Right after the Russian fighter jet was downed by the Turkish F16 over Syria, most of the commentators expressed confidence that Moscow would not go to escalation over the incident.

The reasons they gave were simple. Turkey did not join the Western sanctions following the Ukrainian crisis. Russia depends a lot on Turkish imports, and trade was rising. Russia needs Turkey to avoid gas transit to Europe through Ukraine. Turkey was the number one destination for Russian tourists, and the two countries have a lot of projects in the economic, industrial and energy spheres.

The only point they missed in their analyses, however, was that Russia stopped being properly rational some time ago.

Deterioration of relations

Russia and Turkey had been developing their relations over two years, despite their disagreement over the situation in Syria and future of Bashar al-Assad.

The first signs of a deterioration in relations came right after the launch of Russian airstrikes in Syria. Four days before the downing of the fighter jet, Ankara demanded the immediate cease of operations, and threatened serious consequences in case Russia ignored its warnings.

The Turkish “stab in the back” came with the downing of Su-24, when the deterioration reached its apogee. The red line was crossed. From this point the relations between the two countries degraded, putting the world on a very dangerous path.

Economic interests

It was wrong of political experts, politicians and world leaders to expect Russia to forgive the death of its pilot and the downing of its jet for the sake of economic interests.

Following the huge economic losses as a result of the sanctions imposed on it by its Western counterparts, Russia has started a very risky play on the international stage. What really matters for the Russian leaders now is to defend the image of a powerful, mighty and uncompromising country, ready to bear losses in defending its rightfulness and vital national interests. It is a luxury that not all countries can afford.


From the Russian side the most vital thing in the current situation is to save face and to respond to the Turkish slap in the face. It’s a matter of honor and thus irrational.

Maria Dubovikova

Russia took steps to punish Turkey. It effectively banned outbound tourism to Turkey, which is likely to cost Turkey billions of dollars per year. Many mutually profitable projects across many spheres will be suspended. Russian companies will be banned from employing Turkish citizens from Jan. 1. Many Turkish organisations, including cultural ones, will be closed or their activities will be highly limited by the Russian authorities, and the process has already started.

The cultural ties were the first to feel the blow of the Russian reaction to the Turkish provocation. Many of the measures also cause considerable damage to the Russian economy and interests. Turkey’s move to create difficulties for some Russian ships passing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles is not in Russian interests at all. However from the Russian side the most vital thing in the current situation is to save face and to respond to the Turkish slap in the face. It’s a matter of honor, and thus irrational.

Fight against ISIS

Among other things, Russia accuses Turkey of not playing fair in the fight against ISIS. After the accusations were officially announced, many international journalists from some of the most powerful news agencies – including The Guardian, Financial Times and New York Times – agreed that the accusations were not groundless.

It is globally acknowledged that Turkey is a jihadi hub, and a gateway that provides ISIS with new recruits from all over the world. Calls for Turkey to close its Southern border remain unheard by Ankara, despite Moscow’s accusations.

Turkey prefers to shunt the attention on to other subjects, such as its right to defend itself, as if Russia was menacing Turkey. Nevertheless, the Russian calls for a deeper investigation into the matter remain unheard, and the European Union earlier this week promised Turkey visa-free entrance for its citizens, in return for Turkey helping stem the flow of refugees into Europe. The West cannot afford the luxury of being principled, as the military bases and aerodromes are far more precious than any proof of Turkey's involvement in the ISIS business.

However, the escalation can go too far and can threaten not only the international fight on ISIS, which has just shown the first signs of coordination following the Paris attacks and efforts of the French president, but also global stability and peace. Russia's deployment of its sophisticated S-400 air defence system in Syria, and the presence of Turkish submarines near the Russian cruiser Moskva, have put the world one step away from a full-scale war.

The problem with Turkey for Russia and the international community is its NATO membership. And even if Turkey itself put the world on the doorsteps of the World War III, in case of the further escalation the NATO members will have to take its side.

Such escalation is extremely undesirable for all sides. However the risk of dramatic mistakes from the confronting sides is extremely high. And the risks are becoming even greater, taking into account that now there are too many NATO-member forces involved in the fight against ISIS, and not all of them are going to coordinate with Russia.

Published in Tribune

During last week’s G20 summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that according to his country’s intelligence, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is financed by private individuals from 40 countries, some of them G20 members.

