American-Russian Dialogue
Ahmed Hany
February 14, 2009
Last year, after Georgian War, the gap between Russia and the US was widening. Some commentators thought that bipolarity would return. The American Republican Administration led by the Neo-Cons failed to gather all European Countries to boycott Russia. Even Britain, the most important ally to the US sided with France, Italy and Germany to keep channels open with Moscow.
Shortly after the crisis, Russian President Medevedv and Premier Putin declared that Russia was not willing to have a second Cold War. Yet, confrontational policy with the US and the West in general continued for a while. Russia returned to Latin America. It agreed on having navy bases in Syria, Yemen and Libya. It threatened that it would freeze cooperation with the US in Afghanistan. It halted the Non-Traditional Arms Control Treaty in Europe and threatened to spread its modern ground-to-ground missiles near European borders. It started gas crisis with Ukraine that affected energy supply for Europe.
Late American President Richard Nixon discussed the negotiations trends of the Chinese and Russians. He said that the Chinese start negotiations by giving a big concession then they become very hard while the Russians do not give any concession except when the counterpart starts to concede first and they dissolve their hardness slowly and gradually. He said that both act without giving notices about their intentions as long as they have the power to do.
Between the Georgian War and the election of President Obama, Russians played an ascending confrontational tone to have what would be given as concessions. Russians were also sending a message to the new American Administration that liberal Russia is different from the communist one and it respects the international community and tells its intentions specially when it comes to armament and deploying missiles. It also sent a brigade to safeguard international marine line in the Red Sea and the African Horn against piracy. While it was telling that Russia would protect its interests, it was also willing to be part of the international community, as this brigade would act in coordination with Western navies there.
After the election of President Obama and before his inauguration, Russia started to dissolve its hard stand. During Gaza crisis, it supported the Egyptian-French initiative. Its Foreign Minister declared that Russia recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the legal representative of the Palestinian people. In other words, it did not side with its allies, Iran and Syria against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Even it declared that it did not supply Iran with S-300 anti-craft missiles that would provide protection against Israeli warplanes. It assured Israel that its arms sales to Iran and Syria would not change the military balance.
The message to Obama was that Russia would support your policy in the Middle East during Moscow Peace Parley that would be held next spring. This message was associated with another message that while supporting your policy in the region the Russian interests should be preserved, as our navy would have bases on the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts.
Few days before the inauguration of President Obama, Russia nominated a representative to Darfur. This nomination besides sharing in action against piracy mean that Russia is intent to protect its interests in Africa.
Most probably secret contacts between Obama´s team and the Russians were going on between his election and inauguration. Gradual and slowly dissolving of the Russian stand happened during this period. Russia expressed its willingness to cooperate in Afghanistan with the US and NATO after it threatened that it would not allow the West to use its territories in supply operation to the forces in Afghanistan. In fact, Russia and the ex-Soviet Asian Republics cooperation is vital for the military front as the Pakistani supply road faces problems from the Pakistani Taliban. Obama considered Central Asia is the most important region in the American strategy now. Do Russians want the Americans and NATO to lose or to win the war in Central Asia?
Russia is a superpower and it is illogic, that a strategic shift from creating supply problems for combating forces, to cooperation is because of election of a democratic president. One notices that two days after that Russia declared that it froze its plans to deploy the ground-to-ground nuclear missiles near European borders, another strategic shift. This time Russians told that this move came after a substantial change in the American stand.
The rule is policy changes policy. Strategic changes are the response to new conditions. What concessions did the new American Administration give to Russians to induce strategic changes?
After the return of Russia, the strategic conflict between it and the US was about the unipolar system and the Russian willingness to have a multipolar system. This was expressed in extension of NATO eastwards, the American anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic and pipelines for gas and oil of Central Asia. To a lesser extent were the Russian admission to GATT and interests in Africa. It is clear that the US strategists revise their plans in general and about NATO extension and the anti-missile shield in particular.
