Introduction
The latest phase of United States
‘perpetual conflict’ within overland proximity to Russian border opens the
age-old question; what will Russia do in response? There is no attempt to
answer the question directly rather an opportunity will be explored of
significant geopolitical decisions by Moscow which to all intents and purposes
suggests acquiescence to the realpolitik of a determined aggressor.
Post – USSR Complexity
Russia has come a long way from
the sudden collapse of USSR nevertheless it was a surprise to its operators and
its opponents no matter how loud post collapse hubristic triumph becomes. Russia
existed before USSR and United States respectively. Russian Academy of Science
was established in 1725. Russia as a major successor of USSR has worked
assiduously to refine and redefine her identity on various fronts since the
collapse of Soviet experiment. However it will be unjust and intellectually
deficient to lumped Soviet experience together with post-Soviet outcomes as a
continuum since the complexity and dynamics of both political realities are divergent
at least from a temporal perspective.
It is equally dangerous for erroneous
conclusions drawn from outside of Russia by information speculators to form the
basis of critical analysis of Russia’s geopolitics and foreign policy. Even
significant western intellectual foray is guilty of such speculation and
buttress the argument of elitist disdain by Martin Malia in this magna opus, Russia under Western Eyes.However a
review of post-USSR geopolitics and foreign policy decisions focusing on
Putin-Medvedev presidencies is balanced as this is the tangible political
reality in the last decade.
Moscow’s Western Obsession
There is a conclusion in western
capitals i.e. Washington DC that Moscow is predictable with non-reaction to her
elastic geopolitical maneuverers in the last 2 decades. If this position is true, it has an older
origin in Peter the Great’s reforming Russia root and branch according to his
view of Western Europe of his time. While his import for such giant investment
may be visionary, he and his successors didn’t fail to notice the psychological
conclusion of western European elite especially the Anglo that such investment
borders on inferiority. It is evident many European capitals have benefited
handsomely at various time in post-Petrine Russia.
Whether it is aware or not,
Moscow has rendered a difficult account of itself in her own narrative of what
it is and what it stands for. Moscow has failed to fully render an intellectual
responsibility of her own Europe from ‘Atlantic to the Urals’. It has wallowed
and waxed a defensive lyric of her ontology, raison d’etre and achievements in
its right and as European. While the current geopolitical ‘hegemon’ deem it fit
to demonise Moscow with various policies in collaboration with various European
capitals with richer historical pedigree, Moscow is caught in an idealistic, naïve
and reactive submissions against her own strategic interests.
A number of examples illustrate
this frame of policy making and strategic implementations. Despite advancing
the policy of ‘energy as a weapon’, Moscow refused to admit that flawed Soviet
era containment never diminished as the newly independent countries in the Near-Abroad openly became springboards for her destabilisation. This is
pronounced in those countries with ethnic Russian as higher proportion of their
populations.
It took Moscow many years to
realise that her economic fate/interest should be in her hands. Her full
dependence of western economic/financial architecture blinded her to the potential
of being subjected to economic warfare. It took 2014 US directed EU sanctions
for Moscow to commence real investment in developing robust strategic payment
system, an instrument Japan, China and Brazil already possess.
International Confusion
A number of incidents have put
Moscow’s credibility on the line in the last few years. More so the decisions
behind these incidents suggest that foreign policy decisions are flawed, lacks
depth and are somewhat hazily promoted ‘under international law’ even to the
point of going contrary to strategic and national interests. Global South has been
watching these sad developments with keen interest and deep concern.
A case in point is the Iran file.
Moscow is more aware than most capitals of Washington DC’s aspiration for
Tehran. Moscow is very aware that Tehran brooks no interests in being
subordinated to her under any circumstance. Moscow is aware of the geopolitical
and geographical tangibles which placed Iran as a strategic competitor to her
at least given her potential access to European petroleum market by sea tankers
or by pipelines hence the strategic nature of the current Syrian conflict.
Nevertheless instead of
implementing a pragmatic and strategic handling of (an ally) Iran file, a
number of tragic geopolitical calculations were approved by Moscow. Moscow
allowed Iran file to be moved to UN Security Council hence extended sanctions
and call for intrusive inspections. What was Moscow’s interest? To please her
western interlocutors Moscow cancelled a fully paid contract for supplying
Tehran with S-300 anti-aircraft defensive equipment, in the process stifle her
own aspiring weapon industry. In addition to that Moscow proactively complied
with the sanction regime including but not limited to delaying contracted work
on Busher nuclear plant and refused to take advantage of the vacuum to invest
massively in Iran while China was cutting deals with Tehran.