He highlighted the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products. “The motorcade of refuelling vehicles stretched for dozens of kilometers, so that from a height of 4,000 to 5,000 meters they stretch beyond the horizon,” Putin said, comparing the convoy to gas and oil pipeline systems.

Turkey is using its involvement in the fight against ISIS to hit the Kurds, whose militias are among the most effective forces against the group in Syria. Turkey’s weakly controlled 565-mile southern border is the main gateway for foreign extremists from all over the world to join ISIS. In Turkey jihadists get all they need, even fake ID cards and passports.


Ankara violated international law, as the jet should have been escorted away from Turkish airspace, not shot down

Maria Dubovikova

Ankara apparently does little to stop these dangerous activities. The passports of the perpetrators of the Paris attacks were fake and made in Turkey. Turkish businessmen make deals with ISIS oil smugglers, providing the group with billions of dollars.

After the G20 summit, Russia launched a true war against ISIS’s oil infrastructure and the caravans of trucks transporting oil to the Turkish border. This has made Ankara nervous. Last week, following intense Russian bombing in Syria along the Turkish border, Ankara summoned the Russian ambassador, warning that bombing Turkmen villages could lead to “serious consequences,” and urging Moscow to “to immediately end its operation.”

The whole article is available herehttp://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2015/11/25/Turkey-s-downing-of-a-Russian-jet-is-a-grave-error.html 

Published in Tribune
Tuesday, 30 September 2014 14:39

Backing ISIL like scorpion in pocket

Article source: Today's Zaman

A former Iraqi politician has cautioned that no country in the region should offer support to the terrorist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) by viewing it as the enemy of one's enemy, as the terrorist organization poses a threat for all countries in the region.

“No one should keep a scorpion in his pocket because you will risk being bitten by it,” Bakhtiar Amin, former human rights minister of Iraq, said in an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman.

Amin, who is also chairman of the board of directors of the Foundation for the Future -- a nongovernmental organization that aims to promote human rights and democratic governance in the greater Middle East region -- warned that seeing ISIL as the enemy of one's enemy may well prove dangerous.

“The enemy of my enemy sometimes becomes a friend. But we should not forget that no interest should be bigger than the survival of your neighbor. Otherwise, you might be next,” he said.

He is hopeful that the coalition against ISIL under the leadership of the US will prove helpful in successfully dealing with the terrorist organization.

“Despite the fact that many countries did not take the ISIL threat seriously, and some used this terrorist group or others for geopolitical reasons, we see today a positive development through the coalition building against these groups,” he commented.

Amin has heard claims that Turkey offered support to ISIL, but he refrains from delivering a judgment on the issue, as he does not have any intelligence report in hand about the issue.

“We hear and read such kinds of accusations about Turkey from the Turkish opposition, press and many other sources internationally, such as the treatment of wounded terrorists in the hospitals of Turkey, logistics [support], providing weapons, training,” he said.

Noting that ISIL is a brutal terrorist organization that threatens regional and international peace and which does not hesitate to committ the most heinous crimes in Iraq and Syria, he called on all countries to cooperate in cutting their financial resources and logistical network and banning their physical presence to destroy their existence.

“There are urgent needs for regional and international cooperation at all levels against ISIL and its sister organizations,” he said.

He also warned that when one does not act in time against such terrorist organizations, the danger becomes not only much bigger, but also more difficult to deal with.

He underlined the importance of cooperation against the terrorist group, which is currently active in Iraq and Syria, saying, “We need a broad international front in standing against this terrorist organization; our states, institutions and peoples should support one another.”

For him, terrorism has no religion or nationality. “ISIL is against all religions and humanity,” he stressed.

According to Amin, the new government in Iraq is providing Turkey and Iraq with an opportunity to solve the problems between the two countries, which enjoy a trade volume of more than $10 billion a year.

 'Mechanism needed for water management of common rivers'


Another issue that needs to be dealt with between the two countries is the share of water of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, he said. What the man on the street in Iraq believes is that Turkey does not fairly share the water with Iraqis, he said.

Amin, whose remarks reveal that he also believes that Turkey should be more generous in sharing the waters of the two rivers, emphasized that a joint mechanism should be put in place, as in other parts of the world, to manage the water.

“The Tigris and Euphrates Basin is among the rare places where there is no real political will nor a proper efficient mechanism of cooperation in the form of a commission between riparian countries. I hope that we should not wait for catastrophes until we begin this cooperation and use water as an instrument for peace and economic and cultural development,” he remarked.

