Stati Uniti e Israele hanno attaccato l’Iran. Teheran ha risposto colpendo gran parte del Medio Oriente (e non solo) con missili e droni. Ali Khamenei, la Guida Suprema della Repubblica Islamica, è stata uccisa e c’è il rischio di una pericolosissima escalation. E la Cina dov’è?

Come al solito, quando accadono vicende simili (guerre, conflitti, scontri), Pechino mette in atto la propria diplomazia. Da Zhongnanhai, sede del Partito Comunista Cinese, è subito arrivata una posizione netta sulla vicenda: l’operazione militare di Washington e Tel Aviv è stata definita inaccettabile.

Il ministro degli Esteri cinese, Wang Yi, ha chiesto inoltre un cessate il fuoco immediato e la ripresa dei colloqui per prevenire un disastro regionale molto più ampio dell’attuale. “L’uccisione palese di un leader sovrano” e l’incitamento al cambio di regime sono stati “inaccettabili”, ha dichiarato nello specifico Wang nel corso di una telefonata con il suo omologo russo, Sergej Lavrov, secondo quanto riportato dall’agenzia di stampa statale cinese Xinhua.

La stessa Xinhua ha invece calcato maggiormente la mano criticando l’attacco e definendolo “una sfacciata aggressione contro una nazione sovrana” nonché una “politica di potenza ed egemonia”.

La posizione cinese sulla crisi in Iran

Ok, ma al netto della diplomazia cosa sta facendo di concreto la Cina? I fatti sul campo lascerebbero pensare a un disinteresse totale del Dragone. In realtà non è così.

Pechino ha innanzitutto condiviso sul web e rese pubbliche decine di immagini satellitari per mostrare in tempo quasi reale i movimenti delle forze statunitensi in Medio Oriente, in aggiunta ad altro materiale riservato presumibilmente condiviso in privata sede con Teheran, così da rovinare ogni possibile effetto sorpresa all’offensiva di Washington.

Secondo Middle East Eye, la Cina si sarebbe addirittura spinta oltre consegnato agli ayatollah diverse armi tra droni, sistemi di difesa e missili. Attenzione però, perché il gigante asiatico ha sempre evitato di sostenere militarmente (e soprattutto apertamente) l’Iran. Anzi: i cinesi hanno addirittura sostenuto le sanzioni economiche delle Nazioni Unite contro gli iraniani prima dell’accordo nucleare del 2015.

E allora? Semplice: Pechino e Teheran sono partner strategici (non alleati), ma Xi Jinping non intende né alimentare le fiamme dell’incendio né spostarsi dai binari del diritto internazionale. Tradotto: per risolvere le dispute, dal punto di vista della Cina, esistono i tavoli diplomatici. È del resto questa la stessa posizione adottata da Xi per affrontare tutte le ultime crisi internazionali.

Affari da tutelare

Detto del modus operandi diplomatico cinese, è indubbio che l’Iran non abbia per Xi lo stesso peso specifico di Venezuela o Cuba. Il Dragone ha degli affari da tutelare. E anche belli grossi.

Nel 2021, Pechino e Teheran hanno firmato un accordo strategico della durata di 25 anni che, almeno sulla carta, dovrebbe aver impegnato la Cina a investire circa 400 miliardi di dollari nei settori energetici, bancari, delle telecomunicazioni e delle infrastrutture iraniane.

C’è poi un corridoio ferroviario commerciale che collega la città iraniana di Qom a quella cinese di Yiwu. E ancora: la Cina importava fino a qualche mese fa circa 43 milioni di barili di petrolio al mese dall’Iran, circa il 90% delle esportazioni di petrolio di Teheran e circa il 13,6% degli acquisti di greggio del Dragone.

Nel 2007 la più grande raffineria cinese, Sinopec, ha firmato un accordo dal valore di 2 miliardi per lo sviluppo del giacimento petrolifero di Yadavaran, seguito dieci anni più tardi da un secondo contratto da 2,1 miliardi per l’ammodernamento di una raffineria ad Abadan. Questa è solo la punta dell’iceberg che evidenzia però la tendenza di fondo: grazie all’Iran, la Cina può ottenere petrolio a basso costo per la sua base industriale risparmiando svariati miliardi all’anno rispetto ai prezzi di mercato.

C’è tuttavia chi sposa un’altra teoria, ovvero che un Iran indebolito sarebbe al tempo stesso un rischio e un’opportunità per la Cina. Perché è vero che Xi non vuole il crollo del governo iraniano né auspica l’ascesa di un governo filo-occidentale, ma è altrettanto vero che una tensione prolungata tra Teheran e Washington potrebbe costringere gli Usa a concentrarsi sul Medio Oriente. Lasciando, va da sè, ai cinesi maggiore libertà d’azione nell’Indo-Pacifico.

