impression that in this round of the so far purely diplomatic standoff with the West, Russia has been quite successful in promoting its point of view. And of course, Moscow is quite lucky too. The Russian president, who was very hoarse "whether because of arguments or a cold", looked quite efficient at the press conference - he seemed tired and sick, but unwilling to give up...

Alas, another outcome of the political-economic summit - relations between Russia and the United States continue to deteriorate. No one even remembers the romantic times of the "reset", and the situation is more reminiscent of that fatal slip of the tongue - "overload", and on all fronts - Syria, missile defence, Snowden. Shortly before the G20 summit, Obama cancelled his visit to Moscow scheduled for 3-4 September. The US president arrived at the G20 summit, but refused to meet "face-to-face" with Putin, who, as noted by many Western media, did not even meet his American counterpart at the airport. Then it became clear that Putin and Obama did talk, not "on their feet", but while sitting, and "remained unconvinced". In the near future, a conversation should take place between Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov and Secretary of State Kerry. But the Russian MPs, who were promised a cold reception on Capitol Hill, will not go to Washington.

What is regrettable in all this situation is another blow to the image of the UN. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came, spoke and called for peace, but it's clear that his words are just for the background and do not decide anything. The facts speak only for what they speak for - today US Congress is much more powerful than the UN Security Council.

Under international law, the use of force against a sovereign state is permitted only in two cases - either in the case of self-defence or with the sanction of the UN Security Council. In turn, Obama says there's also a convention prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. And you cannot argue with that either. But then who will explain what provision is stronger, why and most importantly, in which case? At the very least, the leaders of the leading countries of the world are clearly unable to respond to this. Some might rightly note that the notorious right of veto paralyzes the Security Council. But then there is an urgent need to revise the UN structure and of course, this has to be done not in times of crisis when every hour is precious and human lives are at stake.

While diplomats continue to consult, experts continue to study the evidence in the laboratories and journalists analyze the statements and behaviour of the G20 leaders, there are more and more victims among the civilian population. And all this already seems symbolic in the ominous situation - even thoughts at the beginning of the summit about how to seat the G20 participants: according to the Russian or English alphabet? Typically, the sequence is determined according to the alphabet of the host country, but in the event of the Russian option, Putin and Obama would be sitting practically next to each other during the G20 meetings - after the King of Saudi Arabia. So they decided to follow the English alphabet - in this scenario, the heads of the Kremlin and the White House were separated by five of their colleagues. This reshuffle gave rise to many jokes and puzzling comments on social networks. Why make things so complicated, ordinary Internet users were bewildered around the world - did the presidents come together to fight each other?

At the G20 summit, Obama and Putin were "poles apart" and separated quite peacefully, but the question remains: what balance will win - "Russian" or "English"?

We would like them to act in concert - by the general rules that are clear and are approved by all.