Russia-US thaw to be mediated by India, Turkey - Analysis

 

It is no secret that Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump want a thaw in relations between their countries. Should Donald Trump be reelected, Cold War with China would ensue and a trade deal with Russia would be reached.

The Covid-19 pandemic provides President Trump with the perfect opportunity for economic restructuring on a global scale.

Before Donald Trump was elected President, the global economy was built on the principles of Richard Nixon. In 1979, the US observed that relations between the Soviet Union and Communist China were at an all-time low. Then US President Richard Nixon to seized upon the rift as an opportunity: economically ally with China to "triangulate" against the Soviet Union. Within ten years of implementing this strategy, the Soviet Union went bankrupt.

Ever since, Communist China has fed off the western economic system like a vampire. Although the vast majority of Chinese companies are privately owned, the Chinese Communist Party still has overall strategic control. Its economic rise, too, is largely due to the economic trading surpluses it has enjoyed over its US-allied trading partners.

But after Donald Trump became President, the United States started calling out China on its unfair trading practices and encouraged US allies to do the same. As the US economy became stronger, the Chinese economy became weaker, forcing it into its worst recession since 1979. This might have been the cause for the Chinese Communist Party turning a blind eye to the Coronavirus pandemic, allowing it to spread worldwide.

But should Donald Trump be reelected November this year, China's economic woes would get much worse. Not only would President Trump decouple the US economy from China's - he would "triangulate" US economics with Russia. Then the Second Cold War would really heat up.

Today, Russia's major partners China, Iran and Syria are all under US sanctions, and if President Trump is reelected, Chinese dominance over Iran at Russia's expense would be secured. In a new strategic partnership, China and Iran would have have a vested interest in seeing the US return to Afghanistan after temporary withdrawal and would also a vested interest in propelling Hezbollah into power in Lebanon.

But in neighbouring Syria and in Afghanistan, Russia and the US have strategic partners in common: respectively Turkey and India. Although neither country is particularly democratic, they each serve as an unofficial link between Russia and the US and might see deals between the two larger powers mediated in exchange for a loosening of US sanctions on Russia.

If President Trump reaches a second term, he would want to withdraw from Syria - but only if Iran and Hezbollah also withdraw. Since China would dominate Iran at Russia's expense, it makes sense that Russia would be allowed by China and the US to dominate Syria at Iran's expense. The trade-off for Russian consolidation in Syria would be China and Iran consolidating control over Lebanon, something the US would disapprove of but Russia could hardly influence.

For Afghanistan, if China and Iran foment instability there and fund the Taliban to march on Kabul, the collective interests of India, Russia and the United States would be threatened. This might see not only a reentry of the US but also of the US-led Indo-Pacific partners into Afghanistan, to send a clear warning to China and to Iran. Additionally, the Indo-Pacific partners might seek a further partnership with Russia, much as Turkey has a partnership with Russia in Syria and Libya. This would challenge Chinese and Iranian influence in Afghanistan as never before.

However, larger agreement between Russia and the US would not be limited to a trade deal, to Afghanistan and Syria: additionally, the two larger powers would have to reach a compromise on Ukraine. The US might agree to recognize Russian control of the Crimea and agree to have no opinion on the governance of Ukraine, effectively isolating Ukraine as Taiwan was isolated through the One China Policy. In this scenario, a Ukrainian alternative to the Taiwan relations act could be flouted by US Congress, to keep Russia away from meddling further in Ukraine but to establish precedent for an easing of relations and trade.

In the past, President Trump was open to doing a trade deal with China - but the Covid-19 pandemic changed his mind. In the near future, a trade deal between the United States and Russia might see triangulation in reverse: instead of the high tensions between Russia and the US and compromise on China, a second term of the Trump Administration would see high tensions with China, yet peace at last between Russia and America.

Strategic Withdrawal: Trump's Historic Opportunity

Given the Chinese malevolence during the Coronavirus pandemic and the Hong Kong protests, it is most urgent that President Donald Trump strikes a deal with Vladimir Putin, strategically withdraws from Europe and redeploys forces to Taiwan and the Pacific.

