Mass protests in Belarus against the reelection of Alexander Lukashenko have now entered their fifty-second consecutive day. The former Soviet state has now fallen deeply into the post-Cold War proxy war involving Russia and the West.

The European Union (EU) stated that Lukashenko – who has been in power for 26 years – must resign. Brussels refuses to acknowledge the election result due to alleged election fraud. Russia, meanwhile, is ready to intervene in the Belarus crisis as a last resort. 

Russian leader Vladimir Putin added that Lukashenko asked him to form a  law-enforcement reserve force, but said that Russia will not deploy the special unit unless the situation becomes uncontrollable.

Why do Russia and the West care so much about Belarus? To answer that a brief overview is necessary.

How Did the Belarus Crisis Begin?

The current political turmoil in Belarus began when a state-sponsored poll showed that Lukashenko had been reelected, securing his sixth term in office. He beat reform-minded politician Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, whose husband was jailed by the Lukashenko regime.

Lukashenko’s triumph triggered a nationwide protest, with widespread accusations that the election was neither free nor fair. The 66-year-old also arrested several opposition figures such as Viktor Babaryko and Maxim Znak, with the latter being detained by a masked man.

More than 100 have been arrested for protesting against the election result. Demonstrations and scores of arrests have also spread to numerous other cities in Belarus.

On Wednesday night, September 23, thousands of Belarusians took to the street protesting Lukashenko’s secret inauguration. Protesters formed a human chain that blocked several roads and caused congestion. Similarly large protests are still ongoing.

Belarus-Russia Ties: a Rocky Road

After the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, Belarus and Russia maintained close ties. Even though Lukashenko sometimes annoys Putin – like accusing Russian mercenaries of planning a terror act ahead of the poll and refusing to host a Russian airbase – Belarus needs Russia to support its economy, given that Russia supplies 80 percent of Belarus’ energy needs.

Belarus and Russia signed a Union State Treaty in 1997, aimed at boosting both countries’ cooperation, especially in socioeconomic, international relations and defense. It is expected that the treaty will also lead to a similar currency and legal system.

However, the relationship strained after Russia was not ready to continue subsidizing Belarus’ energy without a deeper economic integration. Lukashenko refused a deeper economic integration, leading to Russia’s decision to suspend oil shipments to its traditional ally temporarily.

Even though Lukashenko is trying to balance his policy by cooperating with the West, he is turning to Russia for help in facing these prolonged protests.

The West vs. Russia in Belarus

What is happening in Belarus may not be overly surprising in terms of the Western response. Indeed it has become common for the West to oppose any leaders endorsed by Russia. Venezuela is one example of how the West is trying to oust a legitimate president using the rigged election allegation.

The West is using the strained Belarus-Russia ties to exert its influence. Carnegie Moscow stated that Belarus has tried to boost its national identity instead of being under Russia’s shadow for the past few years. This represents a potential point of entry for Western influence and involvement. 

Crimea’s annexation by Russia from Ukraine in 2014 triggered sharp condemnation from the West, given Crimea’s strategic location surrounded by the oil-rich Black Sea.  Even though Russia may refrain itself from intervening militarily in Belarus and Putin has urged the conflicting sides in Belarus to seek peaceful solutions, the West is concerned and doesn’t want to lose even more ground in the post-Soviet sphere. 

As long as Europe and Russia continue trying to exert greater influence on Belarus, it is likely that Belarus’s internal conflict will only continue and intensify.

L'articolo Why Does Belarus Matter to Russia and the West? proviene da InsideOver.

Tensions between the US and Russia have grown increasingly heightened since the beginning of the year. InsideOver’s Thomas O’Falk detailed a recent incident during which Moscow sent a fighter jet after an American bomber, crossing into Danish airspace in the process. The Kremlin also recently chased US jets into airspace near Alaska.

US-Russian Confrontations on the Ground

On the ground, US and Russian forces are also finding themselves encountering one another in less-than-amicable circumstances. Although the two states aren’t at war with one another, the casual observer in Syria would be forgiven to mistake as much.

After US President Donald Trump ordered a hasty troop withdrawal from northern Syria in October, Russian and Turkish troops seized the opportunity to claim broad swaths of hard-earned territory that ISIS once fought for. Although Washington reduced its footprint on the ground in Syria, 500 still remain to help Kurds in counterterrorism operations, the New York Times reported.

