Categories
Expert Analysis

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

2 AUGUST 2021

Is Russia Recalibrating Its De Facto Alliance With Israel In Syria?

Last month’s revelation by a representative of the Russian Armed Forces that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike suggest that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”.

Russia and “Israel” have been de facto allies in Syria for over the past half-decade as I argued at length over the years, especially in my top four analyses on the subject herehere (which lists 15 other pertinent ones), here, and here. To summarize, Russia sought to actively “balance” Iranian influence in Syria which it regards as regionally destabilizing due to its reported role in organizing attacks against the self-professed “Jewish State” from the Arab Republic’s territory. Moscow was motivated by the desire to comprehensively expand its ties with Tel Aviv, which it also expected would improve its geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis Washington by gradually becoming “Israel’s” most significant regional security partner.

It advanced this aim by “passively facilitating” literally hundreds of “Israeli” strikes against the IRGC and Hezbollah there, which importantly were never thwarted by Syria’s Russian-supplied S-300s from a few years back due to what some believe is the Kremlin’s continued refusal to transfer full operational control over these systems to Damascus. The thinking goes that if Syria succeeded in downing any more “Israeli” jets in self-defense, then Tel Aviv would be triggered into launching a disproportionate response against its neighbor that could completely cripple its military and therefore inadvertently reverse Russia’s recent anti-terrorist gains in the country. The Kremlin calculated that it’s better to give “Israel” freedom of the skies than risk that scenario.

This strategy seems to be changing though as evidenced by a Russian Armed Forces representative revealing late last month that the Syrian-manned anti-air systems that his country dispatched to the Arab Republic successfully downed most “Israeli” missiles during a recent strike. This suggests that the Eurasian Great Power might be recalibrating its de facto alliance with the self-professed “Jewish State”. It’s unclear exactly what Moscow’s motivations may be, but some educated hypotheses might suffice for pointing sincere observers in the right direction. These are the recent removal of President Putin’s close friend Netanyahu from power; the ongoing efforts to clinch a “New Detente” with the US; and restoring regional geostrategic balance.

In the order that they were mentioned, the first development might have resulted in the coming to power of influential forces that don’t share Netanyahu’s vision of a de facto Russian-”Israeli” alliance. Those individuals can speculatively be described as more pro-American than pro-”Israeli” in the sense that they’d prefer to put their traditional patron’s interests before their own polity’s. To explain, regardless of however one feels about Netanyahu’s legacy, he was nevertheless very successful in comprehensively improving relations with Russia, which in turn made “Israel” less dependent on the US’ regional security services for defending his polity’s interests. His successor and that man’s team might feel more comfortable returning under the US umbrella.

The second point is pertinent insofar as it’s increasingly clear that the US and Russia are attempting to negotiate a series of “mutual compromises” across a wide array of spheres following June’s Biden-Putin Summit in Geneva. Russia wants to relieve American pressure along its western flank in order to focus more on its “Ummah Pivot” for reducing potentially disproportionate dependence on China in the future while the US wants to refocus the bulk of its strategic efforts on more aggressively “containing” China in the “Indo-Pacific”. “Israel”, which is important to both of their interests, might have come to be treated as little more than a piece to be traded by Russia on this “Great Power Chessboard” in exchange for US “compromises” elsewhere.

Finally, this might simply be due to Russia realizing that “Israel” is now far too strong and must therefore be “gently” balanced through increased military (and specifically anti-air) assistance to Syria. After all, one of the primary reasons why Russia de facto allied with “Israel” in the first place is because Iran was becoming too strong in the region and thus had to be balanced according to the Kremlin’s geostrategic calculations. It would therefore be natural for Russia to temporarily recalibrate its balancing strategy in light of succeeding so well with its earlier motivation. This suggests that Russia might eventually oscillate back towards “Israel” if/once Iran regains its momentum, and so on and so forth in accordance with the Kremlin’s Eurasian balancing strategy.

