Anti-Russian Hysteria, Part 55

ANTI-RUSSIAN HYSTERIA, PART 55

 

Russian tanks by the Ukrainian border.

in Wilson Centre at The Russian Military Build-up on Ukraine's Border | An Expert Analysis | Wilson Centre

 Last Spring, we witnessed yet another surge of anti-Russia hysteria. Like most and previous hysteria situations, this one will fizzle away without a bang.

 This latest hysterical strain is based on a Russian onslaught of Ukraine. The story originated in Ukraine (where else?) and quickly and predictably spread to Washington, Berlin, Paris, Brussels, etc.

 The ruse, yes that’s what it is, started with the Ukraine deploying troops and weapons to the Donbas region. After this move, Russia responded by deploying troops and weapons systems along the Ukrainian border to engage in a series of military exercises. Yes, it could also be the start-up to an assault on Ukraine, or part of it, but that was not the most likely scenario.

 Bottom line: there will be no Russian attack unless Kiev escalates and slides into a full-fledged conflict.

 Why did all of this happen?

 The Ukrainian President, Zelensky, has been falling in the opinion polls, so he thought that confronting Moscow would enable a wave of nationalism that would foster his public support. This, in turn, opened the way to try to press the US to deliver more weapons’ systems, namely the Patriot missile.

 Being aware of the anti-Russian stance of most Western powers (United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Poland), it could count on them for military aide and/or political and moral support.

 Finally, it was hoped that it could help to change or terminate the Minsk II Protocol concerning the Donbas status and situation, signed by Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France and which Kiev has been refusing to respect.

 The Russians responded in kind by spreading their troops and weapons along the Russian-Ukrainian border. First and foremost, this was an unequivocal message to Kiev not to cross a red line, or else… Furthermore, the message goes to European countries like France and Germany that it is better not to play with fire, or they can get burnt.

 The rejection of the Minsk agreement, the renewed attack on the Donbas and, especially, an invitation to Ukraine to adhere to NATO, are Moscow’s red lines, the latter two probably Leading to the outbreak of war.

 Why did it not spark a conflict between the several actors involved?

 Ukraine did not do it, because she could well be crushed or punished by Russia.

 Russia did not do it, because she held the best trumps over both Kiev and the West.

 The West did not do it, because it lacked the means, the courage, the support and the will to confront the Russian bear.

 In the end, we witnessed a long episode of chest-thumping with no losers, but where Russia clearly showed that she had the upper-hand.

Interesting Times in the Middle East

 INTERESTING TIMES LOOMING OVER THE MIDDLE EAST

in “Wikimedia” at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_Middle_East.png

The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Iran have signed a wide-ranging cooperation agreement covering trade, infrastructure, oil and military cooperation, development and deployment.

As stated in a previous post, Pakistan stands to gain from this agreement, too. On top of it all, Russia will also have a relevant stake in the military sphere.

So, besides the prospective gains envisioned by each of the participants, what is the likely geopolitical impact in the Middle East? What changes? Who stands to gain? And who stands to lose?

We are looking at a possible major realignment of strengths and alliances in the Middle East. Let us take a look at some of the players.

IRAN – Theoretically, Iran stands to gain. The military equipment that may be provided by Russia and China will enable Teheran to break the stranglehold imposed by the United States and benefit from a technological upgrade. Predictably, Iran will also benefit from an eventual Chinese military deployment to a couple of bases in Iran, not to mention the Russian role. Although Teheran has been always reluctant to accept foreign military deployment on its territory, it is likely that the Iranian leadership will hope that a Chinese and/or Russian deployment would deter an eventual attack from the likes of the USA, or Israel.

If foreign support proves to be solid and rewarding (which remains to be seen), Iran will most likely feel emboldened to challenge the Arab Gulf States, especially her nemesis, Saudi Arabia. Such a development could well, in turn, lead to a wider war involving the Middle East powers, their allies and outsiders like the US, Russia, the PRC, Israel, Turkey, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, France…

SAUDI ARABIA – The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) would appear to be the most vulnerable one in spite of her array of sophisticated high-tech weaponry purchased from the US and the UK. This would be due to Iran’s vast missile arsenal and her asymmetric warfare capabilities, capable of sowing fear and disorder. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia lacks Iran’s experience in foreign intervention and in the manipulation of local proxies. KSA’s military capabilities notwithstanding, the Kingdom would be relying heavily on American support to sustain the harassment from her foes.

PAKISTAN would find herself in a conundrum stuck between her long-time friendly and profitable relationship with Riyadh and her newfound partnership with Iran, strengthened by the triangular cooperation China-Iran-Pakistan. For Islamabad, the cosier path would be to stay put, just making appeals to a cease-fire and negotiations. The pressure from different friends and allies could force it out of the convenience of sitting and staring.

TURKEY could find here an opportunity to further stretch her presence and influence across the Middle East, namely in Iraq and Syria, territories that Erdogan has long coveted. This would not be an easy endeavour given Russia’s and Iran’s presence in Syria and the highly contested geopolitical game in Iraq, but Ankara’s increasingly reckless international behaviour suggests that these kind of adventures should not be precluded.

IRAQ, being the current major geopolitical battleground in the Middle East, would most likely be involved in the conflict. However, it is more probable that she will be a major battleground and not so much an active and influencing participant in the war. Were it to happen, it would further thrash a permanently unstable, divided and impoverished nation.

There are other countries susceptible to join the fray, or of being dragged to it, thus further spreading the clashes. Take Egypt and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) v Turkey over Libya, a renewed fight over Syria and/or Iraq, not to mention Iran’s hatred of Israel.

In this scenario, if a war does break out, the trend would be an increasing number of countries, willingly, or forcefully, getting involved in the war, potentially leading to a catastrophic event.

Is this inevitable?

Obviously not. The key to the conundrum would lie on the great powers, namely the US, Russia and the PRC. If these powers would renege any involvement in such a war, that would substantially diminish the Middle East’s most relevant nations’ bravado and will to fight.

Even if a given country, say Iran, dared to spark a conflict without a patron’s cover, the target, say the KSA, would most likely receive support from a major ally, such as the United States.

In a nutshell, a major war engulfing the whole Middle East is NOT the most likely outcome, if anything because of the cost in lives, equipment and treasure incurred by everyone involved. On the other hand, the increasing tension and acrimony between the great powers and amongst the Middle East ones, plus the spread of bases and military deployments by outside powers, can turn a struggle for influence into a dangerous powder keg.

The increasing great power rivalry and the shifting alliances in the Middle East and beyond, herald a new reality in the region. Interesting Times may be looming over the Middle East.