L'articolo Perché la questione iraniana allarma la Cina proviene da InsideOver.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has informed his annual news conference that Russia is developing new “hypersonic weapons” in response to a new arms race, which he claims was triggered by the US.

The Russian leader urged Washington to agree to a one-year extension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which maintains a nuclear balance between the two countries. The treaty expires in February.

Putin wanted more cooperation from Washington and added that he reckons US president-elect Joe Biden was more open to talking about negotiations on the issue, as opposed to current President Donald Trump.

Also known as New START, the current treaty replaced the Treaty of Moscow that was set to expire in December 2012. It calls for halving the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers.

START Negotiations Have Been Difficult

In October, the US and Russia came close to concluding negotiations over a short-term extension of New START. Putin put forward an offer to extend the treaty, but Trump’s national security advisor Robert O’Brien rejected the proposal, calling it insufficient.

In response, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov issued a statement clarifying Moscow’s offer by saying that the Russian President envisioned a one-year extension as well as a freezing of nuclear warheads by each side.

During a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels later on in October, the US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchinson said that an agreement was close at hand.

However, Lavrov produced another statement clarifying that the Russian Government was – and still is – awaiting an official response from the Trump administration.

Another Nuclear Arms Race is the Last Thing the World Needs Right Now

This will be one of the most pressing issues that Biden will have to deal with when he comes to office in January. Without NEW Start, both Russia and the US would be free to deploy unlimited numbers of strategic warheads and the missiles, submarines and bombers to deliver them.

As Bloomberg argued, letting the treaty lapse could open the doors to a new arms race between Moscow and Washington. As a result, there would be less transparency about each side’s intentions and that would have a destabilizing effect on global stability. It might even encourage China to expand its own nuclear arsenal. New weapons and new means to spy on rivals’ stockpiles would drain money from the conventional weapons the US needs to maintain its deterrence.

New START’s demise would also end on-site inspections that the world’s two largest nuclear powers conduct of each other’s armed forces. That would remove a critical source of intelligence used to detect cheating and to give insight into each other’s arsenals.

Is Biden Strong Enough to Stop Putin from Gaining the Upper Hand?

Biden supports an extension but he has failed to specify for how long. Meanwhile, Putin favors an unconditional five-year extension. As Reuters reported, this is because the Russian leader has learned from the Cold War that Ronald Reagan succeeded in bankrupting the Soviet Union by forcing a nuclear arms race, which he wants to avoid.

The argument is that by cutting the treaty’s length, it would tie the negotiations to all aspects of military power. Also, if New START is extended to February 2026, that would put its expiration beyond the incoming US President’s four-year term, potentially reducing his leverage to secure a follow-on pact. Biden must do everything he can to prevent Putin from gaining the upper hand in nuclear talks, which is why slashing New START’s duration seems like the most sensible option.

At some stage, China will also need to be brought into an agreement as they possess a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.

As Trump’s four-year term comes to an end, it appears unlikely he will renew START before his term in office expires. It is a shame he will leave the White House without making progress on this issue, but there is no doubt that Putin is keen to hear how Biden intends to conclude the New START negotiations.

L'articolo Should the US and Russia Extend the START Treaty? proviene da InsideOver.

The United States and Russia remain in disagreement over the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). The first lackluster offer by Russian President Vladimir Putin was promptly rejected by Washington. However, time remains of the essence.

The Treaty Expires Very Soon

The last remaining major nuclear disarmament treaty between Washington and Moscow expires in four months. The Trump administration rejected a Russian proposal for an extension nonetheless. Putin’s proposal to extend the New START Treaty without a freeze on the number of nuclear warheads was “unacceptable,” said National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, on Friday, adding that “we hope that Russia will reassess its position before a costly arms race sets in.”

Putin had previously offered an unconditional extension of the New START agreement on nuclear disarmament by one year without preconditions. He is proposing to extend the existing agreement with the United States for at least one year to allow for comprehensive negotiations, Putin said on Friday, according to the Kremlin. The Russian leader further said the agreement had worked well so far at a meeting with the National Security Council on Friday, and added that it would be “extremely regrettable” if it were no longer effective.

Moscow Rejected Washington’s Treaty Conditions as ‘Unacceptable’

A few days ago, the US announced an agreement in principle with Russia on an extension. However, US negotiator Marshall Billingslea made a limitation or “freeze” of the Russian nuclear arsenal a condition. Moscow rejected this at the time as “unacceptable”.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov voiced skepticism about the possibility of reaching a deal on New START, noting that Russia cannot accept the conditions put forward by the US for its extension. Lavrov specified that Russia could not agree to the US proposal to limit nuclear weapons alongside nuclear warheads until Washington agrees to withdraw its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.