While a lot still remains unclear at the moment, all that can be known for sure is that Russia wanted the world to know that it credibly bolstered Syria’s air defense capabilities, which certainly hints that it’s actively recalibrating its balancing act and in particular the “Israeli” dimension thereof. It’s unknown exactly how far it’ll go and whether it’ll ever cross the Rubicon that many Non-Russian Pro-Russians (NRPRs) have been practically begging for with respect to letting Syria finally use the S-300s to shoot down attacking “Israeli” jets, but it’s obvious that something has changed even though the reasons for this perceptible shift are debatable and could even potentially be a combination of each of the three earlier described hypotheses.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, Israel, Syria, US, Iran, New Cold War, New Detente, Balancing.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Putin Wants Peace & Prosperity For Europe, Not Pandemonium & Problems

Putin Wants Peace & Prosperity For Europe, Not Pandemonium & Problems

28 JUNE 2021

Putin Wants Peace & Prosperity For Europe, Not Pandemonium & Problems

President Putin’s article for German media that was published on the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union debunks the Mainstream Media’s lies that the Russian leader wants pandemonium and problems for Europe since he very convincingly proved that all he’s interested in is peace and prosperity.

President Putin has been maliciously misportrayed by the Western Mainstream Media as an evil genius who’s obsessed with sowing pandemonium and problems across the world, especially in Europe. The truth, as could be expected, is the exact opposite. The Russian leader is simply a pragmatic moderate who harbors no “revolutionary” designs for better or for worse, and simply believes in adhering to the traditional vision of International Relations articulated by the UN Charter. It’s very rare that he’s able to speak directly to those who’ve been misled by the Mainstream Media into believing all sorts of fake news about him and his country’s alleged intentions, but that’s precisely what he did earlier this week in an article for German media.

Published on the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, his piece about “Being Open, Despite The Past” deserves to be read by all because it debunks the misperceptions that have been propagated about Russia and especially its leader in recent years. President Putin very convincingly wrote about his desire to restore his country’s comprehensive partnership with Europe for the betterment of both of their people. He paid special attention to how the historic Russian-German reconciliation after World War II and subsequent energy cooperation during the height of the Old Cold War in 1970 helped lay the political basis for modern-day Europe.

He also wrote quite positively about what he sconsiders their shared vision of a Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok and reaffirmed Russia’s civilizational and historical ties to it. In essence, he was reiterating his vision for a Greater Eurasian Partnership though with particular emphasis paid to the European dimension due to his target audience in the bloc’s de facto leader. The only two obstacles in the way of achieving this mutually beneficial dream are NATO’s aggressive military expansion towards Russia’s borders and the artificial zero-sum choice that was forced upon some countries like Ukraine to choose between Europe and Russia. If Russia-NATO ties de-escalate and the EU behaves more pragmatically towards third countries, a breakthrough might happen.

That, however, clearly requires considerable political will but thankfully the latest developments indicate that it’s finally present on part of the European side. French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel want to invite President Putin to attend a summit of European leaders later this summer, though some countries like Poland fiercely oppose this proposal. If it happens, though, then it might end up being one of the first major outcomes of last week’s Geneva Summit which sought to de-escalate Russian-US tensions. It’s also interesting that this was reported the day after President Putin’s article that he wrote for the European audience, which suggests a sequence of events connecting Geneva, his article, and the Franco-German summit proposal.

Nobody should be under any illusions though that progress would happen at the expense of Russian-Chinese relations. There is no credible scenario wherein these two Great Powers would revert to the fierce competition that characterized their ties for many years during the Old Cold War. Neither regards International Relations as being a zero-sum game but a win-win one. Improved Russian-EU relations would actually benefit China too by making the Eurasian Land Bridge more viable than it presently is considering the ongoing sanctions regime against Moscow. That outcome would advance China’s vision for a Community of Common Destiny between itself, Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union, and the EU, thereby greatly stabilizing the supercontinent.

Europeans, both average folks and political officials alike, should therefore seriously contemplate the proposals contained in President Putin’s latest article for German media. They should realize that he’s being totally sincere and doing his utmost to articulate his country’s grand strategic vision. This doesn’t concern sowing pandemonium and problems across Europe like the Mainstream Media falsely claimed for years, but is all about ensuring peace and prosperity for their people. That mutually beneficial outcome can only occur if the EU finally musters the political will to move past it’s presently difficult era of relations with Russia and restore their comprehensive partnership in order to establish a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, EU, Putin, World War II, New Cold War, New Detente.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

24 JUNE 2021

Polish-US Missile Defense Co-Op Is A Strategic Smokescreen

The prevailing uncertainty about the future of Polish-US relations following Biden’s publicly expressed desire to improve relations with Russia won’t affect their military cooperation as proven by the latest progress made in deploying elements of America’s “missile defense shield” in this aspiring Central & Eastern European hegemon, but this development will likely also be exploited as a smokescreen to obscure the ongoing joint US-German Hybrid War against Poland’s conservative-nationalist government.

