Weekly Overview
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 50 sec.
Russia threatens to cut ties with the EU
Just when the EU was trying to rehabilitate the tarnished reputation of their uber incompetent chief diplomat Josep Borrell, Russia changes the narrative in its tracks.
Until the latest statement by the Russian FM Lavrov, the narrative was dominated by EU’s declaration that further sanctions on Russia were probable.
Mr Borrell even labelled Russia as ‘‘merciless’’.
Quick side note: if you are going to attack Russia, hit where it hurts. Calling Russia merciless is actually a compliment to Putin - who (given the latest protests) is extra sensitive to his reputation for control and power.
Power (no matter how illegitimate) in Russia is not a reputational risk.
Precisely why Navalny always attacked Putin as a ‘‘thief’’ not a ‘‘merciless dictator’’.
Note the associations from the word thief - it does not conjure images of power does it? you instinctively think of a petty criminal..
Call them corrupt or maybe a ‘‘banana republic with nuclear weapons and a vulgar new money ruling class’’ - where it would hurt…
So how did Russia respond?
By counter attacking and expressing readiness to cut ties with the EU.
Probably a bluff, since that would hurt Russia more than the EU.
With the state of their economy, and rising social discontent, it would be pretty irrational to cut ties with a huge trading bloc.
It is likely a bluff.
For starters, Mr Lavrov did not elaborate upon what cutting ties would exactly mean. Would it for example, lead to the cancellation of Nord Stream 2?
Secondly, Mr Lavrov merely expressed readiness to cut ties - not a clear declaration of intent.
Thirdly, remarks were made during an interview with their liar/propaganda in chief Solovyev. This interview was conducted primarily for the domestic audience - where appearances of resolve and toughness garner more value.
Were these remarks to be made at an official FM press conference, implications would have been more serious, and more weight would naturally be allocated to the sentiments expressed.
Finally, Mr Lavrov left himself a wiggle room - an escape clause if you will.
Here is the relevant statement:
“We proceed from the fact that we’re ready (for that). In the event that we again see sanctions imposed in some sectors that create risks for our economy, including in the most sensitive spheres’’
Let’s look at that escape clause: create risks for our economy.
That is of course for Russia to determine - this naturally secures Mr Lavrov a huge wiggle room.
If they don’t cut ties, that’s because sanctions never ended up creating risks for the Russian economy.
An added benefit: they get to say that EU never managed to create that risk to them.
So not only can Russia now do a 180 without loss of face, but they can spin this as a win: look at these fools.. this is what they call sanctions?
How did Europeans respond? We are yet to hear from heavy hitters.
But so far reactions were weak.
Consider this statement from the German Foreign Ministry:
“these statements are really disconcerting and incomprehensible.”
Disconcerting? That’s weak. Russian FM made a tough statement and that made you feel unsettled? disturbed? unhapppyyyy?
Incomprehensible is a bit better - at least that implies that you find Lavrov’s statement sooo irrational that it is hard to comprehend…
But again, overall weak - comes from a position of defensiveness.
What would have been a more elegant put down?
This:
‘‘We are glad that Russia recognizes that EU sanctions could create risks to their economy. But the solution is to work with us, not get defensive and uncooperative’’.
The first part of the statement puts Russians into a double bind - if they now go forward with cutting ties (whatever that means) they risk looking like they were indeed hurt badly by the EU. On the other hand, if they want to save face, they would have to suck it up and absorb the hit of new sanctions. Win-win for the EU.
+ a win for America. Whatever actually ends up happening, this is great for the US.
Even if things never leave the realm of rhetorical excesses, at least the general context for termination of Nord Stream 2 becomes more favorable with every passing day.
Turkey signals flexibility on S-400s
Turkish Defense Minister, Hulusi Akar was interviewed by ‘‘Hurriyyet’’ newspaper - one of Turkey’s major publications.
In that interview (commenting on S-400s), Mr Akar said the following:
“We said we are open to negotiation………There is no such thing as we will use it constantly. These systems are used according to the threat situation. We decide that.”
He cited the precedent of older models in (limited) use in Greece.
To clarify, Turkey is yet to activate S-400s, and it seems like they are willing to delay that process indefinitely.
What do they want in return?
US abandoning YPG fighters in Syria.
That’s a tough ask.
YPG fighters fought well - it will be hard for US to give up its support without losing its credibility and reputation for reliability on the global stage.
On the other hand, YPG is indeed closely linked to PKK - which is a terrorist organization (also officially recognized as such by the US).