American Troops Injured in Accident

These 500 troops have been the subjects of confrontations with Russian counterparts. On Aug. 26, a collision of armed vehicles in eastern Syria gave the Pentagon new reason to take issue with the Kremlin’s bullying behavior. Several American soldiers were injured in the wreck, as CNN reported.

“Russian forces breached our deconfliction arrangement in Syria and injured U.S. service members with their deliberately provocative and aggressive behavior,” said Chief Pentagon Spokesman Jonathan Hoffman. “We have advised the Russians that their behavior was dangerous and unacceptable. We expect a return to routine and professional deconfliction in Syria and reserve the right to defend our forces vigorously whenever their safety is put at risk.”

Naturally, the Kremlin blamed the American forces for attempting to impede the movement of Russian forces. Although Moscow said it informed Washington in advance, US authorities denied receiving prior notice. Regardless of which side was to blame for the accident, Moscow has demonstrated a repeated behavior of seemingly courting conformation with the American military, almost as if it is goading Washington to retaliate.

Controlling Damascus

Central to comprehending the problem at the core of the US–Russia entanglement is a disagreement over control of Syria’s government. The Kremlin has backed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and is the only reason he has managed to stay in office. The US has pursued a Syria free of Assad, but has been losing out to Russia’s interests.

Moscow stepped in to support Assad in 2011 at an critical time — the Arab Spring protests had incited a failed uprising in Damascus a few months after a US mission resulted in the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. America had grown weary of wars in the Middle East and with bin Laden eliminated, it could retreat with its mission accomplished.

Thus, when Syria began to revolt against Assad, the US sat back and did nothing while Russian President Vladimir Putin propped him up, even as the Syrian dictator crossed former President Barack Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons against his people. Syria quickly became Putin’s foothold in the Middle East.

‘We Don’t Have a Strategy’

Now, American troops in Syria, the small number that remains, are devoted not only to helping their Kurdish allies, but also protecting oil interests, Newsweek reported. One senior American intelligence official described the situation as a disaster, saying “We don’t have a strategy.”

The lack of strategy contrasts with the Kremlin’s very clear strategy of bullying a neutered American military wherever it can. In Syria, Russia wants America to leave, completely this time.

“We proceed from the fact that American military presence in Syria (both in At-Tanf and in the Northeast) is illegal,” said Nikolay Lakhonin, a spokesperson for the Russian embassy in Washington, told Newsweek. “Neither the U.N. Security Council, nor the government in Damascus gave their approval for the US to deploy troops.

He also argued the American military makes life worse for Syrians by cutting them off from their own oil and gas supplies. Washington is facing an enemy who insists, in very clear terms, the US is illegally occupying a foreign territory. The Kremlin also understands the bar for American troops to respond with force is incredibly high.

Pushing the Envelope

Conversely, Putin recently rewrote the Kremlin’s nuclear policy to authorize Russia to respond with nuclear arms even if it is not hit by them first. In short, Russia is more willing to act aggressively, forcefully, and faster while the American military avoids and runs from confrontation.

“Russia’s approach is to always push the envelope just a bit and wait for response,” said Alina Polyakova, the president and chief executive of the Center for European Policy Analysis in Washington. “This ongoing pattern of Russian behavior means that we have not imposed serious consequences to prevent ongoing escalation in all arenas where the Russians are seeking to undermine U.S. interests.”

Russia Stepping into New and Bigger Geopolitical Role

Moscow is waging what may well be considered a one-sided war against America, playing a game that Washington refuses to join. The Kremlin took notes when it lost the Cold War and now that the US has retreated from the world stage — politically, militarily, and economically — Russia is securing its new role as a dominant International power. 

It is doing this in a very Russian manner, by bullying its way into conflicts that others, namely the US, want no part of. In this way, Putin comes out as the strong man and with America retreating, he can claim success, rightfully or not.

L'articolo Russia Bullying America In Syria Confrontations proviene da InsideOver.

In a recent TV interview, Russian leader Vladimir Putin confirmed his willingness to provide a police force at Minsk’s request, while criticizing the West over alleged interference in Belarus.

Putin: Russian-Backed Intervention Possible Under Certain Conditions

According to President Putin, Russia was ready to help stabilize Belarus. President Alexander Lukashenko had asked him to set up a police reserve force. However, there was still no need for it, “and I hope there won’t be,” Putin said on Russian state television.

Putin then told the broadcaster Rossiya 1 that an operation would only be conducted under certain conditions, namely “when the situation gets out of control and extremist elements hiding behind political slogans cross certain borders.”

He cited robberies, arson, and bank robberies as examples.