The US’ Missile Defense Agency announced earlier this week that it’s begun deploying elements of its “missile defense shield” (MDS) in Poland, the aspiring hegemon of the Central & Eastern European (CEE) space. This decision predated Biden’s publicly expressed desire last week during his Geneva Summit with President Putin to repair relations with Russia, a move that unexpectedly threw the future of Polish-American relations into uncertainty. I elaborated on the emerging differences of grand strategic vision between these allied nations in an analysis last week that also explored their possible consequences. This latest development shows that their ties will remain stable at the military level despite very serious political disagreements.

While the present liberal-globalist American administration doesn’t like the Polish conservative-nationalist one all that much, the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) are in agreement that the CEE country’s geostrategic locations means that their MDS cooperation mustn’t be sacrificed because of it, let alone as part of an incipient rapprochement with Russia. A few clarifying points must be mentioned at this time in order for the reader to better understand the US’ strategic calculus. Improving relations with Russia will enable the US to redeploy some of its CEE forces to the Asia-Pacific in an attempt to more aggressively “contain” China there as well as spark an Asian arms race to assist with that.

Upon the MDS’ complete deployment in Poland, the US will be able to militarily “contain” Russia a lot more effectively without having to rely on the same number of troops as before. Furthermore, this system will help to partially reassure the Poles that their paranoid fears of being “sold out” to Moscow aren’t justified, which might in turn prevent or at the very least decelerate Poland’s possible pivot to China in response that I proposed in the analysis cited in the first paragraph of this present piece. To be clear, however, Russia doesn’t even need to be “contained” since it harbors no aggressive intentions against its neighbors, but this false notion has been weaponized in order to exploit the CEE countries’ “negative nationalism” against it for pro-American purposes.

In fact, the very concept of a MDS is deceitful since it doesn’t aim to “protect” the US and its allies, but to undercut Russia’s nuclear second-strike capabilities and therefore advance America’s devious plans to possibly one day place the Eurasian Great Power in a position of nuclear blackmail. The two-decade-long unofficial arms race between these two that was sparked by Bush Jr.’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty prompted Russia to double down on its hypersonic missile research and development, thus recently resulting in Moscow achieving global dominance in this field. It didn’t aspire to this envious position for aggressive purposes, but solely to defend itself from the above-mentioned scenario of nuclear blackmail.

Nevertheless, the Poles don’t see it that way at all because the US (and also Germany to a large extent) have masterfully manipulated their “negative nationalism” in such a way that many of these people and especially their present leadership are almost pathologically obsessed at this point with “containing” Russia. They take the MDS’ officially stated purpose at face value and might even delight in provoking Russia despite how dangerous this could be for them in the worst-case scenario of a US/NATO-Russia war. This latest MDS development will therefore likely succeed in reassuring them of the US’ military support in the event that Poland’s extremely improbable fear of a so-called “Russian invasion” ever comes to pass.

At the same time, however, the US and Germany will probably continue to undermine the present Polish government for ideological reasons related to their liberal-globalist vision. This schizophrenic policy of militarily supporting it while politically subverting it should be obvious to all objective observers but is regrettably lost on most Poles due to their intense “negative nationalism” against Russia. Their leadership also appears to naively believe that the MDS’ deployment on their territory might also politically shield them from the ongoing US-German Hybrid War, though this is nothing but a groundless wishful thinking fallacy. The reality is that Poland is being played by its so-called “allies” much worse than it could have ever imagined that Russia would play it.

