US-Russian Competition and the Future of the Arab Region
Contrary to many analyses, Russia has not been that concerned with the Ukrainian crisis, and it has lost interest in the Syrian crisis. Neither crisis has pushed Russia and the U.S. to sit at the negotiations table and agree about their power-sharing in the two regions. Also countering popular interpretations is the fact that Putin did not score a victory in Ukraine, where he defeated the Americans. The Americans were playing too far from home, in a country that was never their own, and so they have lost something that did not belong to them to begin with. Indeed, Ukraine is really a gift horse, given the economic crisis and the enormous amount of aid it requires, which neither the U.S. nor Europe can provide under the current circumstances. For his part, Putin achieved a symbolic and moral victory, but he only won back what was his in the first place, and the prize comes with a considerable price tag. The Ukrainian people are the biggest losers in the conflict of interests between the two giants battling on their turf.
There is not a cold war going on between Moscow and Washington due to the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, as some analysts have claimed.
Rather, there is competition in some international matters and cooperation in others; indeed in some issues there is competition and cooperation at the same time. In Syria, for example, there is wholehearted agreement on counterterrorism and the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons disarmament. It appears that Moscow is up to its ears in supporting the Assad regime, in which it finds a safeguard for its future interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. stance on this is clouded by ambiguities and questions.
It’s likely that Washington is in no hurry to put an end to an armed conflict in which all factions are battling in ever more violent and bloody ways. What they are concerned about is that the Syrian conflict does not spread to neighboring countries. For if this were to happen, things would really slip out of their control, exposing U.S. interests, and those of other factions, to grave danger.
This explains America’s devotion to maintaining Lebanon’s stability and the cooperation between U.S. intelligence with the Lebanese security apparatus in counterterrorism efforts. From its end, Russia’s keenness on fighting terrorism as a top priority forms a good excuse for its direct involvement in the Syrian war.
Likewise, analysts who posit that Obama’s strategy is turning toward Asia and the Pacific, while turning his back on the Middle East, are incorrect, especially in light of the oil and natural gas discoveries that will make imported energy from the Middle East indispensable to the U.S. After all, at this point in time, this region’s strategic importance does not lie in oil or gas — of which the U.S. only imports 51 percent of its energy needs.
Added to this is the fact that after the failure of Republican policies from the era of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives — particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan — Obama promised to break away from this, to pull out of both countries and to wage no new wars. He spearheaded the “leading from behind” model which allows for the use of drones in attack operations. Obama has been and still is applying this concept in Pakistan and Afghanistan against the Taliban, as he did in Libya in support of the French and British forces’ efforts to bring down the Qaddafi regime, as well as in Yemen against al-Qaida. And let’s not forget the financial crisis and the tense relations between the president and Congress which further motivate him to avoid any foreign intrigues.
On his side, Putin is now trying to seize America’s moment of weakness to secure Russia’s influence on the foreign stage, since Russia’s resources will not allow it to go back to being a great world power. This fact broke up the Soviet Union and its peoples instead of putting it on the path of prosperity. Putin is working to secure his alliances in the BRICS countries and with China, which is a push in the direction of a multipolar international regime (a testament to this is the recent gas agreement during Putin’s historic visit to China). He also won’t stop reminding the U.S. that Russia has embraced a free market and capitalism, has become a member in the World Trade Organization and that no ideological disputes divide them with the U.S., as was the case during the Cold War.
He also considers himself to be doing the U.S. and Israel a favor in the Iranian nuclear negotiations, in which he has assisted in successfully preventing Tehran from holding nuclear weapons, as well as the issues of chemical weapons and counterterrorism in Syria. He, however, does not meddle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the sense that he does not exert pressure on the Hebrew nation to make concessions in negotiations with the Palestinians; rather his cooperation with “this Russian-speaking nation,” as he calls it, has reached satellite and electronic commerce.
In all cases, the future of the Syrian crisis has become entwined with Russian-American relations. Considering the centrality and geopolitical significance of the Levant, it can be said that the entire future of the Middle East has become part of this wide-sweeping relationship. It has grown even more urgent with the recent spread of ISIL in Iraq, and the inability of that nation to form a new government after the legislative elections.
There is not a cold war going on between Moscow and Washington due to the Syrian and Ukrainian crises, as some analysts have claimed.
Rather, there is competition in some international matters and cooperation in others; indeed in some issues there is competition and cooperation at the same time. In Syria, for example, there is wholehearted agreement on counterterrorism and the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons disarmament. It appears that Moscow is up to its ears in supporting the Assad regime, in which it finds a safeguard for its future interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. stance on this is clouded by ambiguities and questions.
It’s likely that Washington is in no hurry to put an end to an armed conflict in which all factions are battling in ever more violent and bloody ways. What they are concerned about is that the Syrian conflict does not spread to neighboring countries. For if this were to happen, things would really slip out of their control, exposing U.S. interests, and those of other factions, to grave danger.
This explains America’s devotion to maintaining Lebanon’s stability and the cooperation between U.S. intelligence with the Lebanese security apparatus in counterterrorism efforts. From its end, Russia’s keenness on fighting terrorism as a top priority forms a good excuse for its direct involvement in the Syrian war.
Likewise, analysts who posit that Obama’s strategy is turning toward Asia and the Pacific, while turning his back on the Middle East, are incorrect, especially in light of the oil and natural gas discoveries that will make imported energy from the Middle East indispensable to the U.S. After all, at this point in time, this region’s strategic importance does not lie in oil or gas — of which the U.S. only imports 51 percent of its energy needs.
Added to this is the fact that after the failure of Republican policies from the era of George W. Bush and the neoconservatives — particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan — Obama promised to break away from this, to pull out of both countries and to wage no new wars. He spearheaded the “leading from behind” model which allows for the use of drones in attack operations. Obama has been and still is applying this concept in Pakistan and Afghanistan against the Taliban, as he did in Libya in support of the French and British forces’ efforts to bring down the Qaddafi regime, as well as in Yemen against al-Qaida. And let’s not forget the financial crisis and the tense relations between the president and Congress which further motivate him to avoid any foreign intrigues.
On his side, Putin is now trying to seize America’s moment of weakness to secure Russia’s influence on the foreign stage, since Russia’s resources will not allow it to go back to being a great world power. This fact broke up the Soviet Union and its peoples instead of putting it on the path of prosperity. Putin is working to secure his alliances in the BRICS countries and with China, which is a push in the direction of a multipolar international regime (a testament to this is the recent gas agreement during Putin’s historic visit to China). He also won’t stop reminding the U.S. that Russia has embraced a free market and capitalism, has become a member in the World Trade Organization and that no ideological disputes divide them with the U.S., as was the case during the Cold War.
He also considers himself to be doing the U.S. and Israel a favor in the Iranian nuclear negotiations, in which he has assisted in successfully preventing Tehran from holding nuclear weapons, as well as the issues of chemical weapons and counterterrorism in Syria. He, however, does not meddle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in the sense that he does not exert pressure on the Hebrew nation to make concessions in negotiations with the Palestinians; rather his cooperation with “this Russian-speaking nation,” as he calls it, has reached satellite and electronic commerce.
In all cases, the future of the Syrian crisis has become entwined with Russian-American relations. Considering the centrality and geopolitical significance of the Levant, it can be said that the entire future of the Middle East has become part of this wide-sweeping relationship. It has grown even more urgent with the recent spread of ISIL in Iraq, and the inability of that nation to form a new government after the legislative elections.