“We assume that all existing problems in Belarus today will be resolved peacefully,” Putin said. If there have been violations — on the part of the demonstrators and the security forces — everyone should be held accountable.”

Moscow Money for Minsk

In addition to the police forces, Moscow is again providing Minsk a financial backing: Russian loans of over one billion euros should enable Minsk to repay its national debt.

During the interview, Putin also accused the West of undue interference in Belarusian affairs. He claimed that the scandal surrounding the arrest of suspected employees of a Russian private security company in Belarus shortly before the election resulted from a Ukrainian and American special operation. Putin also named the Europeans explicitly. On the other hand, Russia was more cautious and neutral than many other countries, he claimed.

The Situation in Belarus

Since the controversial presidential election on August 9, mass protests against Lukashenko have been conducted by the public. Lukashenko was confirmed with 80.1 percent for a sixth term, a result that is criticized internationally as falsified. Putin, however, was one of the first to congratulate Lukashenko on his election victory.

Lukashenko has accused western countries of starting a “hybrid war” against Belarus. “A diplomatic battle at the highest level has begun against Belarus,” he said in a meeting broadcast by state television. It insisted on a new election and thus exerted inadmissible pressure on the country.

Lukashenko also accused Poland of seeking to take the Grodno region on Belarus’ border. As a result, he recently deployed additional Belarusian troops.

Lukashenko: ‘the Most Important Thing Now is the Economy’

Lukashenko said he could handle the street protests no matter how hard his opponents tried to destabilize the country’s situation. “The most important thing now is the economy,” he said. If all companies were to work, there would be no issues. Many people in the state-run companies went on strike. However, a large number returned to the workbenches after being threatened with dismissal.

The protest movement’s original aim was to break Lukashenko’s power through a nationwide strike in the state-owned enterprises. Independent trade unionists reported that many were now in an internal strike position and that work processes were slowing down.

The EU Imposes Sanctions

Because of the authorities’ violent actions against the protest movement, the EU is examining the expansion of its planned sanctions.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said before a meeting with his EU colleagues in Berlin, Lukashenko had “intensified the repression against opposition members” in the past few days. Accordingly, the EU imposed sanctions on Friday.

The latter is sorely needed. Even in just the past few days the world has witnessed how Lukashenko again cracked down on demonstrators. It is the reason one already suspected a Russian promise towards Lukashenko had been made.

Lukashenko undoubtedly feels strengthened by the public support of the Kremlin. On Thursday, he declared that he only wanted to talk to “reasonable” critics. He included farmers, workers, doctors, teachers, and student representatives, but no “street demonstrators,” as he said.

However, it seems inconceivable, particularly with a looming Russian intervention, that the situation is about to calm down anytime soon.

L'articolo Putin Backs Lukashenko in Belarus proviene da InsideOver.

US President Donald Trump recently told his aides that he is willing to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin ahead of the presidential election which takes place this November.

A trusted source revealed that one of the main topics discussed in the upcoming event is the expansion of the nuclear arms control treaty or New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).

The meeting is expected to be held next month in New York.

Brief Overview of the New START Treaty

On July 31, 1991, the US and Russia (formerly known as the Soviet Union) signed an agreement that reduced nuclear arsenal possession that can harm human civilization. In the same year, the Soviet Union split and left only four independent states with nuclear weapons; Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan.

In 1993, then-US President George H.W Bush and then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin signed the START-II, which slashed 3,000-3,500 warheads. After the treaty’s ratification by the U.S. Congress in 1996, then-President Bill Clinton and Yeltsin extended the treaty deadline until 2007, and start negotiation on the START-III for further reduction.

The New START is the only arms control treaty left after the collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF). The US dumped the INF after accusing Russia of violating it.

Based on the New START—signed in 2010—the US and Russia agreed to halve the numbers of strategic nuclear missiles and limit the quantities of strategic nuclear warheads deployed to 1,550. The deal expires in February 2021.

Will Trump Target China?

The meeting between Trump and Putin seems to target China, given Trump wants to include Beijing in the extended New START.

China currently has world’s second highest defense spending according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The country spent $ 261 billion last year. The increase in China’s military expenditure represents around 5.1 percent growth, SIPRI estimated.

SIPRI recorded that Russia is the country with the highest numbers of nuclear warheads with 6,735—1,570 on standby position. The US came second with around 5,800 nuclear warheads with 1,750 on standby position.