The MDS therefore serves several purposes: it enables the US to more effectively “contain” Russia; thus freeing it up to redeploy some of its CEE forces to the Asia-Pacific to more aggressively “contain” China; and it functions as a smokescreen to obscure Washington and Berlin’s ongoing Hybrid War against Poland’s conservative-nationalist government by superficially reassuring them of the US’ supposedly “positive” strategic intentions. Regardless of the government in power, US-Polish military relations will remain strong even if solely as a result of their MDS cooperation, though this won’t stop the joint Washington-German Hybrid War on Warsaw. Naively believing otherwise will only result in getting Poland to put its strategic guard down even more.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, Poland, Missile Shield, Arms Race, Russia, China, New Detente, New Cold War, Germany, Color Revolution, Regime Change, Hybrid War.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

The UK Is Dangerously Trying To Sabotage Russia’s Rapprochement With The West

The UK Is Dangerously Trying To Sabotage Russia’s Rapprochement With The West

24 JUNE 2021

The UK Is Dangerously Trying To Sabotage Russia

The British Navy’s violation of Russia’s Black Sea maritime border on Wednesday was a dangerous attempt to sabotage Russia’s rapprochement with the West by provoking an international security incident between these nuclear-armed Great Powers.

The world was shocked on Wednesday after reports came streaming in that Russian fighter jets and ships fired off warning shots at the British Navy after the latter violated the Eurasian Great Power’s maritime border in the Black Sea. For its part, London denied that any such warning shots were fired and insisted that it behaved within international norms. Moscow immediately countered by accusing the UK of lying, which seems to be the most accurate interpretation of reality after a BBC journalist’s account conforms with Russia’s. The UK doesn’t recognize Crimea’s democratic reunification with Russia though, hence its claim that everything it did was “legal”. This observation very strongly suggests that the UK was deliberately trying to provoke an international security incident with Russia, which raises the question of why it would do so.

While it can’t be known for sure, it might very well be the case that the UK wanted to sabotage Russia’s rapprochement with the West after last week’s Geneva Summit. That event brought together Presidents Putin and Biden, who both agreed that it’s time to de-escalate tensions between their countries and more responsibly manage their comprehensive competition with one another. The outcome of that scenario successfully unfolding could increase the UK’s post-Brexit strategic isolation, especially if it results in a complementary Russian-EU rapprochement as well. Speaking of which, it might be more than a coincidence that the UK’s dangerous provocation against Russia occurred just hours before reports came in that French President Macron and German Chancellor Merkel are considering inviting President Putin to a European leaders summit sometime in the coming future. The UK might have been tipped off and sought to sabotage it.

Readers should remember that the UK has been waging a fierce Hybrid War against Russia for the past couple of years. I hyperlinked to six of my relevant analyses in a piece two months ago asking “Are The British Behind Czechia’s Surprise Decision To Expel Russian Diplomats?”, which should at the very least be skimmed by anyone who’s interested in this topic. My argument is that empirical evidence very strongly suggests that the UK is acting as the US’ anti-Russian attack dog in continental Europe after Brexit, but considering the recent geopolitical twist of the publicly expressed desire from both Washington and Moscow to repair their immensely damaged relations after last week’s Geneva Summit, it’s entirely possible that London is “going rogue” to an extent. Either that, or it’s more powerfully under the influence of the remaining anti-Russian faction of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”).

The UK, just like Poland, mistakenly bet everything on the US continuing its anti-Russian grand strategic course. London invested heavily in expanding its hybrid capabilities in Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), in particular Latvia, from where it runs a regional disinformation network. It therefore might have understandably felt left in the lurch in light of recent developments. Not only that, but former MI6 agent Christopher Steele’s leading role in the factually debunked Russiagate conspiracy theory’s origins hints at the close working relationship between British intelligence and the anti-Russian faction of the US “deep state”. It therefore wouldn’t be too surprising if the UK is continuing to act as the US’ anti-Russian attack dog in Europe, albeit at the orders of an increasingly less influential “deep state” faction as opposed to the American state itself. This would explain why it just dangerously attempted to provoke a security incident between two nuclear-armed Great Powers.

