Dotting the I’S & Crossing the T’S
American tension and confusion towards Russia
Written by Nasser Kandil,
It seems that the American Russian relationships regarding the front of Ukraine and concerning deploying the strategic weapons in Europe look like tightening the ropes out of tension, so does this suggest general escalation in the international backgrounds? and thus a call for preparation for complexities about all the regional issues which are related and are affected with this international situation, or with greater reason, Is there anything that happened in the regional issues and therefore allows the American who was preparing for arrangements and settlements in his relationship with Russia and at the same time taking into considerations its aspirations and thoughts to return back to his own place and dispenses with the understanding with Russia as a title for his new strategy? since he is no longer in need of settlements in issues that require the partnership of Russia. So is there anything has changed in these issues therefore allows the betting to achieve them in the field and without settlements or a coordination with Moscow?
All the facts of the American Russian attraction during the last five years including the escalation which is sponsored by Washington, and provokes its European allies regarding the Ukrainian issue and dragging it to the bombing were always at the rhythm of the American reading of the balances of power that surrounding its Middle East projects, and the admission of its need for Moscow but according to its terms not according to the Russian high conditions as the President Vladimir Putin the caller for applying the rule of peering and parity in managing the global issues has settled. Neither the escalation was an open confrontation with Moscow, nor the preparation for understanding was a defeat, but they were hot or cold negotiation processes according to the American reading of the balances. The more Washington feels that its opponents in the Middle East become stronger and it is unable to adjust the balances against them, the more it starts addressing Moscow with the facts of appeasement in Ukraine and the issues of strategic security in Europe, because these are the issues of the President Putin and according to him they represent Russia. Whenever Washington feels that it has as its allies have the bets on changing the Middle East balances, it escalates against Moscow once to make it engage and confuses it with its concerns and interests, and once to make it understand that its role in the settlements of the Middle East is associating with settlements that concern more its issues, and has to think of the barters not profits in all fronts.
We have witnessed many times how the Russian American relationships were moving towards escalation by the American bet on imposing concessions on Russia and imposing through Russia concessions on its allies, in other words the intention always is the issues of the Middle East, And the observer of the American war against Syria and against its important position within an attempt to change its position in the political geography of the Middle East, or the implications of this change on both the resistance and the balance of deterrence which it has formed against Israel, or against Iran and its position in the regional issues will discover that with each American desperation of an achieved victory directly, or imposed by its bets in a way that surpasses the roles of its direct allies, it resort to its bet on Al-Qaeda Organization, therefore the escalation becomes the prominent aspect in the American Russian relationship, and that in each time Washington concludes that it has no longer better than what it has, so this leads it to have a resolving with Russia hoping to save what it can be saved through negotiation as long as the victory and recording points are no longer possible.
This time it seems different because Washington is spending all its bets on the Saudi War against Yemen, and on the position of the Turkish President Recep Erdogan in assimilating Al-Nusra Front, and the attempt of imposing it in the Syrian political equation as a certified title for the moderate opposition, which all the attempts to constitute it lead to a humiliated failure. So it bets once on Al Nusra and once on ISIS after the entrance of the organization troops under disgraced American sponsorship to Palmyra and Al Ramadi, thus they started receiving attacks from the formation of the elite in the resistance, and on the other hand it seems that the disturbing situation which Washington expects in the regions of the Syrian northern and southern borders, either in the north through stimulating the Kurdish separation, or the fear and the panic of the massacres against Druze in the South areas, is doomed to the limited ability of these borders to survive, even if Washington has granted it the coverage as a project of Kurdish independence , while the project which Walid Jumblatt has been entrusted to manage it under the title of the neutrality of Druze is being faced with violent rejection in Jabal Al Arab by the leaders, activists, and the people who agree on the option of wading the confrontation against Al –Nusra and ISIS and within the formations of the Syrian country and its army, so on what Washington can bet?
It seems that the closest in the entire scene which led to a negotiation platform about the Yemeni file or a negotiation platform about the Syrian crisis, and the activation of these two platforms by sending both of the political envoys Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, Staffan de Mistura to them, and at the time when the Iranian nuclear program is almost ends and the Secretary of State John Kerry is announcing the readiness of his government to lift the sanctions against Iran before completing the verification of the old doubts about the nuclear program and the presence of a military dimension in it, and therefore this why the Western countries are insisting on inspecting the Iranian military installations and interrogating the Iranian scientists, all of these mean a proactive American action for British and French refusal to develop a final understanding without the acceptance of Iran for these Western demands, and an American announcement of the desire to facilitate the understanding, thus the completed negotiations platforms are just need for the Russian platform.
The American escalation is considerable and has an oral aspect but in the essence it is a retreat of the escalation’s option in Ukraine by ensuring the negotiated solution, and militarily it seems that deploying American troops in Europe is a substitute of the missile deterrence on one hand and a substitute of the calls for including countries that Moscow objects to join the Atlantic alliance, moreover it seems that the Russian response by deploying additional nuclear missiles in the European range is an expected answer from the Americans to launch an American Russian negotiation platform to escort the other negotiating platforms.
It is a sign for opening the negotiation tracks and not to hinder them.
Translated by Lina Shehadeh,
2015-06-19 | عدد القراءات 1888