However, Moscow announced that it would “freeze” the number of nuclear warheads for a year on Tuesday. If the agreement is initially extended by twelve months, Russia will make this political commitment, announced the Foreign Ministry in Moscow. Nevertheless, this is only possible if the United States does not make “additional demands.”

China Declined to Participate in Talks, Despite US Request

Washington and Moscow ended an initial round of negotiations on New START in Vienna in June without any concrete results. The Washington government insisted on China’s participation in the disarmament talks. However, China was not interested. Representatives from Beijing declined an invitation to Vienna. It was “not yet the right time” for China to talk on nuclear disarmament, Beijiing said in June.

Both sides still hence appear to remain far apart. While Washington seeks a cap on all US weapons in exchange for a New START extension, it remains an open question of what it is inclined to provide Moscow in return.

Will Washington Accept Putin’s Latest Offer?

However, with the political implications an agreement holds, one should not be surprised if the US accepted Putin’s latest offer, though slightly modified. Not only would it allow both sides to continue negotiations without the current degree of urgency, but it also could provide the president with a marketable – though geopolitically redundant – success so close to election day.

The New START Treaty was signed in 2010 and is the last significant agreement between the United States and Russia to control their nuclear weapons. Russia and the US together hold approximately 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.  Both countries undertook to reduce the number of their nuclear warheads to a maximum of 800 carrier systems and 1,550 ready-to-use nuclear warheads each: around 30 percent less than in the previous START agreement of 2002.

In 2019, Washington terminated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. In May of this year, the White House announced its withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty with Russia, enabling both sides to fly in the other party’s airspace.

L'articolo Washington’s and Moscow’s Bargaining over New START proviene da InsideOver.

Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed on a ceasefire in Nagorno Karabakh after Russia hosted mediation talks in Moscow on Friday. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced the agreement following 10 hours of negotiations. Based on the ceasefire, both parties will now begin “substantive” talks, according to Lavrov.

The Worst Fighting in Nagorno Karabakh in Decades

The hostilities are to be halted from midday on Saturday to allow prisoners’ exchange and the recovery of dead bodies. More than 300 people have died, and thousands displaced since the latest violence in the long-running conflict broke out on September 27. Both former Soviet republics have blamed each other for the latest outbreak of violence, the worst in decades.

Lavrov added that the International Red Cross Committee would act as an intermediary in the humanitarian operation. He did not provide details on the talks but stated that the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group would mediate.

President Vladimir Putin previously urged the conflicting parties to agree on a ceasefire and offered his country to mediate. Russia has a military base in Armenia, and both nations are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) alliance.

However, Moscow also has good relations with Azerbaijan.

The foreign ministers of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Azerbaijan Jeyhun Bayramow accepted Russia’s mediation initiative in the conflict during the Friday meeting.

NATO Sec-Gen: ‘There is No Military Solution’

During the week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said it was essential to get the message across to everyone involved to end the fighting immediately. All efforts that lead to a peaceful solution must be supported. “There is no military solution.”

There was an indication from Paris that both parties could move towards an early ceasefire during the week. “We are moving towards a ceasefire soon, even if the situation is still fragile,” it said on Friday from circles at the Elysee Palace. President Macron consulted with Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.

The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been simmering for decades and killed around 30,000 people between 1988-94 in a war that followed the Soviet Union’s collapse. Azerbaijan lost control of the area during the conflict but agreed to a ceasefire. However, both sides never established a settlement nor a declaration of peace.

Heavy fighting began again between Armenia and Azerbaijan on September 27. Numerous people have died. The region’s main city of Stepanakert suffered several days of shelling with residents sheltering in basements and much of the city left without power.

Both countries had recently accused each other of attacks on civilians. Around 145,000 people live in the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

The Nagorno-Karabakh region, predominantly inhabited by Christian Armenians, legally belongs to the predominantly Islamic Azerbaijan under international law but has renounced that status in declaring itself independent. Russia supports Armenia while Turkey supports Azerbaijan. Ankara and Moscow’s opposing geopolitical interests and the natural gas and oil pipelines that run through the region and through which Azerbaijan supplies the world market threatened to escalate the conflict in the South Caucasus.

The situation deteriorated further when Armenian officials alleged that Turkey was involved in the conflict and sent Syrian mercenaries to fight on Azerbaijan’s side. Turkey has publicly backed Azerbaijan in the conflict but has denied sending fighters to the region.

On Friday, Turkey said that France, the US, and Russia’s efforts to end violence between Azeri and Armenian forces over Nagorno-Karabakh were bound to fail unless they ensured the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the enclave.

