The purpose of Russian peacekeepers is really to prevent small groups of extreme activists trying to explode the whole situation and drag both Syria and Israel into a much bigger and hugely dangerous conflagration. So it's definitely a force for stabilization, and should be endorsed, both by the European powers and by the United Nations.

       Recently the Austrian authorities have declared their intention to withdraw (followed by Croatia, Canada and Japan) the country’s peacekeeping troops from the Golan Heights. In this regard Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed to replace the Austrians by the Russian peacekeepers.

       Valdaiclub.com interview with Alastair Crooke, British diplomat, the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.

       According to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov, the final decision on the Russian peacekeepers` presence in the Golan Heights depends on the positions of Israel and Syria. Is the consent of Israel possible? What is the likely Syrian position on this issue?

       We have to separate this by looking at the broader picture. We are in a period in the region where the stresses and strains, the tensions, are so taut, that any small thing could set off not just a localized conflagration, but something that could bring in external powers. It is indeed a region in which a small bushfire in once place or another could easily light something much bigger across the region.

       So I think that what President Putin is suggesting has that in mind. It's a strategic move. We know that there are various flash points, if you like, fault lines, across the region. And these are fault lines that really small groups can easily take advantage of. One of the fault lines is on the Golan, another is the Lebanese border with Israel, and there are others in the region. But what is so dangerous about all this is not that there is a strategic shift or that there is a strategic change in the balance of relationship between states, but the small groups who represent nobody but themselves, and whose main aim is actually to initiate a confrontation, to start a war across the region, in order, they hope, to break up and destroy structures that exist, states that exist, and then to establish small Islamic emirates throughout the area.

       It’s really very important to prevent small groups of people seizing an opportunity to explode the whole delicate balance of relations across these sensitive areas.

       Israel in fact will look on the Russian suggestion favorably. Although there are some in Israel who want to see an intervention in Syria, there's a very important strain within the security and intelligence framework who say, why should we get involved? Let the region tear itself apart, it doesn't concern us. What we're mostly concerned about is keeping out of it and keeping stable. And therefore stability on the Golan will be important to Israel – important because they will see that they don't want to get pulled into these conflicts, which are mostly sectarian. There is quite strong support in the intelligence and security services for a policy that Israel should not be drawn into the conflicts in the region, that they don't concern Israel, and that it is a danger for Israel to get pulled into these conflicts, which are predominantly sectarian, rather than strategic and political.

       Therefore, having a force that can provide stability and some sense of structure on the border against jihadists being right up on Israel's border, will have a strong appeal within the security and intelligence establishment in Israel. And I think similarly, the Syrian army still believes it's got the wind behind it, it's anxious to finish the job, it's in a quite strong position, it believes, and is really not looking for diversions, it just wants to get on and finish it, not be diverted to fighting the war in Golan or in Israel. They want to finish the job that's at hand.

       So I think both in Syria and in Israel, there will be support. The main problems will come with some of the European states, who've sort of relapsed into a rather Cold War mentality towards Russia, and will try to obstruct anything which they see is giving Russia a higher role in the region, namely countries such as France and Britain.

       What is the possible reaction of the United States?

       I think the United States will be broadly supportive. Their main concern is the security and stability of Israel – that's their overriding concern, and always has been. They are aware and very much also concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu will try and pull, if you like, Israel into conflict. What we're seeing, as I say, is just small groups that are anxious to cause trouble. And of course, America understands that the culture of Israeli politics is, if there are rockets attacks, the Israeli population believes in immediate response and that Israel has to be tough, even if they come from groups that are actually completely insignificant in the political spectrum and are only there precisely in order to provoke such an aggressive reaction from Israel.

       According to the UN, Russia’s participation in the peacekeeping operations in the Golan Heights is not possible because of her permanent membership in the UN Security Council (in accordance with the protocol which was accepted in 1974). In this regard, Sergei Lavrov said that the document "could be replaced with the new one." Is it possible?

       Foreign Minister Lavrov is probably one of the world's greatest experts on the procedures of the United Nations. I mean, he is extremely knowledgeable and has served as a very long time as Russia's representative in the UN. So I'm sure that he's right that this is the case. The UN has a problem of finding peacekeeping troops. So when a state – a serious state like Russia – offers peacekeeping troops, I cannot imagine in any reasonable way that the United Nations should oppose it, because they are desperate to have effective peacekeeping troops, not only there, but everywhere they're having problems in finding them. So I'm sure they should treat it very seriously, and I'm sure that there is no difficulty, or no procedural difficulty that cannot be resolved, as Mr. Lavrov says, if there is a wish.

       Will the presence of Russian peacekeepers contribute to the stabilization of the situation in the region?

       Yes, it will contribute to it. As I say, because what we are talking about here is not an attempt to shift the strategic balance in favor of Syria or the resistance axis against Israel or for Israel on the other side. Its purpose is really to prevent small groups of extreme activists trying to explode the whole situation and drag both Syria and Israel, and possibly the wider region, into a much bigger and hugely dangerous conflagration. So it's definitely a force for stabilization, and should be endorsed, both by the European powers and by the United Nations.

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

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