Guest Post: Be Careful: Russia Is Back To Stay In The Middle East

Submitted by Felix Imonti of OilPrice.com,

Russia is back.  President Vladimir Putin wants the world to acknowledge that Russia remains a global power.  He is making his stand in Syria.

The Soviet Union acquired the Tardus Naval Port in Syria in 1971 without any real purpose for it.  With their ships welcomed in Algeria, Cuba or Vietnam, Tardus was too insignificant to be developed.  After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia lacked the funds to spend on the base and no reason to invest in it.

The Russian return to the Middle East brought them first to where the Soviet Union had had its closest ties.  Libya had been a major buyer of arms and many of the military officers had studied in the Soviet Union.  Russia was no longer a global power, but it could be used by the Libyans as a counter force to block domination by the United States and Europeans.

When Gaddafi fell, Tardus became Russia’s only presence in the region.  That and the discovery of vast gas deposits just offshore have transformed the once insignificant port into a strategic necessity. 

Earlier at the United Nations, Russia had failed to realize that Security Council Resolution 1973 that was to implement a new policy of “responsibility to protect” cloaked a hidden agenda.  It was to be turned from a no-fly zone into a free-fire zone for NATO.  That strategic blunder of not vetoing the resolution led to the destruction of Gaddafi’s regime and cost Russia construction contracts and its investments in Libyan gas and oil to the tune of 10 billion dollars.

That was one more in a series of humiliating defeats; and something that Putin will not allow to happen again while he is president.  Since his time as an officer in the KGB, he has seen the Soviet Empire lose half of its population, a quarter of its land mass, and most of its global influence.  He has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as a “geopolitical catastrophe.”

In spite of all of the pressure from Washington and elsewhere to have him persuade Bashar Al-Assad to relinquish power, Putin is staying loyal to the isolated regime.  He is calculating that Russia can afford to lose among the Arabs what little prestige that it has remaining and gain a major political and economic advantage in Southern Europe and in the Eastern Mediterranean.

What Russia lost through the anti-Al-Assad alliance was the possibility to control the natural gas market across Europe and the means to shape events on the continent.  In July 2011, Iran, Iraq, and Syria agreed to build a gas pipeline from the South Pars gas field in Iran to Lebanon and across the Mediterranean to Europe.  The pipeline that would have been managed by Gazprom would have carried 110 million cubic meters of gas.  About a quarter of the gas would be consumed by the transit countries, leaving seventy or so million cubic meters to be sold to Europe.

Violence in Iraq and the Syrian civil war has ended any hope that the pipeline will be built, but not all hope is lost.  One possibility is for Al-Assad to withdraw to the traditional Aliwite coastal enclave to begin the partitioning of Syria into three or more separate zones, Aliwite, Kurdish, and Sunni.  Al-Assad’s grandfather in 1936 had asked the French administrators of the Syrian mandate to create a separate Aliwite territory in order to avoid just this type of ethnic violence.

What the French would not do circumstance may force the grandson to accept as his only choice to survive.  His one hundred thousand heavily armed troops would be able to defend the enclave. 

The four or five million Aliwites, Christians, and Druze would have agricultural land, water, a deep water port and an international airport.  Very importantly, they would have the still undeveloped natural gas offshore fields that extend from Israel, Lebanon, and Cyprus.  The Aliwite Republic could be energy self-sufficient and even an exporter.  Of course, Russia’s Gazprom in which Putin has a vital interest would get a privileged position in the development of the resource.

In an last effort to bring the nearly two year long civil war to an end, Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov urged Syrian president Bashar al-Assad at the end of December to start talks with the Syrian opposition in line with the agreements for a cease fire that was reached in Geneva on 30 June. The Russians have also extended the invitation to the Syrian opposition National Coalition head, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib.  The National Coalition refuses to negotiate with Al-Assad and Al-Assad will not relinquish power voluntarily.

The hardened positions of both sides leaves little hope for a negotiated settlement; and foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has made it clear that only by an agreement among the Syrians will Russia accept the removal of Al-Assad.  Neither do they see a settlement through a battlefield victory which leaves only a partitioning that will allow the civil war to just wind down as all sides are exhausted.

The Russians are troubled by what they see as a growing trend among the Western Powers to remove disapproved administrations in other sovereign countries and a program to isolate Russia.   They saw the U.S involvement in the Ukraine and Georgia.  There was the separation of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections.  There was the extending of NATO to the Baltic States after pledging not to expand the organization to Russia’s frontier.