The latter is testimony that, despite the progress made in Moscow yesterday, the situation remains severely volatile. Much will depend on how swiftly a roadmap for a lasting peace can be formulated and whether or not Turkey can be stopped in its attempts to exacerbate the situation via its proxies. Ankara’s demands of a complete withdrawal of Armenian forces remain inconceivable at this point.

L'articolo Armenia and Azerbaijan Agree to Ceasefire proviene da InsideOver.

Iranian diplomacy sprinted into full gear hours after the recent announcement by Moscow and Ankara that bilateral talks to discuss developments and agreements regarding both Syria and Libya had been called off. The planned meeting was put off at the last minute with no official explanation as to why the decision was taken. No new date was announced for talks that were scheduled to take place in Istanbul on Sunday and Monday. The participation of Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov as well as Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in the canceled meeting reflects its importance and the significance of the topics on its agenda.

In a brief statement by the on the same day talks were supposed to take place, the Turkish Foreign Ministry stated that “Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov decided to put off the talks during a phone call. “The two countries’ deputy ministers will continue contacts and talks in the period ahead. Minister-level talks will be held at a later date,” the Ministry’s statement added.

Renewed Tension Likely Behind Meeting Cancellation

Russia and Turkey have supported opposing sides in long-standing conflicts in Syria and Libya. On the eve of the suspended Istanbul ministerial-level meeting – which coincides with the expiry of the deadline given to pro-Turkish militias and other radical and terrorist groups operating in Idlib – for reopening of the strategic M4 highway from Aleppo to Latakia via Idlib, Syrian and Russian jets raided TIP (Turkmenistan Islamic Party) bases and convoys. Dozens of vehicles, rocket launchers, truck-mounted heavy machine guns and scores of mountain motorbikes donated by Turkey last year and frequently used by terrorists in attacking army positions and in assassinations were destroyed in the raids. Numerous terrorists were killed and injured as a result of both artillery and aerial bombardment on Saturday night.

It appears as if a desperate Turkish leader Recep Erdogan has attempted, through his proxy militias in Idlib, to make at least a limited military achievement on the eve of Sunday’s scheduled meeting with the Russians in Istanbul; that scheme backfired, and that could have been the main reason why the Turkish ruler went berserk and, and ordered his Foreign Minister Cavusoglu to put off talks with the Russians at the last minute.

Turkey’s Proxy Provocations Against Russia Pile Up

Another critical factor in the Turkish dilemma was the fresh and embarrassing failure by Erdogan to honor his commitment to Russian leader Vladimir Putin regarding disarming radical groups in Idlib and reopening the M4 highway there. To add fuel to Erdogan’s raging fire and snooker him even harder into the corner with Putin, members of pro-Turkish militias who have made public their opposition to the reopening of the highway – which crosses tens of kilometers under their control in the Idlib countryside – detonated a roadside  explosive charge against a Russian armored vehicle Tuesday morning. The attack occurred as a joint Russian-Turkish patrol were driving back along the M4 after finishing its patrol, part of the recent agreement between Putin and Erdogan.

The joint air raids took place after Russian drones monitoring all sides adherence to the ceasefire deal struck between Putin and Erdogan in Moscow last March, spotted Uyghur, TIP and al Nusra terrorists mobilizing and taking offensive postures opposite Syrian Army bases in the area. The region has seen numerous breaches  and attacks launched by the same radical militias.

Saturday’s air raids, which were preceded by heavy artillery bombardment which smashed terrorist forces in al Bara, Deir Sunbul, Hantuteen and other targets around the strategic Mount al Zawiya in rural Idlib.

Another major state-level truce and deal breaker was Turkey’s deployment (for the first time since the Syrian war broke out in 2011) of at least four US-made medium-range Hawk anti-aircraft batteries in rural Idlib; a direct threat to both Syrian as well as Russian helicopters and jet fighters operating over the region.

The unilateral Turkish step, which followed and might have been instigated by Erdogan’s loss of over a dozen of its state-of-the-art military drones shot down by Syrian air defence units over Idlib earlier this year, must have exacerbated Putin’s rage even more, over Erdogan’s recurrent repeated compromising failures and defiant infringements on bilateral agreements. 

Iranian Mediation Efforts Between Ankara and Moscow

Sensing the shifting sands and rising tension between Russia and Turkey, Iran jumped in to mediate and reconcile its partners in the Syrian solution and co-guarantors of the fragile truce in Idlib. Its charismatic Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif headed first to Istanbul Monday, and later to Moscow on Wednesday for talks with his Turkish and Russian counterparts. His trips were part of an effort to iron out differences and ease up tension between the two sides.

As he hosted his Iranian counterpart on Monday, Turkish FM Mevlut Cavusoglu told a joint press conference with Zarif that the presidents of both Turkey and Russia have “agreed to continue working together to establish a lasting ceasefire Libya.”

