Russian President Vladimir Putin has declined to attend a G-8 Summit in Washington, on the pretext that he is too busy with the formation of a new Russian government. Thus, it seems that pending issues between Moscow and Washington are not going to witness a speedy resolution – among these issues is the question of how to deal with the crisis in Syria. The telephone call by Putin to his American counterpart, Barack Obama, to inform him that Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev will attend the summit instead, indicates that there is an understanding between the two leaders on a number of issues, ones that require preliminary steps, which will take some time. Medvedev will appraise the atmosphere with Obama once again, and then Putin will meet him in one month's time, at a G20 Summit, to discuss the global economy. In the meantime, the international community will continue to play the game of international observers in Syria. A consensus among major powers on how to treat the country's crisis requires a deal that goes beyond Syria, and extends to complicated international issues. Topping these issues is the situation of the global economy, along with the missile shield being set up by NATO in Europe, which is rejected by Moscow, as well as Washington's openness to Islamist movements in a number of countries in the Caucasus, Central Asia and the countries of the "Arab Spring." In addition, there are the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, with Russia rejecting tough American-European sanctions on Tehran in light of the continuing talks on the issue, between the 5+1 group of countries and Iran. Moreover, the Russian leader is also angry at the support of American institutions for the opposition protests against him, which have begun to escalate in recent days. In other words, the international community has a long road ahead of it, if it is hoped that it will produce a consensus on a decisive plan to treat the Syrian crisis, one for which a Russian-American understanding could lay the groundwork. The deal that observers of the current international solution are watching for requires the resolution of a number of complex issues before a decision can be made on the stance vis-à-vis Syria. If the game of international observers in Syria is the only option for a minimum of international consensus, this game will involve a repetition, albeit in a different manner, of what was already tested by Arab observers three months ago, despite the different level of expertise, capacities and patience enjoyed by the international team, compared to the Arab observers. This game will not lead to an end to the violence and bloodshed, amid the impossibility of taking any international decision to intervene, one that enjoys the political cover of being issued by the United Nations Security Council. This is because the possibility of vetoes by Russia and China remains on the table; moreover, there is an impossibility of seeing western intervention, by Europe and the United States, via NATO. Also, there are regional dangers at play, and Washington appears to be completely stymied because the White House is in the midst of a re-election campaign for Obama. This heads off the chance of seeing any foreign military adventure, as affirmed by senior American officials in all of their meetings with leaders from the Middle East. If Putin justified to Obama his failure to attend the G-8 Summit by citing his need for time to form a new government, the actual message he wanted to reiterate is that he is confirming to the Americans what he said on the eve of his telephone call to Obama. A few days ago, during a ceremony at the Kremlin to mark the victory over Nazi Germany, he said that Russia "has every right to protect its positions and defend its interests." Amid such a situation, the comments by the US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, about her country's efforts to establish an international alliance over the situation in Syria, appear to be unrealistic. Although some consider this to be false, and assert that it is possible to arrive at an agreement in the end, avoiding talk of the obstacles that confront such a scenario serves as cover for the unlikelihood that it will take place in the near future. Thus, the game of international observers in Syria provides political cover for the need of leading powers for more time to find a formula that would see the situation in Syria exit its current impasse. It is a game that extends the opportunities for an international deal, but also prolongs the suffering of the Syrians, and deepens the divisions among them, making it harder to mend the cracks and boosting the chances of a civil war. Perhaps this is in the interest of leading powers, and the US, as they believe that in this way, Syria will become exhausted, as will the new regime that appears after the fall of the current one. Also, exhausting the current regime will further occupy the energy of Iran and weaken its "Syrian card," to which it has been clinging quite forcefully. Moscow is aware that Washington is no hurry, and that it is playing the game of the international observers, with the possibility that their three-month mandate might be extended (seven weeks of this mandate now remain) for a similar period, while their numbers will rise above 300, with no reservations about the amount of this increase until the international consensus finally appears. Meanwhile, Arab countries continue to play the role of quasi-spectators; the Arab League is content to make a new try, one that confronts many difficulties, to unify the Syrian opposition on the 16th of this month.