He agrees that, as was pointed out earlier by Turkey, the water should be used in a more economical way. “No doubt, the consumption of water needs to be done in a rational way by all sides. Irrigation technology needs to be modernized, and we should not waste water,” he said.

He noted that pollution is a very serious problem for both these rivers; Turkey and Iraq have a shared responsibility for their protection. “Today, unfortunately the pollution of these two rivers is nine times above the average of the international standard in terms of pollution,” he said.

Article source: Today's Zaman 

Published in Tribune
Thursday, 05 June 2014 18:35

Russia, Turkey agree on Gulen

Relations between Russia and Turkey today remain stable and friendly, despite being severely tested by the Syrian crisis and the deterioration of Russia's ties with the West due to the events in Ukraine.

According to Russian Turkey experts Natalia Ulchenko and Pavel Shlykov, "in the current format, relations between Moscow and Ankara have reached their ‘growth limits’: The current model of mainly economic cooperation has largely exhausted itself, while the potential for collaboration on political issues remains untapped." Thus, the situation around Syria has taken "the trust deficit to a whole new level." So, can Moscow keep up the momentum in its dealings with Ankara, or will existing differences cause significant damage?

One of the main issues on the agenda for the talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu, held during the latter’s visit to Moscow in late May (just after the presidential elections in Ukraine), was Crimea. Although Turkey has not recognized the legality of Russia's annexation of Crimea, the Turkish foreign minister has pointed to the positive side of this move. Turkey, where nearly 5 million descendants of the Crimean Tatars live, is not indifferent to the fate of their kinsmen in Crimea. As was reported, Davutoglu intended to speak in favor of the fact that they "should benefit from rights of autonomy like when they were under Ukrainian administration." It was still unclear, however, to which rights of autonomy the Turkish foreign minister was referring.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/06/russia-turkey-davutoglu-syria-crisis-ukraine-tatar.html#ixzz33nDkv1Er


Published in Tribune

Director of the Middle East/North Africa program at IFRI (French Institute for International Relations), Mansouria Mokhefi, has recently published her new great paper "The Magreb in the arab policy of Turkey".

Available in one click [in Fr]:

Published in Research

This publication opens series of "IMESClub Interviews". Discussion took place on the 28th of August in Moscow. Professor Vitaliy Naumkin answered several thorny questions posed by IMESClub Pesident Maria Dubovikova . 


Maria Dubovikova: I would like to start this conversation with a question that sums up the whole decade. How would you characterize this decade for the Middle East? Which mistakes were made by the intra- and outer-regional players, by the international community?

Vitaly Naumkin: Well, I would prefer not to talk in terms of  “mistakes”, it’s much better to talk about the positive and negative trends.  Speaking about the positive trends that took place in these last ten years, a good economic growth in most countries of the Middle East could be mentioned in particular. After all, we're not just talking about the Arab world, but about the whole Middle East, right?

M.D.: – Yes!

V.N.:  For example a considerable economic success of Turkey can be specially noted. Moreover many Arab countries have experienced economic growth, modernization, and development of modern financial and economic institutions. Somewhere this process was fast, even including some countries that have experienced the "Arab Spring," somewhere rather slow. Good results of economic development were shown, for example, by Egypt. Therefore, we can talk about different trends and shifts that were positive, not negative. Among them there are the process of shaping of the civil society which is however rather limited; spreading, not everywhere of course, of high technologies, especially information technologies. A number of countries are establishing cell-phone networks. The growth of the Internet use. Increasing number of educated youth who are getting education not only in their native countries but also abroad. There are many other trends that can be characterized as concrete steps towards a modernization, modern development and general integration into the basic matrix of global development.

Among the negative trends it is possible to mention stagnation, mainly in the political life, and a number of other processes that especially led to the “Arab Spring”. It is an absence of means of vertical social mobility for people, monopolization of all the levers of state control including financial and governmental resources by the bureaucratic elites. And, of course, high level of unemployment in some countries, poverty, etc.

The Middle East is corroded by the inner conflicts. It is the growth of interconfessional, ethnic, interstate and intraconfessional contradictions, which are often very severe. Also there are many unregulated old conflicts, primarily the Arab-Israeli.

