Maria Dubovikova

Maria Dubovikova

Maria Dubovikova is IMESClub President.

Russia’s recently declared decision to lift the embargo on S-300 deliveries to Iran has a particular meaning and puts Moscow in the face of hard decisions to be made.

The term “S-300” - referring to long-range surface-to-air missile systems that have been in service since 1978 - has already become an international term of discord that appears regularly enough on the world agenda. .

The system has a next generation version, S-400, and an absolutely new version – S-500 – will reportedly soon be seen. Russia had signed a contract to deliver it to Iran in 2007. Then the delivery was cancelled. The official reason for this step was the sanctions imposed by a U.N. Security Council resolution. But several experts suggested that the true reason of the delay was Netanyahu’s visit to Moscow at that same time and his promise not to deliver arms to Georgia, as well as remarkable pressure from the U.S. Five years later and Russia has lifted the embargo, met with a controversial international reaction.

S-300, even being a rather old system and having an absolutely defensive design, could be a game changer in the geopolitical battles in the Middle East and over it. The possibility of Russia’s S-300 delivery to Syria was a matter of deep concern to the international community.

And even there is no proof of the S-300 delivery to the Syrian regime; a significant number of experts believe it is being delivered. Thus this uncertainty, besides other factors, has prevented the international community from the repetition of the Libyan scenario in Syria. 

The main player that opposes any S-300 delivery – is Israel, which believes that S-300 shipments will break the relative balance of forces existing in the region and will make it more vulnerable in the face of the Iranian threat. Saudi Arabia does not approve of the Russia’s decision as well. Russia’s support of Iran and condemnation of the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen strains the country and aggravates the relations between the two powers. S-300 delivery causes strong debates in Europe and in the U.S., however the reaction coming from the White House was surprisingly calm, as Obama was “frankly surprised that it [the ban] held this long.”

To read the whole piece : http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/05/02/Russia-s-S-300-missiles-Let-the-games-begin.html 

Wednesday, 15 April 2015 22:32

ISIS takes its fight to Russia’s backyard

More and more terrorist groups swear allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and the international attempts to bring down ISIS seem in vain.

The strongest extremist organization gains the terrain, both on the ground of Syria and Iraq and in the minds of people far from the Syrian and Iraqi borders. ISIS challenges the Security Services all over the world, as the way it spreads is extremely difficult to be cut and controlled.

ISIS spreads primarily through the Internet, using it as a sophisticated instrument of propaganda, recruiting and expanding, along with personal contacts of its recruiters. Spreading over the net, they create cells as metastases, far from the Syrian and Iraqi borders – in Nigeria, in Libya, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, in Algeria, in Tunisia and others. The list is already long and is becoming longer.

The alarming message has come from a Russian senior security official after a session of the SCO’s regional anti-terror body, saying that some warlords of the prohibited Emirate of Caucasus have pledged their allegiance to ISIS. This trend challenges not only Russia, over 1700 citizens of which have joined ISIS, and who fight in Syria and Iraq (this figure is an estimate, the real numbers could be higher still), but for the whole Caucasus region and the neighbouring countries.

To read the whole article: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/04/14/ISIS-takes-its-fight-to-Russia-s-backyard.html

The second round of the intra-Syrian talks started this Monday in Moscow. The first round took place in January and according to the press conferences that followed that four-day meeting, it left rather positive impressions and gave some hope that change was afoot.

However, the limited nature of the Syrian opposition representation during the talks, both during Moscow-I (January, 2015) and Moscow-II (April, 2015), doesn’t give us hope for a true breakthrough. Furthermore, no concrete results and agreements should be expected from these talks, as the main aim of the Moscow talks is not to find a solution but to make the sides talk and to lay the ground for the internal, intra-Syrian negotiations to bear fruit on home ground in the future.

The current negotiations are also moderated by the famous, internationally respected, Russian orientalist Vitaly Naumkin, who successfully performed as a moderator during the January session of the talks. The current meeting unites the official Damascus representatives and the Syrian opposition representatives together around the negotiation table. The Syrian National Coalition (SNC) won’t attend the new round of talks, thus they are continuing to ignore Moscow’s initiative.

