Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday told foreign dignitaries in Moscow that Syria needed dialogue between the regime and opposition rather than foreign intervention to ensure a lasting peace. Putin, speaking on the same day that prominent Syrian opposition leader and intellectual Michel Kilo held talks in Moscow with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, said that everything possible must be done to force both sides to find and accept a peaceful solution to the Syrian crisis.

Although there is nothing new in Moscow’s position of non-interference in Syria, it is clear that Putin wishes to bolster Russia’s image as a power broker in Middle East affairs. This would explain the number of Syrian opposition leaders who have made high profile visits to Moscow recently and Putin’s continued support of the Al-Assad regime. It would also explain further comments by Putin in which he warned against armed intervention in Syria by any nation without prior approval of the UN Security Council.

This of course is the same as saying that no action will be taken without Russian (and Chinese) approval as both countries have veto power and will use it, as they have before, to prevent any real pressure from being put on Damascus.

It is clear that Putin’s support of the Syrian regime is an attempt to persuade the Russian people that their country is still a power in the Middle East and, indeed, in the world. It is also an attempt to counter the effect of the widespread demonstrations in Moscow which saw tens of thousands of people take to the streets in protest on the eve of Putin’s inauguration in May. The unprecedented protests and brutal arrests and crackdown by the police began last December after parliamentary elections were held which were widely believed to have been plagued by fraud.

With such problems at home, it is convenient for Putin to style himself as a great leader and power broker in Middle East affairs, and the longer it takes for the Syrian crisis to be resolved, the longer he can use it for his own domestic purposes. The tragedy is that the bloodshed in Syria does not stop, with Gen. Robert Mood, who heads the UN observer team there, talking of violence which has surged to “unprecedented levels”. He added that the escalation of violence, which has now led to the death of more than 17,000 people, continues because the parties involved “have decided that their objectives are better served by using violence than by choosing a political process”.

This makes a mockery of Putin’s call for dialogue between parties which have clearly entered into a civil war as continued diplomatic efforts have shown no signs of producing any prospect of peace. Moscow’s position on the Syrian crisis is clearly one which serves its own domestic interests. It may in the end abandon Assad or offer him and his family a safe haven in Moscow, and it may work out a deal with the West which allows it to have continued influence in a new Syria. But the high profile visits of Assad regime and opposition figures to Moscow will continue and Russia will maintain its support for diplomatic initiatives which show little signs of succeeding. In the final analysis, it is simply not in Putin’s interest to find a quick and clear solution to the Syrian crisis.