Back to the question about the mistakes, it is possible to name the growth of religious fundamentalism, extremism, inability of the regimes to deal with the terrorism among them. All that leads to the serious deterioration of the image of people living in the region beyond its borders: in Europe, in the West in general. The intrusion of the Allied Forces to Iraq in 2003 can be undoubtedly considered as a mistake. As a result the interventionists failed to provide security, first of all – for the country’s people. In a decade more than 200 thousand people died, several millions became refugees or were displaced within the country, only 400 thousand of 1400 thousand Christians left. There was a mass exodus of Christians from Iraq. The minorities, mainly Christians are discriminated, there are non-stop terrorist acts and the hostility between the Sunni and the Shiah is periodically getting worse. Of course, the situation has partially stabilized – it has ameliorated. But generally it is possible to say that the plans of our US partners to quickly establish a modern democratic state, eliminate the internal conflicts and unite the nation have failed. I believe that Bush's interventionalism was the main mistake and it was replaced by Obama's administration milder attitude to the region and to the interventions. However, Bush's heritage still lives and it will take very long to remove its traces. That is why the interventionalism and the attempts to project their own model of liberal democracy face a severe resistance of the elites and the people. This continues to deteriorate the security in the region and to impede the mutual understanding between the Middle Eastern countries and external players.

M.D.: Speaking about the Gulf countries having the particular influence on the development of the Middle East, how would you estimate their influence? Which effect would the current policy of the two power centers – Saudi Arabia and Qatar, have on the development of Middle East, positive or negative?

V.N.: Regarding the Gulf countries, they largely represent a successful model of development, primarily because they poses huge financial resources. They can easily switch between these resources from one field to another and easily manipulate them in order to neutralize grievances and solve social problems if necessary. But at the same time, these countries do not have any immunity to the existing protest sentiments - while other countries deal with the more severe forms of such sentiments. Take the issue of Bahrain, where there was a very powerful protest movement. Although it was neutralized, the discontent of the two thirds of the population belonging to the Shia and consider themselves disadvantaged remains. There is a difficult internal situation in Saudi Arabia, which also has a grain of conflict.

It is impossible to ignore the intense rivalry between the different states of the Persian Gulf, including one in the religious and ideological sphere. Take a rather intense rivalry between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Qatar relied on the support of the "Muslim Brotherhood" and the Saudis - on the Salafis, and as we can see by the recent Egyptian events, they supported the military coup in Egypt. While previously these countries acted together as supporters of the Islamic protest movement, and was considered that they are leading all new Islamic forces to the power, today their views diverged. Saudi Arabia, before oriented on supporting the Salafist parties, plays well with the new secular forces today, including those representing the old regimes, such as the Egyptian military. Qatar also remains committed to the "Muslim Brotherhood" which has lost ground in Egypt, and together with Turkey acts in their support.

So I am not inclined to consider all the countries of the Gulf as a single entity. For example, the United Arab Emirates sharply opposed the "Muslim Brotherhood" from the outset, limited their activities in the country and subjected their representatives to repression.

The Gulf States are playing a double role in the region. They contribute to the financing of a number of projects in the Arab countries, assist in resolving their economic problems at no charge. But at the same time, impudent aggressiveness with which these countries are trying by force to resolve the internal conflict in Syria, only exacerbates the situation in the region and does not lead the Middle East to peace and stability.

M.D.: In a way, my next question concerns the Syrian problem. As the latest trend shows, Russia has began to play a more significant role in the Middle East and in many respects its interests are in conflict with the US policy. Do you think that the Middle East is able once again to become a field of confrontation of two powers as it was during the Cold War?