As with Britain during the Second World War, the United States is no longer able to defeat her enemies everywhere.

During the Second World War, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was forced into prioritizing the Battles for the Mediterranean and the Atlantic over the growing Japanese threat in the Pacific. While it is possible that Nazi Germany could have been defeated by the Soviet Union alone, what is undeniable is that Churchill's decision to engage Nazi Germany at the expense of Japan meant that Hitler - and, by extension, the Holocaust - was stopped in 1945 rather than years later. Without Winston Churchill, the Nazis might have exterminated all of European Jewry.

Today, US President Donald Trump finds himself in a position rather similar to that of Churchill. The United States no longer has the ability to wage war on all fronts as it had during the Cold War, and is finding itself increasingly isolated from its European partners. Recently, European allies deserted the United States by abstaining from extending the weapons ban on Iran, which meant China and Russia were able to veto the extension unopposed.

Today, Europe is no longer the centre of global geostrategy. The iron curtain is gone; the Soviet Union is no more and Vladimir Putin's Russia, although dangerous, is by far the lesser threat compared with Xi Jinping's Communist China. It is imperative that the United States withdraw at least some of her forces from Europe, to better prioritize the crucial battles for influence which will undoubtedly be fought in the Pacific and in the Middle-East.

The Middle-East is on fire. US withdrawal from Middle-Eastern countries is risky and problematic, as was demonstrated when Barrack Obama withdrew from Iraq only to return three years later in 2014. While the United States will probably withdraw from Afghanistan over the next year, in all likelihood forces will be redeployed to Afghanistan before the end of President Trump's second term.

Meanwhile China is looking to increase its influence in the Middle-East. A draft of a comprehensive strategic partnership between China and Iran was leaked recently to the international press. This draft gives the world an idea of what is likely to happen should - as is likely - Donald Trump be reelected President. If Donald Trump is reelected, China will put pressure on the United States' interests in the Middle-East in addition to the Pacific.

Should the US be forced into remaining in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would put strain on its overall position in the Middle-East. Should Saudi Arabia erupt in instability (as looks increasingly likely), the United States would be able to do little in the way of military support. If Iran and the US go to war, the war would have to be limited to operations against Iran-backed forces in the Arabian Gulf, in Iraq and/or in Afghanistan. If China and Iran plot a coup in Lebanon which lands Hezbollah in power, as also appears likely, the United States would be unlikely to send troops there.

Of all the possible conflicts the United States might engage in, Taiwan is the most critical of them all. The Chinese Communist Party has long desired to invade Taiwan and unite it to mainland China. Should China succeed in this (as, unless the United States makes alternative security arrangements, looks likely) the balance of the Asia Pacific would be irrevocably tipped in China's favour. The future of Asia and the United States depends on the defense of Taiwan.

Because the loss of Taiwan would be the tipping point for the power struggle in Asia, it is imperative that the United States looks again at its geostrategic position. It is unlikely to be able to disengage from Iraq or Afghanistan in the long-term - but approximately 320,000 American troops are based in Europe. If half of these were withdrawn from Europe and instead sent to Taiwan, Japan and the South China Sea, Asia's future would be secured until the conclusion of the Second Cold War.

But such a sizable US withdrawal from Europe is impossible without dealing with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Granting Russia concessions on Syria, Crimea and sanctions in exchange for a US troop withdrawal would see tensions on the European front ease significantly. The last 40 years have seen the United States compromise with China to defeat the Soviet Union and Russia. It is now time for the United States to compromise with Russia in order to defeat the Chinese Communist Party, to prevent China from remaining the enormous threat to the United States' homeland that it is today.

ISIS coup in Saudi Arabia: how Turkey would reclaim Mecca and Medina

It is no secret that President Erdogan covets a rebirth of the Ottoman Empire. To add Arabia to his empire, President Erdogan would detonate the Middle-East Time Bomb - and then clean up the mess afterwards.