China has 320, up 30 from 290 in 2019, followed by India with 150 (up from 130-140) and Pakistan (160), and Israel (90). However, Washington believes that Beijing possesses more warheads that the official record shows.

“Trump also has several considerations and calculations based on the intelligence analysis on China’s nuclear warhead. Even though the U.K. and France have warheads more than China, Trump believes the intelligence data revealed China possesses warheads more than the official figures. Therefore, Trump wants to involve China in the treaty,” Indonesian international affairs expert Yusran told Insideover.

China is planning to deploy its DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile, which will carry three to six multiple reentry vehicles, as the Hill reported.

 Lt. Gen. Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said China would likely double its nuclear stockpile over the next decade. China is planning to produce 100 DF-41missiles, each equipped with six warheads.

China is Willing to Join the New START — With One Big Condition

 A senior Chinese diplomat expressed Beijing’s willingness to participate in a trilateral arms control treaty with Washington and Moscow.

However, China will join the treaty if the US is ready to reduce its nuclear weapons to China’s level, which seems unlikely for Washington.

“I can assure you, if the US says that they are ready to come down to the Chinese level, China would be happy to participate the next day. But actually, we know that’s not going to happen,” Fu Cong, head of the arms control department of Chinese foreign ministry, told journalists in July.

Will Russia Invite China to the New START?

Trump may hope that Russia will bring China to the negotiating table. Unfortunately, it is unlikely to happen as Russia and China share something in common; to contain Washington’s influence.

Despite competing to be one of the global superpowers, China and Russia will support each other from Washington’s hostility. Last June, Russia stated that it would not push China to join the trilateral arms control treaty as the numbers of China’s warheads are relatively small compared to those of the US, Russia, France, and the UK

Moscow will prioritize France and the U.K. as both are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and possess nuclear arsenals too.

“As an essential element of our position on the future of nuclear arms control, we insist that the United States’ closest NATO allies possessing nuclear weapons should join these hypothetical talks. They are France and the United Kingdom,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov told TASS News Agency.

L'articolo What to Expect in the Upcoming Trump-Putin Meeting Next Month proviene da InsideOver.

It is no coincidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin chose an annual naval parade in St. Petersburg on Sunday to announce that the Russian Navy will be armed with hypersonic nuclear weapons and underwater nuclear drones going forward. This calculated public relations move was an opportunity for the Kremlin to assert Russia’s military strength on the global stage.

What New Russian Weapons are On Deck?

Some of these weapons are yet to be deployed, but they include the Poseidon underwater nuclear drone, designed to be carried by submarines, and the Tsirkon (Zircon) hypersonic cruise missile, which can be deployed on surface ships.

Many Western experts have questioned how effective they are, but the combination of speed, maneuverability and altitude of hypersonic missiles, capable of travelling more than five times the speed of sound, makes them hard to track and intercept.

In addition, the Russian Navy is receiving 40 new vessels this year.

Putin Wants to Reestablish the Russian Empire

Although Putin insists that he does not want to enter an arms race with US President Donald Trump, the Russian Government’s actions speak louder than its words. As Chaim Shinar wrote in the European Review, Putin’s actions in Georgia in 2008 and in the Ukraine in 2014, demonstrate that he wants to reestablish the nineteenth-century Russian Empire. In order to achieve his goals, the Russian President uses “soft force” and societal fermentation in Russian-speaking “near abroad” nation states of the former USSR. He has no respect for the principles of international law.

The BBC’s chilling report into Putin’s willingness to deploy nuclear weapons prove that his latest move to arm Russian navy vessels with hypersonic missiles is a bid to intimidate weaker countries and make them more vulnerable to Russian occupation in the future. The Russian President said in a documentary that he put his nation’s nuclear weapons on standby during tensions over the 2014 Crimean crisis. This information was revealed as the Ukraine and Russia agreed to a ceasefire over the Crimea that started on Monday.

How Should the US Respond?

Al-Jazeera reports that the biggest threat to Putin’s hypersonic vessels would be if the US deployed intermediate-range nuclear weapons in Europe. The Trump administration would be sensible to do such a thing, but the coronavirus has caused Washington to focus on the growing threat of China instead. The US President’s decision to withdraw American troops from Germany also suggests that Putin is not a priority for Trump right now.

The US in general has concentrated too much of its efforts on tackling Russia for the last ten years and the coronavirus has exposed its neglect of Beijing’s growing influence, but that does not mean Washington should ignore Moscow completely. As Owen Matthews argued in The Spectator, another one of Putin’s aspirations is to make the West destroy itself. This is because Western democracy is facing a crisis.