V.N.: I do not think it can. Firstly, because Russia does not enter an intense rivalry with the Americans for the area of influence. And the Russian influence in the region, to be honest, is very limited. Russia's main partners are still not the Arab states. This is, for example, Turkey. Although Turkey is a NATO member and wants to be admitted to the European Union, relations with Russia are very active, and developed very well in recent years. Turkey - one of the most important economic partners of our country, and Russia does not also have any sufficient political disagreements with it. The main stumbling stone in Russian - Turkish relations is the divergence of positions on the Syrian conflict. But this difference does not prevent the two countries from moving forward in increasing the volume of trade and economic cooperation, in the implementation of new projects, etc. I'm not talking about humanitarian relationships, the number of Russian tourists in Turkey, a flurry of activity on the business, etc. During the zero-sum game Turkey would be seen as a rival, as it is an ally of the potential enemy - the United States. Today is it impossible to pose a question this way. Moreover, today Russia has sufficient understanding with the Americans in the region. Russia and the U.S. are working together within the framework of the Quartet of international mediators in the settlement of the Arab- Israeli conflict. Our positions on the settlement differ only slightly. Russia, for example, does not consider Hamas a terrorist organization and works with this movement. Russia is more critical than the United States towards the Israel's plans for the development of territories, build settlements, but, nevertheless, the overall positions of Russia and the U.S. to the resolution are very similar, there is a close cooperation. Even on the issue of Iran, where there are serious differences, Russia and the United States will still cooperate acting in the format of the dialogue between Iran and the 5+1. Our country has repeatedly voted for the resolutions related to the response to the opacity of the Iranian nuclear program in UN Security Council. Iranian node in the context of non-proliferation is one of the main areas of cooperation with the United States. The same can be said about Afghanistan, even though it probably refers to Central Asia, but the Afghan issue is impossible to ignore because it is important for the entire Islamic world. As you know, Russia is also actively cooperating with America, without getting into the conflict and the American actions in Afghanistan, it is helping to build the Afghan state, helping the Americans to resolve supply issues of their contingent and ensure its safe withdrawal, acting fairly consistent, regardless of those difficulties that arise in Russian- American relations. Therefore, I see no reason for the rivalry between Russia and the U.S. in the region. Differences will persist. But even in the most tense case - with the Syrian conflict, where Russian and the United States assessments, policy plans and mode of conduct differ radically, there are still common interests. They consist in that firstly neither party wants to allow chaos in this country. At least, I see the interests of the United that way. Another thing is that some Russian politicians today have reason to blame Washington that it wants to create a controlled chaos out there. But still, it is in the American interest, in my opinion, to establish order and stability in the country. Secondly, talking about the coincidence of interests - we do not want to have a state of the Islamic radicals who would cut his throat to everyone who does not think like them there. There are also a common interest is to halt the bloodshed, civil war, to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. But their views significantly diverge on how to do it and how to respond to what is going on. But look, despite the radical opposition between Russia and the U.S., they still have managed to agree on joint steps for the Geneva-2, the second international conference on Syria. And the chances are not completely lost yet.

M.D.: Let's go back a little bit back, to the Arab-Israeli conflict, you mentioned, and to the role of Russia and the United States, and then return to Syria. Under present conditions, when the region is absolutely losing its stability, what are the real prospects of efficient and effective conflict resolution? Do they disappear or are they still real enough?

V.N.: It is hard to be optimistic about the Arab-Israeli peace process, although there was a shift. The peace process has been resumed a term of nine months has been set to reach a final status agreement. I honestly do not think that it is possible to do it in nine months. There are several problems, among which it is possible to mention two most painful ones - the issue of Jerusalem and the refugee problem. If it is still possible to anticipate some possibility of compromise on Jerusalem, the problem of refugees today has very aggravated, as the Palestinian self-awareness has strongly increased and it is impossible to deny the right of refugees to return. But for Israel accepting this demand means causing the condemnation by the majority of population, for which such a decision would be a tragedy. For them, the return of Palestinians, let's say, in Haifa, located in what is now Israel, which Palestinians left in 1948, is unacceptable. How can this issue be resolved? In general, it can be solved, but it requires negotiation. Some reasonable Israeli politics offer the Palestinians the option of returning the refugees only to the territory of a future Palestinian state. In this case, the Palestinians will have the right either to return to their lost homes, or the right to compensation. However, these solutions do not suit all the Palestinians. And it is very difficult to suppose that it will be possible to overcome these grave differences in nine months.

Some Israeli partners have an idea to still return to the issue of an interim solution of the problem. To sign an agreement, say, with the exception of these two items, which will be deferred to a later period. Palestinians were always against the interim agreement before. In my opinion, in order to make them do it, they should get some serious concessions from the Israeli side, say, on the territorial issue. Would it be possible to implement it?

The border issue is also not easy, but there can still be an agreement because there is already a preliminary agreement, which can be taken. The idea of swaps, the territorial exchange, is acceptable for the moderate Palestinian elite, and, I believe, it has a potential to be realized.

The question arises whether it is possible to extend the deadline for reaching a final status from a nine-month to something else. Postpone it for a year, say. But in this case, there are legitimate concerns that the period may be extended to infinity, which will bury any hopes of a full settlement.