” What we can’t have is only two parties, Russia and Turkey, meeting and agreeing on the issues. We have to consider what the Libyans are saying. We can’t just unilaterally announce a ceasefire” Cavusoglu maintained.

Cavusoglu added that Turkey is against unilateral sanctions on Iran despite the coronavirus pandemic. Zarif commended Ankara’s stance and support, adding that his talks with his Turkish “friend” were very “productive”. The two ministers said that both Iran and Turkey were planning to reopen border and resume flights on August 1.

Iran and Russia FMs slam US, Emphasize Protection of Syria’s Territorial Integrity

In Moscow, Zarif was backed by Lavrov as he lashed out and slammed both US and UN watchdog at a joint press conference following their talks on Wednesday. “Iran will not allow” the United Nation’s nuclear watchdog to become “a tool for destroying the 2015 nuclear agreement signed between Iran and world powers” Zarif said, adding that “the job of the Trump administration is to exit international agreements and organisations” he added.

Lavrov backed Zarif’s position in the press conference, condemning US efforts to extend the UN arms embargo on Tehran beyond October 2020.

“Washington has no right to punish Iran by profiting from the Security Council’s authority and, in fact, manipulating the Security Council and, to some extent, the UN Secretariat,” Lavrov said. As far as Syria is concerned, both Russian and Iranian ministers reiterated Syria’s right to fight terrorism and liberate its territories, calling for the need to maintain the country’s territorial integrity against all foreign and foreign-backed acts of aggression.

All this comes at a time when more Syrian and Turkish as well as rebel military mobilization and reinforcements have been building up around Idlib over recent weeks, despite the fragile ceasefire which has been systematically breached. All eyes are now on the zero hour for Syria’s last major battle there. Earlier this week, a senior Syrian army officer told Russia’s Sputnik news agency that “all enemy moves and forces in the area are under our watchful eyes. We and our allies are prepared for the worst, should diplomacy fail once again.”

“We are counting the breath of every terrorist and Turkish soldier here,” the Syrian Army officer said, adding that “we do not trust Erdogan or his proxies … In all honesty, I can tell you that the battle for Idlib is knocking on the door.”

L'articolo Iranian Mediation Intensifies as Russia and Turkey Put off Crucial Talks proviene da InsideOver.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Minster of Defense Sergei Shoigu were expected to meet their Turkish counterparts in Istanbul on June 14. In a surprising statement, on the day of the planned meeting, it was announced that the visit of the Russian Ministers would be postponed to a later date without any further details from either side. This unexpected development raised concerns around a potential escalation between the two sides, with regards to their proxy military operations abroad.

What Was the Agenda of the Meeting?

The Libyan and the Syrian conflicts were ostensibly at the top of the planned meeting’s agenda, and probably disagreements over those two issues have been the very reasons behind the cancellation.

In Syria, Idlib remains the last stronghold of the anti-government forces, with a solid presence of jihadist groups, some of which had previously established a modus vivendi with Turkey, in an anti-Assad consensus. At the moment, a coalition of al-Qaeda and former Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) subgroups is in the making. Al-Jihad Coordination, Jamaat Ansar al-Islam, Hurras al-Din, al-Muqatileen al-Ansar Brigade, and Jabhat Ansar al-Din are also coordinating to bolster their operational capabilities.

This development puts even more pressure on Ankara, which has now been caught between the Kremlin-Damascus axis on the one hand, and the regional ambitions of the jihadist groups on the other. Turkey has tried to enhance its footprint in Idlib through fragile and opportunistic deals with anti-government forces, but the confrontation between Ankara and Moscow in early 2020 proved that the Turkish aspirations were unrealistic.

On the other hand, Turkey has managed to counterbalance the situation in Libya and turn the conflict in favor of Government of National Accord (GNA) leader Fayez al-Sarraj. Considering the latest military successes of the GNA forces, the Kremlin has been seeking to win time for the Libyan National Army (LNA) and General Khalifa Haftar. Even though Russia has consistently highlighted their intention to put an end to the long-term conflict without explicitly favoring any of the opposing sides, the Kremlin has been assisting the LNA and has been seeking to limit the extensive influence of the UN-recognized and Turkish-backed GNA.

After recapturing critical LNA bases and infrastructure, GNA forces are now pushing towards Sirte. Sirte, a port city between Tripoli and Benghazi and Muammar’s Ghaddafi hometown, was briefly captured by ISIS when the terrorist group was on its rise back in 2015; since then, the area has changed hands between GNA and LNA forces, and at the moment it constitutes a point of strategic significance for Haftar. A potential fall of Sirte could be a catalyst for the ultimate LNA defeat. A possible — even temporary — ceasefire and easing on the GNA’s pressure on Sirte was certainly among the Russian priorities during the scheduled meeting.

