While the massacres in Syria continue, the Geneva peace talks seem like nothing more than an attempt to buy time. After the extended Geneva II talks entered the second round, so far there have been no agreements beyond bringing the two sides to the negotiation table. However, diplomatic efforts continue to bring about a positive result. Nonetheless, the talks have been left to raw diplomacy, as the representatives of the two opposing sides have seemingly given up.

Another issue that has attracted notable attention this week is the seemingly unrelated visit of Egyptian coup mastermind General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to Moscow. After meeting Russian president Vladimir Putin, Putin said that he would support Sisi’s bid to become the next Egyptian president. In response to this, the US White House said that Putin had no right to decide who would rule the Egyptian people, and that this right belongs to Egyptians.

At the same time one may ask if Sisi’s visit to Moscow had anything to do with Syria. On first sight, it is not possible to establish such a link. However, when one asks under which regional country’s influence will the future of Syria be shaped, one can evaluate the situation very differently.

The question is, did Sisi simply visit Moscow to get approval for his presidency bid, or was he there to discuss the foundations of the future of the Middle-East? It seems that there will be no new order in the Middle-East until Egypt’s future becomes certain, and this is heavily dependent on a number of important factors, including the continuation of the Camp David agreement with Israel and the role of Islamist movements who are now active players in the political scene – especially the status of the Muslim Brotherhood.

The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has been pulled out of the political spectrum and once again fallen victim to military persecution as a direct result of the policies of another regional country, namely Saudi Arabia, has turned the Egypt problem into a multi-sided rubix cube. Even if the Brotherhood wanted to, they cannot return to their traditional role, as they have lost confidence in the consolidation of military and civil bureaucracy. Additionally, the return of old balances and slogans in foreign policy also leaves them in a difficult position.

Shortly after the Syrian uprising, which was triggered by the Arab Spring, turned into an armed struggle, it became clear that Syria along with the new open market of the Middle-East would not be surrendered to the influence of Turkey easily. As Iran is already an active player in the Syrian conflict, the only actor left to take a role is Egypt. However, Egypt will not be able to take a role in the Syrian conflict until they settle their problems at home, and therefore the situation in Syria cannot move forward until Egypt is put into shape.

It could be said that since Iran reached agreements to curb its nuclear program, it has been using its role in Syria as a bargaining tool, but at the same time the fact that the West does not want Iran to have any role in the future of Syria and the region as a whole needs not to be said.

When the slowly progressing Geneva II talks along with the process of punishing support for the opposition is put under the spotlight, one can see that the examples of Egypt and Syria are closely tied.

Therefore, the West is reluctant to lay out all of its demands on Syria until Egypt achieves a stable balance in its country. The statement by the US telling Putin to basically mind his own business in regards to Egypt shows that Egypt’s future is still uncertain and that the US is not prepared to leave that future to Russia. Until this balance is brought about in Egypt, there will be no decision on Syria.

Ýlgili YazýlarEnglish