Ukraine: Russia’s quagmire

(Link on Daily Trust)

When Russia’s President Vladimir Putin decided to invade Ukraine a few months ago, he apparently never envisaged any hurdles tough enough to frustrate his mission of invading it within the time frame he had set. 

Though a former intelligence officer with the widely dreaded former USSR’s KGB, President Putin hardly considered underlying challenges with potential to undermine his adventure and turn Ukraine into a quagmire for Russia. And even if he had, he must have grossly underestimated their impacts. 

President Putin also never considered how Soviet ended up in the quagmire of Afghanistan, which it invaded in 1979 but was forced out of it disgraced 10 years later by largely US-supported Afghan resistance fighters. 

In his Ukraine adventure, President Putin must have been carried away by Russia’s disproportionately stronger military power, which he must have thought was all he needed to crush the Ukrainian army and invade the country. He had probably imagined a scenario similar to his 1999 invasion of Chechnya, which he subjected to sustained, merciless and simultaneous ground and airstrikes of disproportionate proportion, resulting in the elimination of thousands of people and almost total destruction of the country, especially its capital Grozny. He had equally probably thought that Russia's Euro-American rivals would react to his invasion of Ukraine in the same way they reacted to his invasion of Chechnya when they looked on while his forces were literally grinding Chechnya. 

Though the disparity between Russia and Ukraine in terms of military power is so disproportionate that the former can literally wipe out the latter in no time, it takes an all-out war for that to happen, which is absolutely unlikely not only between them but between other countries for that matter; because countries in the modern-day world are so interdependent and bound by intricately interwoven interests that guide their respective policies, actions and inactions. 

Therefore, in the unlikelihood of an all-out war between Russia and Ukraine more so between Russia and NATO, and even though Russia has maintained the upper hand, the likelihood of it achieving a decisive victory is increasingly becoming unrealizable. 

Russian forces have been grappling with stiff resistance from the Ukrainian army, which has managed to frustrate Russian troops’ attempts to advance into major cities in the country, thanks to the technologically superior Euro-American weapons being supplied to them. Interestingly, though largely defensive, the weapons have proven not only effective but have also exposed the relative weakness of the Russian military’s offensive equipment. 

Likewise, the apparently superior intelligence that the US and its European allies are sharing with Ukraine thanks to which it has been able to eliminate some senior Russian military officers including generals, has exposed Russia’s relatively inferior counterintelligence capabilities. 

Meanwhile, public resentment in Russia has been growing as the impacts of Euro-American economic sanctions worsen. Also, the number of Russian political, business and military elites being affected by targeted and potentially crippling sanctions grows. Besides, the general public, who had been assured by President Putin that the war won’t be long and that it would end with a decisive victory for Russia, are equally growing increasingly disappointed over the rate at which Russia is losing troops on the battlefield.

Obviously, President Putin, deep down, realises the potential implications of those underlying challenges on his administration. However, his characteristic ego may not allow him to consider a tactical and face-saving call-off of the invasion. Besides, as he runs out of military options to achieve a decisive victory, other “cards” he had counted on to blackmail his Euro-American rivals into concessions are losing their relevance. For instance, European countries are somehow increasingly securing alternative sources of gas supply with potentially enough quantity to enable them to dispense with Russian gas altogether. They are growing more confident that they would be able to achieve that in the nearest future to the extent that Germany, which is the largest European economy that has heavily relied on Russian gas supply, is now pushing for the European Union’s outright ban of Russian gas. The Union is already working on addressing the concerns of some few member-states before a unanimous decision to that effect is taken.  

Faced with that dilemma amid a growing international backlash against his Ukraine adventure, President Putin may resort to more desperate measures with a view to decisively ending the war with a Russian imposed political reality in Ukraine. He may, for instance, repeat the scorched earth approach he adopted to subdue Chechnya in 1999. The approach entails an outright and simultaneous deployment of a disproportionate number of air, ground and naval forces armed with a disproportionate amount of weapons and military equipment to overwhelm the Ukrainian military, massacre the population and cause massive and irreparable destruction of public infrastructure.   

However, this approach isn’t feasible under the current circumstances. Besides, in the event of its occurrence, Ukraine’s Euro-American allies would certainly provide it with appropriate defensive weapons to frustrate the attempt.  