Implications Behind the Postponement

Turkish claims over Libya seem to have been the key factor for the cancellation. As Turkey strives to make the best of the latest tactical gains across the Libyan territory and turn the current situation to a strategic victory, easing the pressure on LNA might be perceived by Turkish officials as an unacceptable misstep. Capturing Sirte is the immediate objective for Ankara. Meanwhile, the Kremlin assesses any potential negotiation while Sirte is under siege as a no-go. At the same time, Ankara is considering officially setting up military bases in Western Libya. Such a development would expand further the Turkish footprint in North Africa, another thorn not only for the Kremlin, but also for Cairo.

Libya presents a case, where vital interests of several players are at stake. Turkey has invested in its strong and influential position in the country, as a critical means to boost its energy and security policy in the Mediterranean. The Turkish-Libyan maritime pact has long been an issue of international dispute and criticism, however if Ankara consolidates its presence in Libya, then the scenario of applying the controversial Turkish energy agenda at the expense of Greece is much more plausible.

The Kremlin’s POV

The Kremlin does not approve of Sarraj having dominance, as this would almost vanish the Russian influence in the country; the most favorable scenario for the Kremlin at the moment would be a Libyan state where the power would be equally shared among the current major players of the conflict, securing the long-term Russian interests in the country, as per the current alliances. At the same time, the Egyptian al-Sisi government is the most worried party about the Libyan developments, since a potential Sarraj victory could be seen as a time-bomb along Egypt’s country’s border. Sarraj’s affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood could trigger unprecedented political developments in Egypt and al-Sisi’s options would be significantly constrained, if the GNA gains control of all of Libya.

All the aforementioned factors have created an uncertain context, blocking the progress of the negotiations between Russia and Turkey. In addition there was another incident that has affected the situation which has not been deeply examined. On June 14, the day that Cavusoglu and Akar were due to meet their Russian counterparts, an interesting statement was made by the Russian Ambassador to Greece Andrey Maslov. According to the state-owned Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation (ERT), Maslov mentioned in an interview last Sunday, that the Greek islands undoubtedly have Exclusive Economic Zone and their rights cannot be disputed according to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Turkey has resolutely rejected this claim, as Ankara is not a signatory of the convention. Furthermore, Erdogan is trying to push his very own agenda in the eastern Mediterranean, vaguely interpreting international law to serve Turkish objectives. This statement by the Russian ambassador should be added to the ongoing Russian-Turkish fallout.

L'articolo Implications Behind the Cancellation of the Planned Russian-Turkish Meeting proviene da InsideOver.

Calls for an end to the war in Libya are growing across the international community. On Wednesday, German Chancellor Angela Merkel vowed to make ending the Libyan conflict one of her priorities during Germany’s six-month presidency of the EU. She hosted an international peace conference in Berlin in January to support the UN’s efforts for a ceasefire.

Last week, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also both expressed support for an immediate ceasefire in Libya during a phone call on Thursday, May 21.

Haftar is Losing the War

Even if the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) and the Russian-backed Libyan National Army (LNA) could be persuaded to support a ceasefire, it is clear that this would harm Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar, who leads the LNA, as it is more than likely that a ceasefire would not be based on his terms due to his failure to make any significant gains from this conflict.

By the end of 2019, LNA forces were on the verge of seizing control of the Libyan capital Tripoli until Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared his support for the GNA and signed new agreements on military cooperation. This represented a substantial blow to Ankara’s enemies across the Mediterranean.

On Monday, May 18, Haftar also lost control of a crucial airbase southwest of Tripoli. If he fails to take the capital altogether, he will be ejected from power and his popularity would vanish.

Permanent Ceasefire Would Block LNA Aims

Haftar has staked his entire fate on liberating Libya from “terrorists.” That is why he refused to support the Moscow ceasefire and the UN envoy’s idea of military commissions to settle this conflict. Equally, he is losing the war and at some point he is going to have to compromise with his enemies.

According to Middle East Monitor, Haftar’s announcement that he has a “popular mandate” to govern his country implied that he is accepting that he may have to govern a newly established independent state, although he has always stated his preference to rule a united Libya.

However, Haftar has the support of those residing in eastern Libya who support a federalist state divided into three semi-independent regions: Cyrenaica in the east, Fezzan in the south and Tripolitania in the west, which is how the country was divided before it gained its independence in 1951. If the LNA general delivered a permanently divided Libya, he would lose the east’s support.