Keeping in mind the recent fast-moving developments in Russian-American relations and Russian-Western ones more broadly, it doesn’t seem all that likely that the UK will succeed unless the US’ anti-Russian “deep state” faction somehow surprisingly regains its influence at this decisive moment in time, whether due to this particular provocation or perhaps following subsequent ones that might soon be attempted by other disgruntled states like the Baltic ones, Poland, and/or Ukraine. Should this gambit fail like some expect it to, then the UK will only find itself more isolated than ever before from both the US and EU. It could also potentially serve as a deterrent to others like the ones that were mentioned in the preceding sentence unless they become even more desperate to attempt their own provocations. In any case, the Biden Administration must urgently regain control of its allies lest the most Russophobic among them ruin relations with Russia.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: Russia, UK, Black Sea, Crimea, New Cold War, US, New Detente, EU, Deep State.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Russian-American Relations: Where There’s A Will, There’s A Way

Russian-American Relations: Where There’s A Will, There’s A Way

17 JUNE 2021

Russian-American Relations: Where There

The highly anticipated Putin-Biden Summit resulted in very few tangible outcomes, but obsessing over that fact misses the most important point, which is that their leaders confirmed that there’s a mutual will to improve their relations.

Presidents Putin and Biden went into Wednesday’s summit with the intention of rescuing their bilateral relations from their lowest level since the end of the Old Cold War, and while their efforts resulted in few tangible outcomes, they nevertheless succeed in confirming that they both have the will to improve their ties. The only visible successes were the decision to return their ambassadors and set up a variety of working groups, with the most important one focusing on strategic security issues. They also revealed that they discussed the Arctic, cybersecurity, and regional conflicts like Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, as well as Iran’s nuclear program. Both leaders also expressed a desire to improve trade in the future too.

Differences still persist, however, especially over issues that the US describes as “democracy” and “human rights”. Nevertheless, these aren’t serious enough to impede the improvement of their relations. They simply agreed to disagree and that’s that. It’s much more important for both leaders to resolve their strategic security problems first and foremost, especially by negotiating a successor to the recently extended New START upon its expiry. They also needed to discuss the “rules of the road”, as President Biden put it, when it comes to their overall competition with one another. Both leaders confirmed that the talks were held in a positive atmosphere free from threats, which further confirms their desire to resolve whatever issues they realistically can.

Since not a lot of specific details were disclosed, it’s difficult to predict exactly what form their possible cooperation could take on the wide range of issues that they discussed. Even so, what’s most important is that they talked about those topics and sought to find a convergence of interests between them. This further speaks to their positive intentions in responsibly regulating their comprehensive competition with one another, the end effect of which could be a reduction of tensions in Europe. That in turn could free up the US to more aggressively “contain” China on the other side of Eurasia, but nobody should expect an intensification of such efforts anytime soon since it’ll still take some time to make progress on the Russian front, if it happens at all.

The reason for such caution is that there are still some rabidly anti-Russian members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) who could try to sabotage their incipient rapprochement. They already tried doing so by provoking this April’s tensions in Ukraine as well as setting President Biden up during an interview around that time to agree with his interlocutor that his Russian counterpart is a so-called “killer”. Those efforts failed to derail what the world now knows was their behind-the-scenes talks this entire time which helped pave the way for Wednesday’s summit.

That being said, the anti-Russian faction of the American “deep state” might still not given up on trying to ruin bilateral relations. Even in the event that they stage another provocation, however, it’s unclear whether Russia would react to it or even whether those closest to Biden who were responsible for organizing Wednesday’s summit would fall for it. President Putin sincerely seems to believe that his American counterpart wants to improve relations, and even though neither leader trusts the other, they appear to understand that this vision is in their mutual interests. For that reason, the anti-Russian faction of the “deep state” might not succeed.

Speculation aside, there’s no question that Wednesday’s summit was a positive development for both countries. Their leaders finally had the chance to talk face-to-face and sort out as many of their problems as possible. It’ll now be up to those below them to see to it that tangible progress is achieved on everything that they discussed. The world might have to wait some time before seeing the visible fruits of their efforts, but they should expect that they’ll eventually see something, even if only in the sphere of strategic security. That would make Wednesday’s summit a success even if nothing else improves, whether in general or right away.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, Russia, Biden, Putin, New Cold War, New Detente.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Republicans Should Applaud Biden’s New Approach To Russia

Republicans Should Applaud Biden’s New Approach To Russia

14 JUNE 2021

Biden is surprisingly attempting to accomplish what Trump was unable to pull off due to selfishly politicized “deep state” pressure at the time, and that’s responsibly regulate the US’ comprehensive competition with Russia so as to free up the strategic resources to more aggressively “contain” China, which should therefore earn him the applause of every Republican.