Alistair Crooke was correct when he pointed out that the real aim of ISIS is to replace the Sauds as Emirs of Arabia, and that this is a Middle-East Time Bomb waiting to explode. This blog has long contended that ISIS is likely to rebirth in the Arabian Peninsula - specifically, in the territories of Saudi Arabia - and, in the words of Alistair Crooke, "there is really almost nothing the West can now do about it but sit and watch."

But what should be additionally noted is that Turkey has the most to gain of any power from a Middle-East Time Bomb explosion. The only way to make sure the Al-Saud royal family loses their control of Mecca and Medina is to complete the "Salafization" process - namely, allowing Saudi Arabia to be (temporarily) ruled by ISIS, the most rigid practicers of Salafi Islam, instead of by the Al-Saud family, which has compromised its Salafi interpretation. Only after this would Hanafi Muslim Turkey be able to step in and take back their "legitimate right" as emirs of Arabia and ouster the ISIS imposters.

Russian interference in Syria has guaranteed Turkey to lose all influence there. However, cooperation with Russia's Syrian project has almost certainly assured Turkey political control of Libya. As Turkish-backed rebels have lost more and more territory in Syria, many of these fighters have been shipped to Libya by Turkey to fight against Haftar and Egypt. These, unfortunately, include fighters that have in the past fought under the banner of ISIS.

With Syrian rebels, ISIS fighters, Somali and Yemeni rebels now working as mercenaries for Turkey and the Libyan Government of National Accord, it is not hard to see how these could later be deployed to Yemen to fight against the Houthis, to give Turkey a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula. For one thing, it is unlikely that the GNA would want hard line jihadist fighters to stay in Libya - for another, Yemen's Houthis are extremely tough fighters and could only be dislodged by fighters of equal tenacity.

Turkey must gain control of all of Libya before it could intervene decisively in Yemen. Libya shares a land border with Sudan, another Turkish ally, so the fighters could be moved from Libya to Sudan by land and then from Sudan to Yemen by sea. With foreign mercenaries safely away from Libya and Turkey, there would be little risk to these nations for further instability caused by foreign fighters. With the fighters out of Libya, Turkish military, navy and air force could set up a substantial amount of bases on Libya's coast.

Should President Erdogan successfully outmaneuver his opponents in Libya and Yemen, there is nothing to stop him from pushing his luck even further in Saudi Arabia. Most of the mercenaries fighting for Turkey would not hesitate to don ISIS' black garments once more and declare jihad on Saudi Arabia. But rather than ISIS fighting Saudi Arabia directly and risk the wrath of the United States, it would be more prudent (and more typical) for Turkey to facilitate and finance an ISIS coup on Saudi Arabia from within the kingdom.

Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman is deeply unpopular at home. Although he is strongly supported by the US, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, Mohammed Bin Salman has weakened the Saudi economy, engaged in a Yemeni war he cannot win and has been a key figure in the blockade against Qatar. Many of his actions have had a destabilizing impact on the region and, unlike President Sisi's Egypt, Mohammed Bin Salman's Saudi Arabia has not yet had any sort of revolution against its rulers.

As long as King Salman is alive, it is unlikely that Saudi Arabia will end up in chaos. But should he die and his son Mohammed be named king, there are many from the tribes, religious teachers and leadership in Saudi Arabia who would not hesitate to help Turkey instigate a coup to land ISIS in power. They would want to do this to humiliate Mohammed Bin Salman, force him out of office and, in the long term, return Saudi Arabia to its status quo.

However, after an ISIS takeover, President Erdogan would have no intention of returning Mecca and Medina to the Al-Saud family. Should ISIS take control of Riyadh, the United States would likely occupy the oilfields in eastern Arabia and put pressure on regional actors to take the fight to ISIS directly. Turkey would only concede to help fight against ISIS if it was guaranteed a larger share of influence in its stead.