Tehran has not hidden her displeasure
with Moscow’s action on her file and had express so with Russian officials.
Playing such zero-sum game without national interest guarantees smacks of the
wrong way of advancing foreign policy. There is no evidence that Russia
received tangible reward or benefit from United States for her ill-fated
troubles. Russia knows fully well that United States brooks no rivals hence the
Kissingerian geopolitics as balance of power is dead. For Washington DC,
geopolitics and foreign policy remains the custody of one unrivalled country
towering above the rest including Russia. This is the US realpolitik currently in
action and expressed in various forms.
Security Questions
Moscow has always expressed her
desire to be a collaborator of European security architecture with or without
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). This issue is loaded and complex
with a number of impediments. Such collaboration will be welcomed by United
States if Moscow is weak and will play her part as a subjected entity.
Feasibility of realising Moscow’s initiative could rest on expectation of a
weakened US restricted to her regional backyard with less potent hand across
European bows. In a sense a weakened Europe unencumbered by an external power
may be harbinger of multiple power centres and a return to balance of power
regime that finally favours Moscow unrestricted and unfettered European
diplomatic and geopolitical flourish. Time is still far on the project.
Given a number of conflicts,
Russia has been exposed to mere bystander status pretending to punch weight
perceived as heavy but insignificant on impact. Her underbelly was mangled and
devastated by terrorism during the Chechen war placing the Caucasus in a state
of interregnum within the Middle East-Caucasus-Afghanistan Triangle. See Map below. This
triangle bar Iran is unstable, dangerous, toxic and unpredictable, and is a
magnet for insurgency and illicit drugs. Bear in mind that Iran is militarily
surrounded by United States and of course targeting Russia.
 |
| Insurgent Triangle |
It is well documented that
Russia’s near-abroad has been punctured repeatedly to drain her resources in
Georgia in 2008 of which she responded and effectively advanced her
partition.Given that most countries in the near-abroad are inherently weak, it
behoves Moscow to project pragmatic policies to contain their geopolitical
aspirations and enable their economic stability. Near-abroad countries have not
denied their subversive tendencies towards Moscow. See Map below. Ukraine is
currently burning not in itself rather as a strategic baggage and direct shot across
Moscow exploited by her unpatriotic Ukrainian elite.
 |
| Flashpoints in Near_Abroad - Georgia 2008 (r) and Ukraine 'Ongoing' (l) |
Moving far afield Moscow did
herself no favours. Her 2011 management and isolation of Libya is classic
western obsession despite huge economic interest including but not limited to
billion dollar contracts. Moscow knew well in advance that Washington DC
approved invasion of Africa in Libya and meekly submitted to ‘inhuman
intervention’. Of course Moscow will be hard pressed to play the hand of
trusted interlocutor in African affairs. Libya is a testament of betrayal!
Current Round
Syrian conflict has been raging
for nearly 3 years with no end in sight. Moscow has huge interest in Syria including
Tartus Naval Base and one is uncertain if she’ll invest everything to protect
and secure them. Of course Moscow pragmatically played a crucial role in
eliminating Damascus biological weapons in full knowledge that the conflict
will not cease. Rather Damascus is more exposed devoid of strategic deterrent as
it becomes a theatre of geopolitical jostling.
Russia is aware of the players
and conductors of the ugly symphony in the Arab World and with the proximity to
her own borders, one anticipates an active engagement. Turkey’s deliberate
border porosity with Syria has potential to redirect goods, equipment and
personnel toward Russia via Georgia or even Ukraine. See Map below.
 |
| Turkey Border with Syria |
The current
phase of the US involvement is a master stroke of realpolitik despite the
carnage it carries. The policy of regime change in Damascus has entered phase 2
and one wonders if Moscow will put everything on the line to reverse the
process now as it is obvious that elimination of Syria biological weapons
robbing her of tangible deterrent was a waste of time and space. There is no doubt that Tehran
understands the issue in Syria and has invested massively to reverse the advance
of regime change forces.
It is correctly perceived around
the world especially in the Global South that Russia’s military relationships with various countries
are simple profit making ventures as few countries count
on her committed heavy defensive investment and protection. It is realpolitik for them to adapt in the face such defensive posture of Moscow. While Moscow has
world power potential, her core geostrategy is limited to the protection of her
territorial integrity including her airspace and continental shelves. Every
country does that without distinction.
No comments:
Post a Comment