Russia is Preying on the West’s Chaos

Even though Russia has been affected by a collapse in oil prices and COVID-19, the Russian President’s message to his own people is that his country’s situation is far less chaotic than the West’s. He does this to portray democracy as weak to his own people. The EU’s problems and the polarizing divisions between the Republicans and the Democrats are music to Putin’s ears.

The UK Intelligence and Security Committee’s report revealed the extent of Russian interference in the 2014 Scottish referendum, as did the US Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation into a Russian fake-news campaign that used social media to suppress black voter turnout in 2016. Blacktivist, a Facebook page that the group operated, racked up 11.2 million user engagements and more than 360,000 likes by September 2017.

Putin’s military expansion ties in with his wider aim of sowing the seeds of division in the West. As long as the West is facing a crisis and is distracted by COVID-19, China and other issues, it is easier for the Russian President to quietly expand Russia’s military and pray on weaker nations that may not be defended by NATO. It is time for the West to realize it is facing a dual threat from both Moscow and Beijing.

L'articolo What Putin’s Hypersonic Nuclear Weapons Say About His Ambitions proviene da InsideOver.

The USA and Russia are set to meet in Austria this week to discuss nuclear arms reductions. While President Donald Trump is sending his Special Presidential Envoy Marshall Billingslea, the Kremlin is sending its Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. The details were announced by the US State Department in Washington.

What Will be the Focus of the Talks?

The talks are scheduled to focus on topics that revolve around “the future of weapons control” and are considered highly relevant to the current New START agreement which expires in February 2021. China, who had also been invited to the talks in Austria, will not participate.

Beijing has repeatedly rejected Trump’s offer to talk about global weapons control. It claims the communist state’s nuclear arsenal is purely defensive and hence not a threat. Bejing has thus stated that it is not inclined to “be pulled” in “participating in so-called tripartite arms control talks with the United States and Russia,” according to remarks from China’s State Department spokeswoman Hua Chunying on Wednesday. Moreover, the US has already withdrawn from several other agreements and, regarding China, Washington has only sought to distract from its own commitments, Chunying continued.

How Strong is China’s Nuclear Program?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China’s arsenal of nuclear warheads currently stands at approximately 300. The latter puts Beijing in third place as a nuclear power behind the United States and Russia. Bringing the Chinese to the negotiating table is thus essential, especially as Beijing is currently expanding and diversifying the scope and composition of its nuclear arsenal. An emerging superpower not inclined to engage in arms reduction treaties, and impervious to any form of control mechanisms is a worrisome burden for the Western world and the East Asian region.

Moreover, China has not only been experiencing a historically unprecedented economic rise but has openly declared its superpower ambitions. Combine the latter with an increasingly authoritarian-nationalist course under President Xi Jinping — as well as the continuously intensifying conflicts with the West on technology and trade — and any political realist would be alarmed.

Russia’s Perspective

Russia, on the other hand, has been pressing for a new edition of the agreement with the USA – at least officially. It would be correct and logical to pursue a new agreement, Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov stated on Saturday. However Ryabkov added that before committing Russia was not willing to come to an agreement at any cost. Russia has previously warned about an uncontrollable nuclear arms race if the agreement is not extended.

However, with New START, which provides for the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the USA to be reduced to 800 delivery systems each and 1,550 operational nuclear warheads, expiring on February 5, 2021, time has become of the essence. And if the history of diplomacy has taught the world anything, it is that a treaty of this magnitude takes time to fully agree upon.

The INF Treaty

The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty between Russia and the United States for instance, of which the US opted out in 2019, was first discussed during the superpowers in 1980. It took seven years before President Reagan and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev finally signed the agreement in December of 1987. Significant progress was made in the period of Glasnost and after the end of the Cold War. Shortly before the end of the Cold War, there were around 70,000 nuclear warheads in the world, almost all of which were American and Soviet-owned.

Nowadays, the US and Russia only have around 6,500 nuclear warheads each, according to SIPRI. However, these 13,000 warheads still account for more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Russia and US Have a Long Way to Go

It makes the United States and Russia the two key nations when it comes to nuclear disarmament. However, even if the two managed to find their way back together after difficult years, it would only be a small step. In the current arms race, the United States is no longer only facing Russia, but China also.