In a surprising twist that perhaps nobody ever saw coming, Biden is attempting to accomplish what Trump was unable to pull off due to selfishly politicized pressure from his country’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) at the time, and that’s responsibly regulate the US’ comprehensive competition with Russia so as to free up the strategic resources to more aggressively “contain” China. This observation is backed up by a fast-moving sequence of events which includes the unexpected de-escalation in Ukraine in April, the meeting between their Foreign Ministers in Reykjavik last month, Washington’s near-simultaneously waive most Nord Stream II sanctions, the Pentagon’s subsequent announcement that it doesn’t regard Russia as an “enemy”, and the upcoming Putin-Biden Summit later this week in Geneva.

I explained in my recent analyses for CGTN and the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) that this is attributable to the “deep state” finally realizing the futility of attempting to simultaneously “contain” Russia and China. I noted last November that both the pro-Trump and pro-Biden factions of the country’s “deep state” were in agreement with respect to the view that China is the US’ top strategic competitor, but they still differed at the time over whether the People’s Republic or the Eurasian Great Power respectively represented the greatest threat. There now seems to be no difference of view over this issue as evidenced by the Biden Administration picking up the anti-Chinese torch that the Trump one left it through the continuation of practically every one of his hostile policies, especially when it comes to the trade war and Xinjiang.

It’s not the case that the Democrats’ “deep state” allies suddenly had a change of heart and magically transformed into political Russophiles, but simply that they realized just how counterproductive the policies that they pressured Trump to implement over the past few years were for their country’s grand strategy. In addition, as I mentioned in my earlier cited RIAC analysis, one of Trump’s most important legacies was purging his “deep state” (and especially its military faction that was always most closely aligned with his worldview) of all Chinese-friendly influences. This created an irreversible situation whereby the fading unipolar superpower was forced by strategic momentum to continue his anti-Chinese crusade since there was no going back after the military began to implement his many anti-Chinese doctrines. The Democrats simply had to accept this.

They therefore didn’t decide to reach out to Russia from a position of strength, but of weakness, at least relative to the zero-sum perspective of the US-Chinese New Cold War. The US might still be more powerful than Russia in everything other than hypersonic weaponry (the importance of which mustn’t be downplayed of course), but this actually enables it to more comfortably make some so-called “concessions” in the interests of relieving pressure along the Eurasian Great Power’s Western flank so as to free up those resources to more aggressively “contain” China. The decisions to de-escalate this spring’s US-provoked tensions between Ukraine and Russia (speculatively initiated by the remaining members of the “deep state’s” anti-Russian faction so as to sabotage the Biden Administration’s planned outreaches) and waive most Nord Stream II sanctions prove this.

Unlike what some cynics might think, none of those moves are “just for show” or to “trick Russia” since they created very real consequences for some of the US’ regional relationships. The Prime Minister of Poland, which is among one of the world’s most politically Russophobic states due to its practically pathological “negative nationalism” that’s directed against its historical neighbor, very strongly condemned what he described as Biden’s “180-degree change of policy” towards Moscow in a recent interview with Newsweek. His Foreign Minister then expressed very deep regret over Biden’s refusal to meet with regional leaders, including Ukraine’s, ahead of this week’s summit with Putin. From the looks of it, the US might pull back some of its support for the Polish-led “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI) as a “goodwill gesture” towards Russia.

No matter what the tangible outcome of the upcoming summit might be, there’s no denying that an incipient rapprochement of sorts is in the works between the US and Russia, driven as it is by the American “deep state’s” desire to refocus more of their strategic resources on “containing” what both of its factions nowadays regard as the seemingly more pressing challenge posed by China. It was already described above how this is negatively impacting some of the US’ regional partnerships, though Washington knows that those countries need it more than the reverse, hence why it’s not afraid to “compromise” on some of their interests as part of a grander deal that it might be secretly working out with Moscow in pursuit of a “New Detente” sometime in the future. These observations speak to how serious the US is about recalibrating its grand strategy.