Moscow Will Never Allow a Divided Libya

But a divided Libya works against Moscow for one reason: it would make it easier for Turkey to dominate the state. Ankara signed a maritime accord with the GNA in November, 2019 to access the nation’s oil and gas. Libya is rich in high-quality crude oil. If the east of the country fell to Haftar, the LNA general would be able to control those natural resources, which is why the Turks see it as their priority to defeat him.

As disappointed as the Russians and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are with the LNA, they have no intention of abandoning Haftar. On Wednesday, Russian military personnel flew MiG 29 and SU-24 fighter planes to a Libyan airbase escorted by other aircraft. Even though the Turkish and Russian foreign ministers supported a ceasefire last week, the Russians have realized that the consequences of failure in Libya are too great as it would mean victory for Turkey.

Therefore, dividing up Libya would be too problematic for all those parties involved in the Libyan conflict. The Russians will never allow it to happen because it would pose a security threat to the UAE and enable Ankara to strengthen its grip over the country. Moscow would rather continue supporting a losing horse just to frustrate Turkey’s Mediterranean ambitions. Equally, Haftar’s options are becoming limited and he may have to settle on ruling eastern Libya one day and then hope to retake the whole country at another time, but at least then he would be able to delay Erdoğan from controlling Libya’s resources. This shows that dividing the country would only postpone Ankara’s occupation of Libya and is not an effective or permanent solution to the conflict.

L'articolo Is Dividing Up Libya the Best Way to End the Conflict There? proviene da InsideOver.

Russia warned the United States against holding talks with the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militia in Syria on Monday. The group controls most of Idlib, which has become a battlefield in a proxy war between Russia and Turkey, which Washington is backing.

The US has been allied with the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces, which have fought against both the regime of President Bashar al-Assad and terrorist factions. Recently, the SDF liberated the Idlib town of Maarat al-Numan from the control of Hayat Tahir al-Sham. 

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s Shifting Focus

However, the group’s leader has made overtures that the group would like to transition from a terrorist cell to a more “political manifesto.” Doing so ⁠— which could bring a reduction in fighting ⁠— would require a safe zone around Idlib, said Muhsen Almustafa, an Omran-based researcher. 

Almustafa believes the group’s leader, Abu Muhammad al Jolani, wants his group to become an organization like Hamas or Hezbollah, holding political power. It is increasingly losing territory, however, and therefore bargaining power as well. 

Russia would prefer the US keep the fight going against the terror group, but Washington has placed less emphasis on it. Speaking Monday, February 24, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said he was “concerned with the attitude of some Western states” toward the terror group, which is classified as such by both the US and United Nations, as Newsweek reported. 

Russian FM Lavrov: US Rebranding Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as Non-Terrorists ‘Completely Unacceptable’

American diplomats have “repeatedly made statements that mean that they consider Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to not be a terrorist organization as such and that it would be possible under certain circumstances to enter into a dialogue with it,” Lavrov said. “This is not the first time we hear such transparent hints, and we consider them completely unacceptable.”

Previously, James Jeffrey, US special representative on Syria and special envoy to the US coalition against the Islamic State, proclaimed he had not seen Hayat Tahir al-Sham “planning or carrying out international terrorist attacks.”

That view gives less importance to fighting the group over the Islamic State and al-Qaeda-linked factions. In a sense, Washington’s reorganization of its priorities could be an attempt to scale back its Middle Eastern entanglements. Trump recently pulled American troops out of northern Syria to cede more control to Turkish forces and the war is increasingly becoming one that the US sees little value in carrying on. 

Idlib: Hotbed for Terror Groups

Consequently, the Trump administration may be looking to broker talks in Idlib to bring stability to the region, even if it entails negotiating with a terror group. 

“In Idlib, hundreds of thousands of innocent people are subject to suffering/persecution under the regime’s oppression and attacks,” the Turkish Defense Ministry tweeted Monday. Turkey and the US place the blame for civilian casualties on Russia and Assad.

Idlib in particular has become a hotbed for terrorist activity.

“Idlib province seems to be a magnet for terrorist groups, especially because it is an ungoverned space in many ways,” said U.S.-led coalition spokesperson Army Col. Myles B. Caggins III.

Russia has aimed for a withdrawal of jihadist groups such as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham from Idlib since a September 2018 ceasefire between Moscow and Ankara. Turkey is not living up to the deal, Moscow asserted, by allowing the groups to leave.

For Russia, eliminating terror groups is the only option toward a sustained peace. It is easier for Moscow to exert its influence over the Assad regime, which is supplied by Russia, but for that to work, he must be in control of the entirety of Syria. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham stands in the way in Idlib. 

The UN estimated 1,506 civilians have been killed from April 2019 to January 2020. More pertinently, violence has forced 358,000 from their homes in Idlib since an escalation in December. Food and medical supplies run short and the nosediving Syrian economy only exacerbates the dire humanitarian situation.