The drastic effect of the economic crisis on both superpowers makes their confrontation in a cold war is a catastrophic option. The first cold war taught Russians that economy should have the capacity to build military forces. Over armament supplied by a weak economy means collapse of the state and its disintegration. The War on Iraq and Afghanistan taught the Americans that overuse of military force just extend the empire to the level that defeat is unavoidable if other superpowers and regional powers do not extend a hand. Obama chose the soft power to keep the US leadership on top of a multipolar system. This opens a new chapter in the American-Russian dialogue that may end in some form of partnership in the near future.
The effect of their partnership on the Middle East is dual. The positive effect is that year 2009 may witness the creation of a Palestinian State to solve the sixty-year old problem. Russia considers the Israeli nuclear warheads a direct threat since the ex-Soviet Union. There is a somewhat better chance that removal of Mass Destructive Weapons from the region might be the result of peace.
The negative effects are many. If peace partners did not agree, solutions would be imposed that might not be just or permanent. In the 1970s, the US and the ex-Soviet Union agreed on freezing the situation and creating what was called military relaxation while the Arab lands were occupied. October War broke the frozen no-war-no-peace situation. John Bolton the Neo-Con who served as UN representative during GW Bush era published a study about Three-States solution during Gaza War with dividing Palestine into Fattah Land and Hamas-Stan. Until now the US and Russia supports the Two-States solution officially.
The Middle East may become an area for heavy foreign military presence. Beside the American bases in the Gulf and the Russian Navy bases on the Mediterranean and Red Seas, NATO forces may be deployed in the new Palestinian State for some years.
If Israel kept its nuclear warheads, other countries may obtain and keep a deterrent. Russia may help these countries. On the long term, any regional conflict may lead to destruction of the region or to world war.
Both the American and Russians desperately need to sell arms to drive their economies out of the crisis. They may agree to let the region go to an armament race that may affect badly the chances for development.
The Arabs should devise a strategy that maximizes benefits and minimizes risks while solving the Middle East conflict. There is only one-way is the integration of their strategy in the global strategies. They should plan and stop reacting only. Compromise and even alliance with global forces may be necessary. If they learnt anything from the economic crisis after their two and half trillion losses, they would diversify their investments and concentrate on their homelands. Otherwise, their regional system would fall and disintegrate.
Shortly after the crisis, Russian President Medevedv and Premier Putin declared that Russia was not willing to have a second Cold War. Yet, confrontational policy with the US and the West in general continued for a while. Russia returned to Latin America. It agreed on having navy bases in Syria, Yemen and Libya. It threatened that it would freeze cooperation with the US in Afghanistan. It halted the Non-Traditional Arms Control Treaty in Europe and threatened to spread its modern ground-to-ground missiles near European borders. It started gas crisis with Ukraine that affected energy supply for Europe.
Late American President Richard Nixon discussed the negotiations trends of the Chinese and Russians. He said that the Chinese start negotiations by giving a big concession then they become very hard while the Russians do not give any concession except when the counterpart starts to concede first and they dissolve their hardness slowly and gradually. He said that both act without giving notices about their intentions as long as they have the power to do.
Between the Georgian War and the election of President Obama, Russians played an ascending confrontational tone to have what would be given as concessions. Russians were also sending a message to the new American Administration that liberal Russia is different from the communist one and it respects the international community and tells its intentions specially when it comes to armament and deploying missiles. It also sent a brigade to safeguard international marine line in the Red Sea and the African Horn against piracy. While it was telling that Russia would protect its interests, it was also willing to be part of the international community, as this brigade would act in coordination with Western navies there.
After the election of President Obama and before his inauguration, Russia started to dissolve its hard stand. During Gaza crisis, it supported the Egyptian-French initiative. Its Foreign Minister declared that Russia recognizes the Palestinian Authority as the legal representative of the Palestinian people. In other words, it did not side with its allies, Iran and Syria against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Even it declared that it did not supply Iran with S-300 anti-craft missiles that would provide protection against Israeli warplanes. It assured Israel that its arms sales to Iran and Syria would not change the military balance.