For an earnest strategy towards arms control talks to materialize, Washington needs to persuade China to participate. However, if an amicable approach is inconceivable, China needs to be compelled via economic coercion. Stopping Beijing from obtaining more nuclear weapons ought to be the US’s primary agenda at this time. Disarmament talks with China will be even more complicated once the communist regime has become a nuclear primus inter pares — preserving New START with Russia notwithstanding.

L'articolo Arms Control Talks Between US and Russia to Begin Shortly in Austria proviene da InsideOver.

Some of the most important living American strategists such as Henry Kissinger and Steve Bannon have long tried to lobby the Trump administration to end its arm wrestling against Russia. Moscow is currently pursuing a powerful alliance with China, and despite several occasions to take advantage of a modern-day Sino-Soviet split, none have been exploited thus far. 

The COVID-19 pandemic might have been the West’s last opportunity to listen to Kissinger, but the die is cast: China has been blamed for letting the virus spread worldwide and allegedly hiding the truth about the experiments conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, whereas Russia has been accused of spreading disinformation and fostering divisions within the European Union and is witnessing its own growing encirclement.

The War of Narratives

Contrary to China and the US, Russia didn’t engage in a global face mask diplomacy, but limited the delivery of humanitarian aid and assistance to the countries within its own sphere of influence. But there have been some exceptions as shown by the huge operation From Russia With Love destined to Italy, and by the cargo sent to the US itself. The Kremlin has been trying to exploit the crisis not to pursue an imperialist agenda ⁠— as various other powers are trying to do ⁠— but to reset the relationship with the West.

It failed.

In both cases, the Russian engagement has been source of harsh controversies and the country has been accused of aspiring to divide the NATO and the EU from within via disinformation campaigns. Conversely, it is arguable that effective information warfare did take place ⁠— but against Russia. The Italian press tried to present the high risk humanitarian operation as the starting point of a military invasion and spread many other fake news items which crossed the national borders and received such a bitter welcome in Moscow that it sparked a diplomatic row.

The Italian press, backed by some politicians, missed the point: the Kremlin does know that Italy is unreliable and no political shift is likely to happen because of a humanitarian mission, that’s why is it possible to believe that the operation may have been truly designed for humanitarian reasons or to counter China’s over-exposition.

EU Accusations Against Russia

In the meantime, the External Action Service of the European Union claimed that Kremlin-linked media are staging information warfares across the member states with the goal of aggravating “the public health crisis, specifically by undermining public trust in national healthcare systems — thus preventing an effective response to the outbreak”.

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean the things didn’t go better and it has been the US Ministry of Defense, Mark Esper, to lead the anti-Russian ⁠— and anti-Chinese ⁠— front. The Pentagon has repeatedly accused Russia of backing the Chinese efforts to spread disinformation in the West to the detriment of alliance’s cohesion, whereas the most popular newspapers are being published sensational articles whose titles are even more meaningful, like The New York Times‘ “Putin’s Long War Against American Science“.

Esper, interviewed by the Italian press, expressed his viewpoint about the Russian engagement: “Unfortunately, Russia and China are both taking advantage of a unique situation to advance their own interests. Russia provided medical assistance to Italy but then attempted to use that assistance to drive a wedge between Italy and its allies with a disinformation campaign.”

Competition Instead of Cooperation

Against the background of the disinformation-related accusations, Russia has witnessed to its growing encirclement from every front: Arctic, Balkans, Eastern Europe, Central Asia.

On May 1, the US Navy and the British Royal Navy conducted a considerably large-sized military operation near the Norwegian Arctic, officially to assert the freedom of navigation. The fleet entered the Barents Sea for the first time in the post-Cold War era, a very remarkable moment. Some 1,200 soldiers aboard three destroyers and other means, including one Poseidon P-8 and one nuclear submarine, took part in the mission. The mission is merely the US’ latest show of force in the Arctic, whose hegemonic relation represents a top-priority for the country since the arrival of Donald Trump at the White House.

Hydrocarbon → Nuclear

Moreover, in the days of the pandemic the US has extended the energy dominance doctrine from the hydrocarbon industry to the nuclear energy, releasing a plan to weaponize the uranium production and counter the Kremlin’s nuclear diplomacy in the developing and underdeveloped country.

Then, in the Balkans, Turkey is forwarding a smart mask diplomacy addressed to Russian-influenced countries like Serbia, Moldova and Bosnia, which have quickly become open-air battlefields where cargoes are delivered in accordance with ethnic and religious criteria. Whereas the Kremlin greenlights loans and aid to Chișinău, Ankara sends shipments to its little dominion, the Turkish-inhabited Gagauzia; the same scenario is repeating in Bosnia and Herzegovina where the Russians are focusing the provision of aid to the Serbian republic and the Turks to the Bosnian Muslims.