Nevertheless, there’s always the chance that something could go wrong, especially considering that there still remain some dissident “deep state” members who are firmly opposed in principle to any rapprochement with Russia. As was earlier speculated, it might very well have been these forces that sought to provoke a Russian-Ukrainian War earlier this spring, and it also can’t be discounted that they were the ones who provoked Biden to agree with his interviewer around that time that President Putin is a so-called “killer” by possibly pressuring that journalist to ask him such a scandalous question that he couldn’t realistically disagree with on TV. Those subversive efforts have thus far failed, but similar ones might soon be attempted once again in Ukraine, Belarus, or the South Caucasus (specifically Georgia).

As it presently stands, though, it certainly seems to be the case that the US’ four-year-long “deep state” (civil) war is finally drawing to a close as both ideological factions unite behind their shared desire to “contain” China as effectively as possible. This in turn necessitates a pragmatic recalibration of American strategy towards Russia, ergo Biden’s outreaches that were previously impossible to pull off under Trump due to prior “deep state” differences of grand strategic vision regarding the disagreement over whether to more aggressively “contain” Russia or China. America is arguably in a more disadvantageous position of the two when it comes to its ongoing New Cold War with China, hence why it’s already undertaken some mild unilateral “concessions” related to Nord Stream II in pursuit of its rapprochement with Russia, but a lot of work still remains to be done.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b

 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

Tags: US, Russia, Biden, Putin, New Cold War, New Detente, China.


MORE EXPERT ANALYSIS:

EXPERT ANALYSIS

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.


Categories
Expert Analysis

Russia & Turkey Stand To Lose The Most From A Biden Presidency

Russia & Turkey Stand To Lose The Most From A Biden Presidency

9 NOVEMBER 2020

Russia & Turkey Stand To Lose The Most From A Biden Presidency

In the event that Biden’s “projected” presidency become a reality, Russia and Turkey would stand to lose the most during America’s new era of engagement with the world due to the former Vice President’s intense dislike of the Eurasian Great Power and the regional consequences that his possible return to the Iranian nuclear deal could have for Ankara’s grand strategy.

Multilateralism Doesn’t Mean That Everyone Wins

Analysts are scrambling to predict what American foreign policy might look like under a possible Biden presidency in the event that his “projected” (but crucially, not yet legally certified) victory becomes a reality. It’s already known that he intends to return to the Obama-era strategy of multilateral engagement and will probably appoint many officials from that former administration or at the very least those who’ve been tremendously influenced by them. There’s also little doubt that the US’ de-facto military alliance with India will remain intact considering the bipartisan consensus regarding its grannd strategic importance. Nevertheless, although it’s still a bit early to make any confident predictions, it can be argued that Russia and Turkey will probably stand to lose the most from a Biden presidency for reasons that will now be explained.

Political Russophobes Return To The White House

Regarding the Eurasian Great Power, it has legitimate concerns about the political Russophobia of former Obama-era officials. The (soon-to-be-former?) opposition spent the past four years concocting one of the craziest conspiracy theories in modern history by imagining that Trump was secretly an agent — or at the very least, an asset — of none other than President Putin himself. These dangerous allegations have since been officially debunked, but their destructive impact on bilateral relations will persist for the indefinite future. The anti-Russian members of the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) which literally conspired with their Democrat and Mainstream Media proxies to delegitimize and subsequently subvert Trump’s presidency have no interest in a rapprochement with Russia.

A Strategically Convenient “New Detente” With China?

To the contrary, they’ve signaled every interest in clinching a “New Detente” with China instead through a series of pragmatic compromises on a slew of issues such as trade, military, and technological ones for instance. This isn’t just for pragmatic reasons, but clever geostrategic ones related to freeing up the US’ full potential to more assertively “contain” Russia for the ideological reasons that drive Obama-era officials and those influenced by them. Should this scenario come to pass, then Russia would come under unprecedented pressure along its western flank, building upon the military advances along its borders that were overseen by Trump but aggressively solidifying and possibly even expanding them. Being in the midst of a systemic economic transition away from its disproportionate budgetary dependence on resource revenue, Russia is presently real vulnerable.

Russia’s Most Vulnerable Moment

The next year or two is therefore the best possible time for the US to put maximum pressure upon it for the purpose of compelling it to agree to a lopsided “New Detente” which could foreseeably result in a so-called “new normal” of relations between the West and Russia. The intent, however, is to subjugate Russia to America’s military will, which is understandably more difficult to pull off than the political Russophobes might imagine considering Moscow’s recent advances in hypersonic missile technology which restored the nuclear balance between the former superpowers. Still, all that Russia has done was buy itself some more time while it sought to domestically restructure all aspects of its society while the US was distracted with “containing” China under Trump, but now the pendulum might swing back against Russia with a vengeance under Biden.