To read the whole article: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/04/07/Watching-and-waiting-as-Syrians-talk-it-out-in-Moscow.html 

The escalation of the crisis in Yemen was predictable and inevitable - as long as the inevitability of the outbreak of violence was obvious long before the current historical moment.

The complexities of Yemen, from local cultural differences, to the bigger problems of terrorism, in the backyard of Saudi Arabia, combined with its important strategic location for world trade, all factor in the country’s volatile situation and potential to erupt and fall into complete collapse.

What is frightening, is that what we witness now, most likely, is just the beginning of what we should expect to come next - some kind of a prelude to the catastrophe. And Yemeni civil war is not the worst scenario.

Saudi Arabia’s reaction following recent developments inside Yemen was understandable.

To prevent the Iran-backed Houthis from gaining control over the country was a matter of strategic importance and of national interest to Saudi Arabia. To prevent the Iran-backed Houthis from gaining control over the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait was a matter of strategic importance and interest for most regional and global powers.

Yemen was unlucky to become the battlefield of Saudi Arabia and Iran for influence.

To read the whole article: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2015/04/01/Can-Russia-remain-everyone-s-friend-in-the-region-.html

Netanyahu’s speech to U.S. Congress on Iran caused a stir among experts who are anxiously following the election campaign in Israel as it enters its final stage. Israeli society decides who will rule the country for the next four years and which political course will be chosen. This affects not only the life of ordinary Israelis, but also the fate of the region. Despite its small size and limited capacities, Israel influences the international agenda and is at the center of several complex relations between states. This becomes especially remarkable when one realizes Israel stands between tree major powers in the world arena: Russia, the U.S. and Iran.

Russia has strong and stable relations with Israel and Israel is among the rare countries which were absent from the U.N. General Assembly vote not to recognize Crimea’s new status. At the same time, Israel considers Iran one of its greatest enemies, while Iran has softened its rhetoric regarding Israel since the step down of Ahmadinejad. Iran still does regard Israel as the troublemaker of the Middle East, however.

Meanwhile Russia has stable relations with the Iranian government and intensifies its ties with Iran against the background of cold Russia-West relations. However, the Iranian youth is much more favorable towards the U.S. than towards Russia. The U.S. supports Israel, but hardly tolerates Netanyahu’s policy. The U.S. clashes with Russia but cooperates with it in the framework of six-party talks on the Iranian nuclear program.

To read the whole article go to Al Arabiya.

 

Sisi won the presidential election in Egypt with remarkable results that demonstrate a high level of national confidence in the former general. While head of the Egyptian army, he played a key role in ousting the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammad Mursi in July 2013, following mass protests against the Islamist president and his government. Widely criticized by the West, he has gained incredible popularity and support in Egyptian society even amid his brutal reprisals against the Brotherhood.

After making his appearance on the Egyptian political scene as well as in the global arena, al-Sisi has been compared more often than not with Gamal Abdel Nasser. Many experts and journalists debate the possibility and reasonability of such a comparison, while al-Sisi, now president elect, has avowed himself that he wishes he were Nasser.

Putting aside all the arguments on whether the comparison is possible, it should be noted that the two have enough in common: won power due to a military coup, fought the Muslim Brotherhood, demonstrate patriotism, nationalism, charisma, Western-skepticism and are leadership-driven.

Moreover, and forming the framework of al-Sisi’s election, the current international tensions between Russia and the West and broad geopolitical games are reminiscent of the Cold War era. Even the apparent convergence with Russia seems to be a rebirth of the bilateral ties between Egypt and the Soviet Union during Nasser’s rule.

Despite the similarities, the key differences are evident. Russia will never be the former Soviet Union again, the bipolar world and old-styled Cold War between rival blocs are over, today’s international system is much more complicated and, for sure, Egypt itself is not the same Egypt it once was. And al-Sisi is much weaker then Nasser was.

