Russia merely reaffirmed its position, which is natural considering that developments in Syria are turning in its favor. The United States announced that it will begin to send arms to some rebel groups. The conflict in Syria is likely to develop into a protracted war. Russia is all alone on this issue, but the differences over other issues are not that serious.

       The G8 summit was recently held in Northern Ireland. What issues were discussed there?

       As always, the agenda of such meetings includes different kinds of items. This time the participants discussed strategic problems (the Syrian conflict and Afghanistan) and economic issues (the economic crisis and offshore tax schemes). The personal meeting between President Vladimir Putin and his American counterpart Barack Obama has taken on special significance in light of recent events. It is reported that they had a very productive discussion of the most pressing issues.

       The conflict in Syria was expected to be one of the main issues at the summit. Was this prediction correct? What were the results of the discussion? What about the Geneva 2 conference?

       The prediction was correct and the Syrian issue was at the center of discussions. Another prediction – that there would be no agreements between Russia and other G8 members – also came true. The sides dug into their positions during discussions. Russia merely reaffirmed its position, which is natural considering that developments in Syria are turning in its favor. The United States announced that it will begin to send arms to some rebel groups and their intention to leave weapons in Jordan after military exercises there.

       As for the conference on Syria (the so-called Geneva-2), the conduct of the parties in the Syrian conflict is making it unlikely that it will come off. It’s possible that this conference will not take place and the conflict in Syria will be resolved by military means. Moreover, this conflict is likely to develop into a protracted war. The regime in Syria has proved to be much stronger than in Libya or Tunisia. They enjoy the support not only of Alawis but other minorities. They have strong military capabilities and receive military assistance from Iran and Hezbollah. In this context the conflict is likely to be resolved militarily rather than politically.

       Foreign Policy magazine writes that Putin has become a master of playing the role of the bad guy at such summits. Meanwhile, The New Yorker writes that Putin gained the upper hand at the G8 summit because, unlike the other leaders, he knows exactly what he wants and what he is ready to do to achieve his goals. Which point of view would you agree?

       There is no doubt that at the recent summit Putin was completely on his own and was not in the least embarrassed about this. Unlike other leaders, he does not bother with political correctness. Obviously, he is demonstrating his confidence that he is right in his position on Syria.

       Russia has managed to preserve its leading role in efforts to resolve the Syrian crisis and this is a major achievement. But I’m not sure that Obama or other G8 leaders are less sure of their views than Putin. Each of them has their own view of what is happening.

       During the summit Putin met with Obama. Was their meeting productive? What issues did they discuss?

       The meeting was productive despite the negative reactions in the Western press. It was productive, first of all, because it continued the trend that began last spring after the Moscow visit by Thomas Donilon, Obama’s National Security Adviser, the visit to the United States by Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council, and a bilateral exchange of messages. There is no doubt that both Moscow and Washington want to improve relations. It would be premature to call this “reset 2” but both sides do not want relations to remain at the low point they hit after the adoption of the Magnitsky List and the Dima Yakovlev Law. I believe this bilateral desire for better relations will remain despite substantial differences on Syria and the Snowden affair.

       During the talks the sides signed a cyber security agreement, which is interesting in and of itself. Moscow attaches particular importance to Obama’s statement about his intention to pay an official visit to Moscow before the G20 summit in St. Petersburg. This shows the sides’ mutual desire for better relations, and in this sense the meeting was definitely productive.

       Considering that the annual G8 summit has long stopped producing any real political results and has become a contest of eloquence, shouldn’t the format of the summit change? Wouldn’t it be sensible to focus on global economic issues at such forums? Maybe in this case the club should open its doors to China, a country with the most rapidly developing economy?

       G8 summits do not adopt specific decisions or roadmaps – that is the responsibility of the UN Security Council. G8 summits are venues for informal discussions of economic and political issues. Historically, the G7 was a club of Western democracies. The invitation to Russia under Boris Yeltsin to join was a big honor, despite its many differences with other members. I believe the G8 countries will not agree to formally expand the club. If they invite China, India and Brazil would want to follow suit.

       There are other venues for dealing with China. In fact, the G20 is an expanded format of the G8. There is also the UN and bilateral meetings with Chinese leaders. In the past the G8 has informally invited presidents of other countries to attend its summits.

       Considering Russia’s disagreements with other members of the elite club on many pressing issues, many experts have started calling it by the name they used in the past – 7 plus 1(this was also the case at the recent summit). What is your reaction to this?

       Many politicians and analysts have long called into doubt the legitimacy of Russia’s presence in the G8. Indeed, Russia was invited to the club when it was far from a real democracy. This invitation was a gesture. Many believe that the events taking place in Russia today reaffirm that this gesture was premature. I don’t share this opinion. The importance of the Syrian conflict should not be overestimated. Yes, Russia is all alone on this issue, but the differences over other issues are not that serious. Of course, Western politicians find it easier to communicate with each other. This is normal and this has been the case historically. But I think it is absolutely inappropriate to question the legitimacy of the format, which allows club members to communicate with Russia honestly, sincerely and regularly on a variety of issues, and this is the point of diplomacy.

       What recommendations do you have for Russia as it prepares to host its own summit next year?

       Unfortunately, there aren’t many memorable G8 summits. The key task for Russia in this context is to draft an interesting agenda. It should include items that are important for all participants and where Russia has something to offer. I think this will guarantee that Russia’s presidency is successful.

       Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.