Turkey may decide that the best way to help bring Arabia under its sway would be to call for a non-Salafi democracy there, to prevent an ISIS resurgence. Though certainly not interested in democracy, such a project would be cover for Turkey to exert a Muslim-Brotherhood-controlled government in the heart of Arabia. Turkey has engaged in similar policy in Egypt, Syria and Libya during the Arab Spring.

Until such a time as Turkey were appeased, it would be near impossible to drive ISIS out of Arabia. ISIS has deep ideological roots there, and of all the regional actors, only Turkey has the military, political and economic capacity to destroy them. But should the United States learn that Turkey was responsible for backing the ISIS coup in the first place, the war between them in Arabia could drag on for many, many years.

Compromising on Turkey for stability and balance: Trump's grand strategy

In the previous two articles in our series, we examined the respective grand strategies of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan. In this third installment, we will examine the American grand strategy for the Middle-East.


US President Donald Trump is fixated on surpassing his predecessor, Barrack Obama. In the Middle-East, this means regional stability and balance - and balance means a larger role for Turkey.

President Trump inherited seven conflicts from his predecessor. Of these, stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq are the highest priority, since they have cost the most for America financially and militarily. Almost every other US move in the region has stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq in mind.

For its part, Afghanistan is extremely difficult to stabilize. One of the ways the US has worked towards stability is through the Lapiz Lazuli transit route. Turkey is the main partner in the transit route, which connects Afghanistan to Europe via Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. This deal ensures that in the event of a US withdrawal, Afghanistan might just be able to become economically independent of other, larger nations like Iran, Pakistan and Russia. Economic independence gives Afghanistan more ability to confront terrorist groups and prevent a Taliban takeover.

The Lapiz Lazuli transit route is a crucial reason the US has given Turkey lots of regional autonomy. Turkey has been toeing the line with Afghanistan and, as a result, its own strategy for cracking down on Iran by proxy in Syria has been endorsed by the US. Even though defeat of the Syrian opposition is inevitable, Turkey delaying this defeat ensures that Iran spends more and more of its precious resources there.

The main reason the Trump Administration has put maximum pressure on Iran and Syria - apart from nuclear concerns - is because of Iraq. Since the 2003 Iraq War, Iran has been the major beneficiary and this, in turn, has completely destabilized Iraq. But substantial economic pressure on Iran and Syria gives Iraq maximum opportunity to pivot away from Iran and towards US allies in the region, particularly the UAE and Saudi Arabia.

But the tide has been turning against autocratic nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia in favour of Turkey for some time now. The autocrats have failed to end the wars in Libya and Yemen, and this is causing President Trump to explore other options. In December 2019 Turkey signed an agreement with Libya's Government of National Accord and intervened against autocrat-backed Haftar Al-Khalifa. Meanwhile, Turkey is also increasing humanitarian assistance and funding for Yemenis linked to Al-Islah, the Yemeni branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

While Jared Kushner may have pushed for UAE-backed hegemony in the Middle-East as the best way to help Israel, President Trump seems to be making compromises with Turkey to restore political balance in the region. Should Turkey politically control all of Libya and Yemen, Russia would have its influence contained to Syria, Iran would lose Yemen, and Turkey would be more amicable to political stability in Afghanistan and Iraq in the US' favour.

With Libya and Yemen lost, the autocrats would have little choice but to compromise further to US interest in Afghanistan and Iraq. This compromise would only increase the likelihood of Iran being forced out of Iraq and of a stable Afghanistan. Such a result would end five of the seven wars inherited from the Obama Administration, and allow for a geostrategic balance not seen in the Middle-East since before the Iraq War.

However, relations between the autocratic wing of the Middle-East and Turkey are hostile. Even should Afghanistan and Iraq be stabilized and out of Iran's reach, a Turkey-controlled Libya and Yemen increases the likelihood of instability erupting out of Saudi Arabia. This, in turn, would challenge the Trump doctrine as never before, and give Turkey the ability to tip the balance of the Middle-East in its own favour.

Compromising on Syria for vengeance: Erdogan's Grand Startegy

Since the attempted coup of July 2016, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been fixated on vengeance against the autocratic wing of the Middle-East.