Turkey risks an influx of more Syrian migrants seeking to escape the violence, but Ankara wants to deter that. It has pushed Kurdish forces from the Syria-Turkey border to create a safe zone to eventually deport Syrian migrants to. Idlib, which shares a border with Turkey, also presents a security threat to the state. 

For these reasons, the US and Turkey may benefit from a possible deal with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham if it can manage to maintain peace across the region, although talks have yet to begin.

L'articolo Russia Warns US Against Opening Discussions with Syrian Terrorist Group proviene da InsideOver.

It has been week of extraordinary military developments in Syria coupled with high-level diplomatic Russian-Syrian meetings, as well as heated Turkish warnings and American threats to stop the Syrian army’s current sweeping advances in provincial Idlib. The senior Russian delegation which arrived in Damascus Monday, and immediately met with Syrian president Bashar al Assad, was headed by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Vershinin. It consisted of high-level security, military and diplomatic officials including Russian president’s special envoy for Syrian settlement, Alexander Lavrentiev. On Assad’s side sat General Ali Mamlouk, Chief of National Security, along with the Foreign Ministry’s Under Secretary and a number of officials. The delegation discussed the situation in Syria and a means to push for a political settlement.

Guns Or Diplomacy? The Battle For Idlib

In a statement released on Monday Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that the Syrian president and his team discussed ongoing military operations and efforts to eliminate remaining terrorists in Syria, mainly in Idlib and Aleppo. They also discussed problems and obstacles hindering the process of a political settlement to the conflict. “The meeting focused on the situation in and around Syria, efforts to ensure a lasting stability, elimination of remaining terrorists’ nests, as well as on measures regarding a comprehensive humanitarian assistance to all those who need it in Syria, as well as the promotion and encouragement  of voluntary and safe return of refugees⁠ – from neighboring countries⁠ – and those who were internally displaced,” the ministry said.

“Apart from that, the two sides also discussed the process of the United Nations-backed political settlement undertaken by Syrians themselves, including the work of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva,” the ministry maintained. The two sides were also reported to have discussed this week’s visit to Damascus by UN special envoy for Syria, Geir Pederson where they discussed how to make his visit fruitful and successful. Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, met with Pederson in Moscow to discuss the Syrian peace process.

Turkey’s Role In Negotiations

Parallel to the intensive Russian political and military involvement in recent developments in Syria, came a series of warnings by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan and US president Donald Trump following the sweeping advances made by the SAA in Idlib this week. Although the elite Republican Guard units operating in Aleppo’s western suburbs, and the newly-formed 25^th Counter Terrorism Division operating across the Idlib theater have made significant advances over the past few days, liberating dozens of towns, villages, governing hilltops as well as a large chunk of the strategic M5  highway, the most important development has been the SAA’s recapture of Maarat al Numan⁠—the largest provincial city in Idlib’s southern parts. 

Anti-Government Rebels And Foreign Terrorists Lose Strategic City

Losing Maarat al Numan was definitely a crucial blow to HTS (Hay’at Tahrir ash Sham), formerly known as al Nusra⁠ – the Syrian offshoot of an al Qaeda terrorist organization⁠ – and other affiliated terror groups fighting in Idlib. The city – with a population of over 370,000 before the conflict broke out in 2011⁠ – is located in a strategic place for control of Hama, Idlib and Aleppo, and had been out of government control for some 6 years. Maarat al Numan is bang on the M5 main land transportation and commuting artery linking Aleppo and Damascus and is widely renowned for one of the greatest poets and philosophical figures in Arabian culture and Arabic literature, Abu al Alaa al Maari (973 -1057 AD). Al Nusra terrorists beheaded his statue in the city’s main square, and also chopped off the head of a monumental statue representing local hero and national figure, Ibrahim Hananou, who led the Idlib revolt against colonial France. Hananou was a key figure in the Great Syrian Revolution which broke out in 1925, and led to the country’s independence from France in 1946.

Syrian Army Nears Saraqib

From Maarat al Numan, advancing Syrian army units, spearheaded by the elite ‘Tiger Forces’, moved north along the M5 highway, crushing al Nusra, Uighur, Uzbek and other TIP terrorists. The Tigers are now less than 3 miles away from the strategic city of Saraqib, which straddles both the M5 and M4 linking Aleppo with Latakia on the Mediterranean. SAA units are expected to enter and capture the city in the near future, thus edging much closer to Sarmeen and Idlib city itself. Despite recent threats and warnings made by both the US and Turkish presidents, the Syrian army appears to be unstoppable as it forges ahead with its unwavering campaign to uproot terror bases in Idlib and Aleppo.

L'articolo Russian Delegation Meets Assad Amid Major Syrian Army Advances proviene da InsideOver.