The message to Obama was that Russia would support your policy in the Middle East during Moscow Peace Parley that would be held next spring. This message was associated with another message that while supporting your policy in the region the Russian interests should be preserved, as our navy would have bases on the Mediterranean and Red Sea coasts.
Few days before the inauguration of President Obama, Russia nominated a representative to Darfur. This nomination besides sharing in action against piracy mean that Russia is intent to protect its interests in Africa.
Most probably secret contacts between Obama´s team and the Russians were going on between his election and inauguration. Gradual and slowly dissolving of the Russian stand happened during this period. Russia expressed its willingness to cooperate in Afghanistan with the US and NATO after it threatened that it would not allow the West to use its territories in supply operation to the forces in Afghanistan. In fact, Russia and the ex-Soviet Asian Republics cooperation is vital for the military front as the Pakistani supply road faces problems from the Pakistani Taliban. Obama considered Central Asia is the most important region in the American strategy now. Do Russians want the Americans and NATO to lose or to win the war in Central Asia?
Russia is a superpower and it is illogic, that a strategic shift from creating supply problems for combating forces, to cooperation is because of election of a democratic president. One notices that two days after that Russia declared that it froze its plans to deploy the ground-to-ground nuclear missiles near European borders, another strategic shift. This time Russians told that this move came after a substantial change in the American stand.
The rule is policy changes policy. Strategic changes are the response to new conditions. What concessions did the new American Administration give to Russians to induce strategic changes?
After the return of Russia, the strategic conflict between it and the US was about the unipolar system and the Russian willingness to have a multipolar system. This was expressed in extension of NATO eastwards, the American anti-missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic and pipelines for gas and oil of Central Asia. To a lesser extent were the Russian admission to GATT and interests in Africa. It is clear that the US strategists revise their plans in general and about NATO extension and the anti-missile shield in particular.
The drastic effect of the economic crisis on both superpowers makes their confrontation in a cold war is a catastrophic option. The first cold war taught Russians that economy should have the capacity to build military forces. Over armament supplied by a weak economy means collapse of the state and its disintegration. The War on Iraq and Afghanistan taught the Americans that overuse of military force just extend the empire to the level that defeat is unavoidable if other superpowers and regional powers do not extend a hand. Obama chose the soft power to keep the US leadership on top of a multipolar system. This opens a new chapter in the American-Russian dialogue that may end in some form of partnership in the near future.
The effect of their partnership on the Middle East is dual. The positive effect is that year 2009 may witness the creation of a Palestinian State to solve the sixty-year old problem. Russia considers the Israeli nuclear warheads a direct threat since the ex-Soviet Union. There is a somewhat better chance that removal of Mass Destructive Weapons from the region might be the result of peace.
The negative effects are many. If peace partners did not agree, solutions would be imposed that might not be just or permanent. In the 1970s, the US and the ex-Soviet Union agreed on freezing the situation and creating what was called military relaxation while the Arab lands were occupied. October War broke the frozen no-war-no-peace situation. John Bolton the Neo-Con who served as UN representative during GW Bush era published a study about Three-States solution during Gaza War with dividing Palestine into Fattah Land and Hamas-Stan. Until now the US and Russia supports the Two-States solution officially.
The Middle East may become an area for heavy foreign military presence. Beside the American bases in the Gulf and the Russian Navy bases on the Mediterranean and Red Seas, NATO forces may be deployed in the new Palestinian State for some years.
If Israel kept its nuclear warheads, other countries may obtain and keep a deterrent. Russia may help these countries. On the long term, any regional conflict may lead to destruction of the region or to world war.
Both the American and Russians desperately need to sell arms to drive their economies out of the crisis. They may agree to let the region go to an armament race that may affect badly the chances for development.
The Arabs should devise a strategy that maximizes benefits and minimizes risks while solving the Middle East conflict. There is only one-way is the integration of their strategy in the global strategies. They should plan and stop reacting only. Compromise and even alliance with global forces may be necessary. If they learnt anything from the economic crisis after their two and half trillion losses, they would diversify their investments and concentrate on their homelands. Otherwise, their regional system would fall and disintegrate.
Print
Email