<...>

Read more: http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2014/06/08/Egypt-key-to-Russia-s-resurgence-in-Middle-East.html

After three years of bloody war in Syria, Washingtonclosed the Syrian embassy, as Assad’s regime “has no legitimacy” and Washington considers the Syrian embassy in the U.S. an insult. The U.S. then freezes the diplomatic relations with Syria. This breaking news hits the headlines of the world’s news agencies. But is this news really breaking, or just long overdue?

The Syrian conflict, as it was mentioned, started three years ago and the death toll already amounts to more than 140,000 people, while some argue that the real number remains unknown. We could endlessly discuss who is to blame for this bloodshed as there is not “right” answer, a common trend of all civil wars.

However, the current state of play is that the Syrian opposition is absolutely fragmented; that Islamists and jihadists from abroad fight on the side of the Free Syrian Army, that Syrian territory has been completely invaded by numerous brigades of the al-Qaeda backed terrorist groups that represent a threat to regional and world stability. In this case, other questions over the conflict should be raised - not who is to blame, but how to stop it.

To read the whole article please visit the Al Arabia English web-site: 

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/world/2014/03/19/U-S-vs-Russia-on-the-giant-chess-board-that-is-Syria.html

The 2013 is coming to an end. No doubt, that this year was extremely difficult, if we analyze it through the prism of international relations. The world has not become more stable, reliable and promising. On some dimensions it even gives more concerns than ever, and on other dimentions the shifts on the world geopolitical plateau can be considered as positive. The countries of the Arab awakening were still far from demonstrating the signs of recovery and stabilization. Syria went through one more bloody year of the civil war, that this time has become very Afghanistan alike – partisan extremist war against government forces. This year the growing interdependences between the continental Africa and the Middle East determined by the spreading of the radical Islam and intensification of its manifestations and activities have become more evident than ever. The 2013 has become a year of growing pressure on ethnic, and especially on religious minorities in the Middle East. This year we became witnesses of the decay of the hegemony of the United States, it has appeared even more fragile, than it could be expected. And this is true for both political and economic dimensions. One more interesting feature to be underlined is the reinforcement of the United Nations Organization that seemed very dilapidated during the decade. This year has shown that the UN can still influence international relations and order them in conformity with existing international lawes and the Security Council has sustained its status of effective crisis manager (for ex. cases of Mali and Central African Republic), even despite its inability to bring the Syrian war to an end. Iran has started its way back to the international community with major assistance of Russian diplomacy, reasonableness of Barack Obama and certainly thanks to the new face of the state political leader, thanks to the arrival into the presidentship of more liberal and less conservative in comparison to his predecessor, president Hassan Rouhani. 

            The 2013 has so many remarkable traits that it will be very long to enumerate them all.  So I’d like to attract your attention to the major trends, better say mega-trends. And these mega-trends appear to be relatively positive ones.

1. The first signs of a true multipolar world

            The 2013 should become an epochal milestone in the history of international relations. On the contemporary world stage no country has undoubted hegemony or advantage over the others. No country has an ability to dictate its will or impose whatever it wants. Even if the motivation and expectations of several powers stay the same, they face the overwhelming barriers to bring their will on the playground, as their old methods don’t work and the “new” ones are reluctantly taken from the dusty shelves.  Diplomacy has got its new birth as the key instrument of conflict and disputes regulation. If we talk about the outstanding accord on chemical weapons, the Syrian case and the incredible success of Russian diplomacy, are among the most significant manifestations of these trends. More than ever the countries are tuned on communication with each other, as the world is changing to fast to react on on-going challenges unilaterally, without intensive consultations with others. And so all players are trying to avoid any jerky movement and steps, as in the current situation it is too dangerous to take any actions without deep political expertise and analysis predicting possible consequences of political maneuvers. Political processes are slowing down. Countries that cannot be classified as great powers, however now feel that they can freely express themselves on the world stage and other international players will mostly hear their voices – this trend is demonstrated on the example of Latin American countries.

 

2. The changing roles of global players and institutions.

Following the previously mentioned trend, it’s evident that roles of actors are changing. The states are still the key players of the world stage, but their role is strengthening as of the basic and key element of international relations. Most of the existing international institutions are facing serious challenges. European Union is still struggling with the economic crisis, and several members are still far from recovery. Even the ugly-played-game, practically the hysteria over Ukraine seems to be more like desperate and vain attempts of a patient to prove that his is not ill anymore, than a policy of adequate and strong Union, international political institution. Several countries are thinking over the real possibility to leave the European family for the independent future.