Turkey has been growing weary of the United States and her allies since the beginning of the Arab Spring. From 2011, Turkey was shouldering most of the burden behind training and equipping the Free Syrian Army against the Syrian government, while the United States refused to act militarily. In 2013, a military coup changed Egypt from Turkish ally to nemesis and, in 2014, the United States decided to use the Kurds in their fight against ISIS in Syria.

But for President Erdogan, it was the parallels between Egypt in 2013 and Turkey in 2016 which were the most alarming. US ally the United Arab Emirates backed both the Egyptian military coup and the attempted military coup in Turkey, and Saudi Arabia strongly backed the UAE in these efforts. With signs that the autocratic wing of the Middle-East increasingly had the ear of the United States, it was President Erdogan's decision to compromise with Russia, instead of the US, to yield better results.

Turkish compromise with Russia benefited both parties enormously. Since the Russian-Turkish partnership began, ISIS has been dislodged from all of Syria; Syrian rebels have been moved from various enclaves into Idlib; the US' hold on the Syrian Kurds has been weakened substantially and, recently, the southern half of Idlib was taken back by the Syrian government.

But Russia achieved these only at a price palatable to Turkey. For example, until recently the southern half of Idlib, though devoid of rebels, still had Turkish observation posts throughout - until Turkey intervened in Libya. After Turkey propped up the Government of National Accord in western Libya, Turkey removed its observation posts and ceded control of southern Idlib to the Syrian government.

What seems to be happening is that Turkey is compliant with Russia in Syria only if it receives adequate compensation for doing so. This explains why there is Russian interference across the Middle-East: Russia is using its influence over other Middle-Eastern countries as leverage for Syria. Russian support for Haftar in Libya and the Houthis in Yemen, therefore, is conditional on support for Bashar Al-Assad by regional players.

Crucially, this means that Turkey is likely to, eventually, allow Bashar Al-Assad to regain control over all of Syria - but in return, Russia will likely have to cede to Turkey control of two other nations mired in conflict: Libya and Yemen. Since Russia, Iran and Syria are all under US sanctions and since the autocratic wing of the Middle-East is largely subservient to the United States, Turkey is the only other power that Russia can rely on to attain its vision for Syria.

The reason President Erdogan is eyeing both Libya and Yemen in exchange for Syria goes deeper than influence, though: both Libya and Yemen have a UAE-backed autocratic force vying for control of the country. For Turkey, military intervention in both Libya and Yemen is personal. It is intervention against proxies of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, nations that supported the attempted military coup of July 2016.

Should Turkey succeed in exchanging all of Syria for political control of Libya and Yemen, the autocratic wing of the Middle-East would feel the very pressure that they had once applied to Turkey upon their own heads. After Libya and Yemen, Turkey would do all it could to erode autocratic influence elsewhere - and Saudi Arabia and the UAE in particular would have much to fear from a vengeful Tayyip Erdogan.

Compromising on Libya for Idlib: Putin's grand strategy

Recently, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan sent arms, Syrian militias and his military in support of Libya's Government of National Accord. By doing so, President Erdogan saved the Libyan government from General Haftar's forces, which were marching on the capital Tripoli. Such a move was long ago predicted in our Forgotten Middle-East blog.

By contrast, in February this year Russian, Syrian and Iranian forces clashed with those in Syria's Idlib. Dozens of Turkish soldiers were killed. In retaliation, Turkey unleashed a barrage on approaching Iranian and Syrian targets, only to be stopped by a cease-fire deal reached between President Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The Russian strategy has always been to get Turkey on side in Syria. That Turkey still refuses to compromise suggests that President Putin has not yet offered sufficient compensation to justify Turkish loss of Idlib. To accomplish this, Russia is likely to compromise on Libya.

Turkey is trying to gain drilling rights for gas reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean. If the presence of the Government of National Accord is consolidated over all of Libya, Turkey would no longer be isolated diplomatically in their dispute. Egypt, Israel, Cyprus and Greece all oppose Turkey sharing in the gas reserves of the Mediterranean, and all support Haftar Al-Khalifa in Libya's east.