Again, Russia is seeing Washington’s hand in Syria in the conflict with Iran.  The United States is directing military operations in Syria with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia at a control center in Adana about 60 miles from the Syrian border, which is also home to the American air base in Incirlik.  The Program by President Obama to have the CIA acquire heavy weapons at a facility in Benghazi to be sent to Turkey and onward to Syria is the newest challenge that Putin cannot allow to go unanswered.  It was the involvement of Ambassador Chris Stevens in the arms trade that may have contributed to his murder; and the Russians are not hesitating to remind the United States and Europeans that their dealings with the various Moslem extremists is a very dangerous game.

The Russians are backing their determination to block another regime change by positioning and manning an advanced air defense system in what is becoming the Middle East casino.  Putin is betting that NATO will not risk in Syria the cost that an air operation similar to what was employed over Libya will impose.  Just in case Russia’s determination is disregarded and Putin’s bluff is called, Surface to surface Iskander missiles have been positioned along the Jordanian and Turkish frontiers.  They are aimed at a base in Jordan operated by the United States to train rebels and at Patriot Missile sites and other military facilities in Turkey.

Putin is certain that he is holding the winning hand in this very high stakes poker game.  An offshore naval task force, the presence of Russian air defense forces, an electronic intelligence center in latakia, and the port facilities at Tardus will guarantee the independence of the enclave. As the supplier of sixty percent of Turkey’s natural gas, Moscow does have leverage that Ankara will not be able to ignore; and Ankara well knows that gas is one of Putin’s diplomatic weapons.

When the Turks and U.S see that there is little chance of removing Al-Assad, they will have no option other than to negotiate a settlement with him; and that would involve Russia as the protector and the mediator.  That would establish Russia’s revived standing as a Mediterranean power; and Putin could declare confidently that “Russia is back.”  After that, the Russians will be free to focus upon their real interests in the region.

And what is Russia’s real interest?  Of course, it is oil and gas and the power that control of them can bring.

Comments

[gallistic]

This article is complete garbage. No, scratch that, it is worse than garbage. It combines truth and lies, and is a deliberate and malicious spread of disinformation and propaganda. Maybe the Tylers are just feeding red meat to the beasts, but I personally do not think this article is worthy of a great site like ZH.

I will not bother to comment extensively on the article, but if you care to find truth, let me point out a few horse droppings that merit further research (Bold lettering mine to highlight the horseshit).

1-"The Soviet Union acquired the Tardus (sic) Naval Port in Syria in 1971 without any real purpose for it."

2- "What Russia lost through the anti-Al-Assad alliance was the possibility to control the natural gas market across Europe and the means to shape events on the continent. In July 2011, Iran, Iraq, and Syria agreed to build a gas pipeline from the South Pars gas field in Iran to Lebanon and across the Mediterranean to Europe. The pipeline that would have been managed by Gazprom would have carried 110 million cubic meters of gas."

3- "He (Putin) is calculating that Russia can afford to lose among the Arabs what little prestige that it has remaining and gain a major political and economic advantage in Southern Europe and in the Eastern Mediterranean."

4- "Just in case Russia’s determination is disregarded and Putin’s bluff is called, Surface to surface Iskander missiles have been positioned along the Jordanian and Turkish frontiers.  They are aimed at a base in Jordan operated by the United States to train rebels and at Patriot Missile sites and other military facilities in Turkey."

5- "And what is Russia’s real interest?  Of course, it is oil and gas and the power that control of them can bring."

Felix Imonti has an agenda and his own biases, so consider the source. You might want to check out some of his previous writings and also read a review of his book praising Jewish assassins who dished out "violent justice" and political assassination to gain world attention to the "plight of their people".

There are plenty of insidious and absolute whoppers in this article, but I think point #4 is particularly interesting. It is a case study of how media can deliberately create "facts" by way of the "mighty Wurlitzer". I actually went on a scavenger hunt to trace the source of this "fact"; it was very instructive.

The whole "enclave" thing is interesting too. The author introduces it early on, and then comes back to it at the end. I must grudgingly admit that it is a masterful misdirection that should fool the typical short attention span reader. It is a little difficult for me to determine what kind of fallacy it is, because it incorporates elements of several types.

If you have the time and inclination, go back and read paragraphs 9, 10, and 11, then jump to the last two paragraphs. It might bring a smile to your face...