PKK is responsible for more than 40k Turkish civilian lives.
Not merely an outdated conflict either - on February 14 2021, PKK executed 13 Turkish citizens in a cave in Northern Iraq.
There were senior military and police officials amongst those executed.
Consequently, it is normal (and expected) for Turkey to draw a hard line on this issue.
Perhaps a middle ground could be an agreement where US promises to engage only in humanitarian aid towards the YPG.
That would not be a significant loss for America either - ISIS is almost wiped out.
There is no longer a need for a closer cooperation with YPG.
What about S-400s?
Clearly, indefinite delay of their activation is not a long term sustainable solution.
What if they were placed in Turkey’s allied Azerbaijan? or more specifically in Karabakh?
With the range of 400km/250 miles, S-400s would still cover most of the Turkish border with Iraq (and possibly some parts of the Syrian border too).
But that is fancy talk. The range has not been proven on a consistent basis.
The main benefit of the relocation: Russia would now have incentive not to encourage Armenian revenge and cause trouble in Karabakh.
Since they would be in an awkward position if another war broke out.
If Armenia somehow managed to destroy S-400s, that would be a huge blow to the credibility of Russia’s latest and most advanced air defense system.
How would they convince other countries to buy a system that even Armenia could destroy?
And yes, so far they definitely do have an incentive in encouraging another war.
Karabakh is retaken by Azerbaijan. Even though Russian ‘‘peacekepeers’’ are in the recently liberated territories, there is no military balance - conditions on the ground are heavily on Azerbaijan’s side.
This then reduces Russia’s influence as a power broker.
Secondly, there is an interest to cause disruption to the (recently activated) Southern Gas Corridor that supplies Southern Europe - reducing EU’s dependency on Russia.
Talks of another war are not too unlikely either.
There are reports that former Armenian president, Robert Kocharyan returned to Armenia (immediately after his Moscow visit) and declared his intent to retake the leadership of the country and retake Karabakh..
Hints of power struggle in Iran
In a televised interview, Iranian Minister of Intelligence, Mahmoud Alavi said that Iran could seek nuclear weapons.
Iran has been denying any such intent for many years now.
It is important to note that there is a fatwa from the Iranian Supreme leader, Ali Khamenei that prohibits development of nuclear weapons.
Mr Alavi acknowledged the prohibitive religious decree in the following remarks:
‘‘The Supreme Leader has explicitly said in his fatwa that nuclear weapons are against sharia law and the Islamic Republic sees them as religiously forbidden and does not pursue them…But a cornered cat may behave differently from when the cat is free. And if they (Western states) push Iran in that direction, then it’s no longer Iran’s fault”.
A fatwa cannot be disobeyed - well technically it could be, but then that is an open revolt against the Iranian Supreme leader.
If Iran is to develop nuclear weapons, that would happen only after permission from the Ali Khamanei.
Or would it?
Well, let us revisit the above statement.
Mr Alavi does not wait for Ali Khamenei to publicly update his stance on the issue. He does not wait for Khamenei to be seen in control of this issue.
He takes the liberty to carve out an exception to the fatwa.
Even if Iran is ‘‘cornered’’ and that becomes an acceptable exception to the religious decree, that is only for Khamenei to a) determine and b) to be seen by the public making that determination.
Yet Mr Alavi does not allow/wait for that to happen.
It is implausible that Khamenei gave an explicit permission to Alavi to publicly overrule his fatwa ( by placing exceptions to it).
If there was ever a need for such reinterpretation to happen, Khamenei would do that himself.
It is extremely likely therefore, that Mr Alavi was being openly insubordinate - hinting at developing in-fighting/power struggles within the regime.
Also, it’s fascinating how Alavi described Iran when analyzing extenuating circumstances (to override fatwa and develop nuclear weapons).
But a cornered cat may behave differently from when the cat is free.
A cornered cat? A cat? not.. a cornered tiger?
Why conjure images of powerlessness?
Sure, Iran likes to frame itself as a victim of American imperialism - but it is also obsessed with demonstrations of power and resolve.
A cornered cat is a mental image that can be associated with anything but prowess.
Perhaps that was a freudian slip - an exclusive insight into the mind of the Iranian chief of intelligence.
How one of the key leaders of the Iranian regime sees his country - a powerless cornered cat.
Or maybe that was an idiotic speechwriter (that needs to be fired) and not less incompetent head of intelligence that parrots this embarrassing phrase.