Russia, meanwhile, has largely supported Haftar Al-Khalifa in concordance with Egypt. But Russia has also encouraged dialogue between Haftar and the Government of National Accord, and its priority remains fixed on Syria. President Putin would not hesitate to seal the fate of Haftar Al-Khalifa if the result was a net gain for Syria.

The Government of National Accord consolidating all of Libya would pose a serious threat to Egyptian President Abdul Feteh As-Sisi. The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood would be revived and supported from Libya which, in turn, would force President Sisi to turn to Russia for help. This provides President Putin with his perfect opportunity.

The only place where Egypt could strike back at Turkey successfully would be in Syria, where the war is nearing its end. Although overt military support is unlikely, diplomatic pressure from Egypt on regional players like Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates and the US could see support for Idlib dropped in favour of a settlement with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad.

For the autocratic wing of the Sunni Middle-East - Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia in particular - losing Haftar in Libya would force a strategic rethink. With Iran under sanctions and Iraq in anti-Iran protests, the autocrats would perceive Turkey as the greater threat to regional stability. This, in turn, only increases the likelihood of a settlement in Syria in favour of Bashar Al-Assad - himself an autocrat - and would once again demonstrate the genius of Russian President Vladimir Putin in his approach to foreign policy.

The Dangers of Modi's India for the West

Coronavirus is the greatest gift China could have given to Narenda Modi's India.

Since 2016, India has been the main beneficiary of the Brexit/Trump era. Since Donald Trump became President of the United States, he has been working hard to strengthen alliances in Asia - not only with South Korea and Japan, but also with India. Additionally, as Britain is leaving Europe, Boris Johnson is turning his attention to improve ties and trade with the once Crown Jewel of the British Empire.

But although India has been called the world's largest democracy, there are legitimate reasons to be suspect of the Modi government. Its track record of human rights abuses towards its minorities are substantial and, until there was international outcry, this policy continued unabated. Today, Narenda Modi continues to harass and displace India's Muslim minority, but there is no reason to suspect that he will not once again return his attention to other minorities once India has grown more powerful.

The Coronavirus outbreak has only accelerated trends that were already well under way from the beginning of the Brexit/Trump era. The world is rejecting globalism and, with it, China's role as a key cornerstone in the global system. What is now accelerating is the speed at which the west is disassociating from China. This will bring more manufacturing jobs from China back to western countries' shores, but it is also very likely to bring more manufacturing power to India.

India is likely to take China's place as the manufacturing hub of the western world. But, like China, India's government is suspect. Some reports link the way Modi's party Bharatiya Janata rose to power with that of Nazism. Though calling right-wing movements like Brexit and the Trump Presidency Nazi is exaggerated rhetoric, Bharatiya Janata's policies of discrimination based on religion and ideology herald back to the German regime much more strongly than either movement in Britain or the US. Bharatiya Janata is a political ideology that sees Hinduism as truly Indian and, therefore, has no qualms with discriminating against other minorities that are not Hindu.

What seems likely to happen is this: as the US and wider western world continues to decline and a Cold War with China heats up, India will take over more of the western world apparatus in the political, economic and military spheres. This is reminiscent of Britain handing over military bases to the United States throughout the Second World War, leaving the United States as the primary superpower of the western world. Unfortunately for the west, Narenda Modi's India would be a very different sort of superpower to the United States.

It is entirely possible - and even likely - that once sufficiently strong enough, India will eventually turn on her allies to take more resources and force the western world to break apart. This has been a pattern throughout history. Some have speculated on a Chinese invasion of Australia. Unfortunately for Australia, in the current circumstances an Indian takeover is much more likely.

The only real hope is that the Indian populace will vote out Modi's government and a more moderate government will take control of India. But it will only be at that time the western world will know for sure just how much the link between Bharatiya Janata and Nazism is justified.