The post-pandemic destiny of both countries is being written right now as shown by the already-visible effects produced by Turkey’s mask diplomacy: Sarajevo has recently stopped the border-trespassing of a Russian mission destined to the Serb republic, pushing the Russian embassy to intervene, whereas the Gagauz authorities have accorded Turkey to open a consulate in the republic’s capital of Comrat.

The same strategy is being pursued in Central Asia via the Turkic Council and is bearing fruit. Kazakhstan has recently reached an agreement with the Turkish defense giant Aselsan for the provision of remote weapon platforms, and talks are underway to strengthen and enhance the regional infrastructure network in the post-pandemic to raise the trade among the member states. Turkey has also sent aid to Ukraine, with which the partnership is more and more intense and extended, from trade to defense, from industry to the Crimean question.

There is only one interpretation possible to explain Ankara’s engagement in the Russian space: Turkey is the instrument with which the West is entering areas otherwise hard to infiltrate. Such hypothesis is corroborated by the outcomes produced by the Turkish actions which essentially work against the Kremlin’s interest and undermine its influence.

The Missed Opportunity

The war of narratives and the decision to put aside cooperation in favor of an ever-increasing competition have been shortsight-caused strategic mistakes whose consequences will materialize fully in the post-pandemic. The West had the opportunity to reset the damaged relation with Russia but it preferred to go on with the neo-containment, and it did so despite the awareness of some China-targeting discontent in the Kremlin with regard to the outbreak of the COVID-19.

Now, in the post-pandemic world order Russia will find itself more encircled than ever before whereas China will confront a very Chinese-unfriendly global panorama. The likely effect will be the countries’ further rapprochement. In fact, in 2020 — as in 2014 — it’s the West that is pushing the two centuries-old rivals together, prompting them to put aside their deep-rooted mutual hostilities in the name of realpolitik.

L'articolo How the West and the Pandemic are Strengthening the Russo-Chinese Axis proviene da InsideOver.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has never been interested in promoting democracy in the Middle East. Instead he has focused on stability, which is why the Russian President has always wanted his country to be on an equal footing with the US regarding its influence in the region. Putin believes that American interventions in the Middle East have had a destabilizing effect.

Russia’s Intervention in Syria

In 2015, Russia took advantage of the deteriorating Syrian Civil War and sent its air force and a limited number of ground troops to Syria. Putin’s intervention prevented Syrian President Bashar al Assad from facing certain defeat.

The Russian Government was also one of the key signatories of former US President Barack Obama’s Iran Deal, and Donald Trump’s exit from this agreement has caused him to face a collision course with his Russian counterpart. That is because Putin wants to continue to exert his influence over the Islamic Republic by supporting the deal.

The Number of COVID-19 Cases in Russia is Skyrocketing

With the coronavirus spreading across the globe, many nations were distracted with domestic responses to this pandemic as Russia once seemed to remain relatively unaffected by COVID-19. In March, they only had seven confirmed cases. Putin used the virus as an opportunity to further spread his influence across the globe as he sent medical supplies and staff to Italy and Serbia. He also sold equipment to the US.

Since then, the number of COVID-19 cases in Russia has skyrocketed. The country currently has more than 21,100 officially registered cases and 170 deaths. The outbreak appears to still be in its early phase and has the potential to expand to a much higher number.

With the Russian economy likely to shrink by 0.8 percent this year, the Russian Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov told Al-Jazeera that the oil boom and the prosperity his country enjoyed during the 2000s is unlikely to return. Having lost billions of dollars to Western sanctions as well, the coronavirus could not have come at a worse time for Russia.

Putin’s Attention Could Shift Away from the Middle East

With the chances of a domestic crisis brewing, this could well mean that Putin will focus his attention on national priorities and this will affect his Middle Eastern strategy.

His ventures abroad have not earned him much praise either. An August 2019 poll conducted by Public Opinion Foundation discovered that only 10 percent of respondents thought his intervention in Syria was a success. If the Russian President continues to focus on foreign interventions, his support is likely to sink further.

What Can Trump do about Putin’s Middle Eastern strategy?

If Russia does retreat from the Middle East as a result of the coronavirus, this is also an opportunity for the US to reassert itself as the predominant external power in the region, regardless of who is occupying the White House.