            The partnership in the Mediterranean region is practically paralyzed, and exist only on the level of bilateral relations. For effective functioning of the Union for Mediterranean, or whatever integration processes or institutions in the region, there is always a need for  strong leaders on both sides of the Mediterranean sea. 2013 has shown, that there is still no leader. France, the main engine of integration in the region, according to talks and interviews with major French experts and politicians, feels itself lost in this field and has no idea what to do and French diplomacy just tries to do something  with no any strategy or even logic to avoid being accused of doing nothing on the field. The countries of the South Mediterranean are still far from stabilization and there is no leader and he cannot be expected in the near future, no leader who could bring the Southern Mediterranean to unite and to have effective talks over the common future.

            NATO is loosing its weight, becoming something like a political-debate club on trans-atlantic agenda.

            UN is recovering, and returns on the world stage as the key actor, damping down the voices of its criticizers. No country has appeared to dare break the veto and to intervene in Syria. However someone can say, Obama wanted to do it, but it was the Congress who didn’t let him realize his plans. One should be blind not to understand the game of Obama. He had known the results of the Congress vote even before his speech, when he declared that he would let the Congress decide to intervene in Syria or not (intervention would have been aerial, not a ground war). He was just flexing his muscle and he was trying to show the difference between him and Jeorge Bush Junior. And France, lead by a short-sighted president, proclaiming that what the US decides, it will fully support the decision, whatever says the National Assembly, showed itself as «a real free democratic state, keeping the title of a great power».

In the epoch of great transformations the states are trying to find something stable to lean on. And UN and international law seem to be the most reliable and stable institutions among the sea of blusterous uncertainty.

 

3. The outstanding victories of Russian diplomacy and the rise of emerging countries.

            Russia, like it or not, is a great winner of the 2013. Syrian treaty over chemical weapons, the success in constructing of the Customs Union, Iranian problem - these three pillars are enough to see how the Russian external policy has changed. The most expensive policy is a policy towards the Middle East as it demands really outstanding efforts to concur with the traditional players in the region such as the United States, United Kingdom or France. Russia was off the region for a rather long period after the collapse of the USSR, but this year it has shown that it will participate in the Middle Eastern processes, and moreover it will carry out its own politics, it wants to be active, and what is more important, it has already accumulated enough resources to defend its interests, at least in the current circumstances of democratic presidency and serious internal problems in the US, lack of understanding of what is going on and confusion of European leading actors. The first signs of changes had appeared earlier, but this year they were more concrete. We should not overestimate its capacities, but it would be wrong not to recognize its success. Russia has caught the right wave and adapted to the changing realities faster than others.

Russia feels no more limited in its actions by other «Great powers» and freely maneuvers in the geopolitical space. Furthermore the same freedom is felt by such undoubted actors as China, Brazil, India. All four members of BRICS have shown their power to be equal members of the international community. Russia and China have demonstrated their unity and firmness on the key issues of the international agenda and their firm adherence to the international law and to UN as the key instruments of the world community management and regulation.

 

            The world would never be the same. The shifts and large scale restructurisation leads to the new international world order, that for the first time could be justly called the «multipolar». Will the world be more stable and reliable? The time will show.  It can make the international community flourish, if the countries that got used to the hegemony and their peoples will rethink their stereotypes and admit the ability of others to have their own vision of international realities, their external interests, and to let others build their own future without any destructive influence of external players.

We present you the text of the speech "From Tunis to Damascus: the dissonant vision of Moscow" delivered by IMESClub Executive Director Maria Dubovikova during the international seminar "France, USA: different perspectives of a new Arab world" organized by IFRI in partnership with NYU Paris on the 15th March 2013. Report is in French. Can be translated in English on demand. 

 

Press to download "De Tunis à Damas: la vision dissonante de Moscou":

http://d.pr/f/9Xtk



 

Page 6 of 6