Strengthening The Regional Anti-Turkish “Containment” Coalition

On the topic of Turkey, it’s also expected that this country will stand to lose from a possible Biden presidency. The US’ strategy of assembling a regional anti-Turkish “containment” coalition between itself, Armenia, Cyprus, Egypt, France, the GCC, Greece, “Israel”, and even Syria to an extent will likely remain in place, as will its use of more subversive measures such as economic warfare and even coup plotting in order to “finish the job” that Obama failed to do during the summer 2016 coup attempt against President Erdogan. Just as importantly, however, are the regional consequences that the US’ possible return to the Iranian nuclear deal could have for Ankara’s grand strategy since they could result in it and Tehran drifting apart after their recent rapprochement.

The Turkish-Iranian Strategic Partnership

About that, these neighboring Islamic civilizations are presently enjoying some of their best-ever relations after the failed summer 2016 coup attempt saw Iran become the first country to publicly support Turkey’s legitimate government against the plotters. This wasn’t only for pragmatic reasons regarding the rule of law and international norms, but also ideological ones as well since Turkish society has been gradually Islamifying under President Erdogan’s rule in ways which align with Iran’s ideal vision for the region’s societies. Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran saw the Islamic Republic move much closer to Turkey for the purpose of much-needed sanctions relief, which in turn resulted in them agreeing on Azerbaijan and Libya despite Iran’s Syrian ally having a different position towards those two conflicts to the surprise of the Alt-Media Community.

Decoupling Turkey & Iran’s Mutual Strategic Interdependence

As Iran began to rely more on Turkey, so too did Turkey began to rely on Iran, thus establishing a relationship of mutual strategic interdependence. Where Iran sees Turkey as a pressure valve from sanctions, Turkey regards Iran as an indispensably influential regional partner which helps hold back the emerging US-led anti-Turkish “containment” coalition. Nevertheless, if a breakthrough is reached on the US returning to the Iranian nuclear deal, then there’s a credible chance that their mutual strategic interdependence might eventually weaken and the two countries could gradually “decouple” with time. That would place Turkey in a very disadvantageous regional position, but one which could interestingly improve its already solid relations with Russia so long as both have the political will to do so.

Could The Russian-Turkish Strategic Partnership Transform Into An Unofficial Alliance?

The analysis has thus far argued that Russia and Turkey will lose the most from a Biden presidency, but the proverbial silver lining is that they’d have more of a reason than ever to strengthen their cooperation with one another in response. In fact, should similar pressure be placed upon them in a semi-coordinated manner, they might naturally move a lot closer together. Issues of occasional discord such as differences of vision over certain conflicts might remain, but they wouldn’t be insurmountable and in fact might be more easily resolved in the event that they enter into a stronger relationship of mutual strategic interdependence which might even eventually become an unofficial alliance. The exact contours of such a scenario are difficult to forecast at this point, but the possibility itself shouldn’t be discounted for the earlier mentioned reasons.

Concluding Thoughts

While many across the world are celebrating what they’ve been (mis?)led to believe is Trump’s impending ouster from the White House, it’s all but certain that Russia and Turkey are fretting over what might come next if Biden is able to execute on his regional vision of repairing relations with China, doubling down on the US’ anti-Russian and -Turkish pressure campaigns, and returning to the Iranian nuclear deal. Taken together, these variables could prove extremely troublesome for their grand strategies, but might also present an opportunity for these two Great Powers to work more closely together in the future. Having said all of that, nothing’s set in stone of course and a Biden presidency might end up surprising a lot of observers just like the Trump one did in some respects, but it’ll still likely be difficult for either Russia or Turkey to secure their interests during this time.

Tags: Biden, US, Russia, Turkey, China, Iran, JCPOA, New Detente, NATO, Sanctions, Regime Change, Color Revolution, Hybrid War, Containment.

EgjymzKXcAEZe3b 

By Andrew Korybko

American political analyst

FREE SUBSCRIPTION

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.