Washington should stress that Moscow should be responsible for rebuilding Syria. As Charles W. Dunne of the Arab Center Washington DC argues, Russia might undergo a trajectory change in its policies with a bit of payback from the US, whether bilaterally or via an international forum such as the UN.

The Trump administration also needs to start drawing some red lines with its allies. For example, it threatened Egypt with sanctions for acquiring Russian weapons.

Russia will no doubt become an electoral issue again in November and both Trump and presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden are likely to have different views on Moscow. Both candidates must make clear that preventing Putin from having a free rein in the Middle East will be one of their top priorities.

COVID-19 represents a significant setback for the Russian President’s Middle Eastern strategy, but once the US shifts its priorities away from tackling the virus, it is also an opportunity for Washington to start preventing Russia from influencing Syrian politics further in the future. If Trump receives a fresh mandate from the American electorate in November, he must prove that he is not in Putin’s pocket and match his rhetoric with action.

L'articolo How the Coronavirus Could Transform Putin’s Middle East Strategy proviene da InsideOver.

A fortnight before Christmas, Washington dispatched a most unwelcome gift toward Russia and China. It streaked high over the Californian desert, arched into the darkness of space, then, having traveled 500km, plunged into the Pacific Ocean. It was the US’s first intermediate-range ballistic missile (ICBM) test since withdrawing from the treaty that banned their use. Three weeks later, the world’s embryonic arms race accelerated further. The Avangard— Moscow’s cutting-edge new missile system which is supposedly impossible to be shot down—also entered combat duty.  

Consequences Of America’s Withdrawal From The INF

Just six months ago the Americans’ test would’ve been forbidden. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), signed in 1987, prohibited the firing of land-based missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500km. The pact survived the fall of Soviet Russia, Eastern Europe’s shift westward, and the ascendancy of Vladimir Putin, but within two years of taking office, US President Donald Trump had it scrapped. 

Some heralded Trump’s move, saying that it allowed cheaper, more flexible land-based launchers to be developed, freeing the US Navy and Air Force to pursue other priorities. Indeed, having now conducted two successful tests—the first, in August, involved a cruise missile—America’s military brass is keen to advance their “intermediate-range capabilities” further, a Pentagon spokesman said recently.

Not All American Politicians Are Onboard With The New Arms Race

But US lawmakers aren’t wholeheartedly behind the program. Days prior to the December 12 test of the new ICBM, Congress at last reached agreement on the National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA). Incensed at Trump’s INF withdrawal, Democrats had pushed for new missile production to be sidelined. Republicans, unsurprisingly, took an opposing view, warning of their global adversaries’ own military expansion. A compromise was reached, allocating substantial funds to armament research, but preventing the delivery of new intermediate-range missiles before October 2020.       

US Missile Program Focus: Countering Russia And China

When combat-ready, these weapons will meet the Russian threat—but only if they’re within range, which means regional deployment. The Kremlin’s new Avangard system is classified as intercontinental, putting Western Europe within easy reach. Combined with Moscow’s increased willingness to flex its military might in recent years, America’s European allies have good reason to fear their easterly neighbor. An emphasis on defensive measures (that is to say, not land-based missile batteries) is therefore the continent’s preferred path forward.   

Washington’s Asian allies take a similar stance with China. Having never signed the INF, Beijing has, in recent years, become the world leader in short and medium-range weaponry. In August, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that he’d like to see new American missiles dispatched to Asia and the Pacific “sooner rather than later”.

But a sizeable diplomatic hurdle stands in the way of speedy deployment, with South Korea, Japan and Australia each refusing to play ball. Their rationale is clear, says Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association: housing American missiles could put them on China’s—or even North Korea’s—“target list.”

There’s no sign of the Oval Office changing course, however. The last of the major US-Russian arms control pacts, 2010’s New START Treaty, is due for renewal in little over a year, ut Trump has refused to rule out letting it lapse. For the Kremlin, which supports the accord’s renewal, this is a diplomatic gift. While the White House skips around the issue, Russia can push ahead with its weapons program, delivering new missiles (like the Avangard) while acting as the good guy who would favor future agreements if not for US obstructionism.

The truth is, when it comes to international security, there are no good guys. Nations are guided by their undying drive for self-preservation. Often, that means reaching accommodation with global adversaries. But it can also mean rearmament and escalating militarism. For better or worse, that is the direction we’re headed. 

L'articolo US And Russia Reveal New Missiles Amid Arms Race Fears proviene da InsideOver.