Today, Obama needs a success. He even wants to achieve something in the Middle East. At the moment, America loses a lot. There is a growing discontent in almost all corners of the Arab world against it. Look at what happened in Egypt! The Americans committed the same mistake twice, first they supported Mubarak, and they still reproached for betting on dictators. Then they quickly passed him and displeased those who hoped that they would support him. The U.S. has long worked with the "Muslim Brotherhood", enthusiastically talked about their democratic aspirations, their moderation, then the same Egyptian masses have allowed the military to remove the «Brothers» from power – now both "Brothers" and the new authorities are dissatisfied with the Americans. Yes, they were, in fact, always dissatisfied, because the United States, in their view, are entirely on the side of Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians. Now the new government of Egypt, the military and the civilian, including even liberal organizations, accuse the Americans of their support for the "Muslim Brotherhood". As a result the image of the United States has suffered greatly, their influence waned, their ability to manage processes occurring in the region declined. In Iraq, too, not everything is going well. In Afghanistan - the same thing. Libya is in a complete breakdown, chaos. Therefore, Obama must achieve at least something. We are not gloating about it, saying that America has lost two wars, that its policy towards the "Arab Spring" has failed. Who knows what will be the outcome of the US threats to launch an air-missile attack on Syria. If they choose a military intervention, it will not lead to the implementation of their goals and will cause huge damage to the region. We are totally against it. And, I think, Russia will support Obama's desire to resolve the Middle East conflict in all circumstances.

M.D.: Returning to the question of Syria. The other day, the Arab League after its meeting has condemned the chemical attack near Damascus, but refused to take part in any operation of the West, which was the completely different reaction compared to the case of Libya. What is the reason of such a sharp turn? Failure in Libya? Or this is some different understanding of the conflict?

V.N.: I believe this is both another understanding of the conflict and the "Libyan syndrome". There is no unity among the Arab countries. But if the Arab sponsors of intervention could push through the support of U.S. intervention, it still would (and it will if they manage) lead only to more bloodshed and to the hatred of more Muslims against the United States, and the people who will do it, will be responsible for it. They will look like American's puppets willing to dump stable regimes for their own selfish purposes. Will have to answer for it. The other day, an American colonel, who participated in the operation in Kosovo, McGregor, very well mentioned for this occasion that there are no bad guys and good guys in civil wars, there are only winners and losers, and one does not need to intervene. Civil wars were everywhere. During the American Civil War more people were killed than today in Syria.  We shall not speak about the casualties during the  civil war in Russia. And we still do not know who were the bad guys and the good guys. Kappel and Kolchak forces were the most brutal punishers. Today, many consider Kolchak a hero. In the civil war there is no right or wrong. So today, if the West wants to intervene in the war and make others win with their help - it will be a disaster. It is not for the West with his limited understanding of Middle Eastern societies to judge who is right and wrong. Not to mention the fact that the Americans will actually be standing shoulder to shoulder with those who hate Americans and their main ally - Israel, with those, who tomorrow, as it has happened in history, will turn their weapons against them, I think it would be a tragic error. I'm sure Obama understands this.

M.D.: To conclude our discussion, I suggest drawing interim results of the "Arab spring": who at the moment is among the losers, and who - among the winners?

V.N.: I do not know, who is who now.

M.D.: Even in case of Tunisia, Libya, Egypt?

V.N.: Well, we see very contradictory results. On the one hand, the Arab peoples have won, because they have shown that they are legitimate citizens of their countries, they can decide their own fate. On the other hand, it turned out that they are losers the same time. Because interest groups, various elites who mainly do not express the interests of the majority of the population, pursuing their own selfish goals, took advantage of the fruits of the mass protest movements. What did, for example, "Muslim Brotherhood" do in Egypt? Taking suddenly unexpected steps towards Islamization and the monopolization of power, they repeated the mistakes of Mubarak and caused resentment among those who voted for them.


Published in Interviews
Wednesday, 31 July 2013 03:16

The MidEast World: 2013

This is the first and long-awaited issue of The MidEast World journal, official journal of the IMESClub. This issue is composed of papers and articles, prepared for the VII Russian International Studies Association (RISA) Convention, Section «The Arab Spring». That Section was held on the 29th of September 2012 in Moscow (Russia) at MGIMO and appeared to be the constituent meeting of the Club, as the decision to found it was pronounced and supported by all the participants.
This issue presents texts on the «Arab Spring» with a special focus on the consequences for the Middle East Peace Process.
This issue is partly in Russian and partly in English. The upcoming issues of The MidEast World will be in English only and will be issued in printed and cyber editions.
We wish you a pleasant reading and time to spend with IMESClub experts through their papers.

This issue is composed of articles* by:

With best regards,
IMESClub Directorate

*Please, pay attention to the dates of receipt on the front pages of each article.


Page 3 of 3