Perhaps, the only feasible strategy for President Putin, which he is already reportedly pursuing, is to deprive Ukraine of its geographical attractiveness to NATO by cutting it off the coasts of the Black Sea, which NATO is hell-bent on expanding further into through Ukraine. Putin’s apparent determination to create as many enclaves of separatists within Ukraine as possible to struggle for recognition as sovereign states is reportedly aimed at achieving that strategy.  

Is the US-Saudi alliance crumbling? (ll)

 (Link on Daily Trust)

Crown Prince, Mohammad ibn Salman, President Joe Biden 

Despite President Joe Biden’s pre-election anti-Saudi stance, which he maintained all through his campaign as the then-Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate, many observers were deep down unconvinced that he would pursue measures that may damage the US-Saudi alliance.  

After all, during every pre-election season in the United States, opposition candidates would always accuse the incumbent President of hypocrisy over America's continued alliance with Saudi Arabia despite being, according to US standards, an absolute monarchy that contradicts whatever the US stands for. Yet, hardly anything changes in reality afterwards regardless of who wins the election. Perhaps, former US President, Donald Trump’s dramatic transformation from a relentless anti-Saudi presidential candidate to a Saudi-friendly president immediately afterwards was the most interesting instance in this regard.

However, there has been a departure from that trend in Washington since President Joe Biden’s coming into power. That was first observed shortly after he assumed office. It’s an established tradition in the White House that when the President has settled down within the first few weeks in office, he would phone up leaders of some selected US allies including Saudi Arabia. 

Such a phone call, which was supposed to be between President Biden and the Saudi King, Salman ibn Abdul-Aziz was called off, because Saudi Arabia delegated the Crown Prince Mohammad Ibn Salman to speak with Biden. 

Since his appointment as Crown Prince in 2017, Mohammad ibn Salman has acted as the de facto king of the Kingdom and has been effectively treated as such by leaders around the world. 

However, President Biden turned down the proposal to speak with ibn Salman, arguing that he would only speak with King Salman himself, for he is his counterpart, not ibn Salman. The Saudis insisted on ibn Salman and consequently, the arrangements for the phone call were called off altogether. 

President Biden also embarked on a sustained vilification campaign against the Crown Prince, ibn Salman, capitalizing on his alleged involvement in the murder of a Saudi dissident, Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul in 2018. And to further spite the Saudis, President Biden delisted the Iranian proxy Houthi militia group in Yemen from the US list of terrorist groups; stopped US intelligence support to the Saudi-led Arab coalition against the militia; suspended arms deals with Saudi Arabia and withdrew the US air defence system in the Kingdom. 

He also embarked on reviving the controversial Obama-engineered Iran nuclear deal, which would have effectively enabled Iran to be a recognised nuclear power after only 10 years had the deal not been rendered ineffective by Trump’s subsequent withdrawal of the US from it. 

Interestingly, Biden rightly realises that Iran’s nuclear ambition never poses any threat to the West or even Israel for that matter, after all. He realises that Iran only pursues nuclear in the context of its pursuit of geopolitical dominance at the expense of, particularly, Saudi Arabia, which is its ultimate target all along. 

Anyway, on its part, Saudi Arabia has quietly maintained its moves in US Congress and the White House to undermine Biden’s increasingly hostile stance against it. Besides, the implications of the Russia-Ukraine war on global crude oil supply have presented the Kingdom with an opportunity to blackmail the US into concessions.   

Since the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, crude oil prices have gone up, causing persistent rises in energy prices in the United States thereby further worsening its already worst inflation in 40 years. Consequently, public frustration has been rising as prices of gasoline, food, goods and services continue to rise in the country. 

Of course, President Biden and indeed his Democratic Party cannot afford to underestimate the political implications of the persistence of this situation, especially with the approach of midterm elections in November. 

Ordinarily, in a situation like this, the United States would request Saudi Arabia and/or the largely Saudi-influenced OPEC to increase the oil supply to arrest the rising prices. However, the situation this time around persists against the backdrop of strained relations between the two countries. 

The US has, through various channels and at various levels, reached out to the Saudis, requesting them to increase the supply but to no avail as the Saudis have ignored the requests. It got to a point where President Biden himself swallowed his pride and requested to phone up Mohammad ibn Salman who turned down the request. 

Though since the eruption of the Russia-Ukraine war and its attendant surge in oil prices, Saudi Arabia has indeed increased the supply albeit irregularly, its effect on energy prices in the United States has remained insignificant and inconsistent, because the increase has been disproportionately and tactically insignificant. 

While the almost eighty-year-old US-Saudi alliance is steadily crumbling, it may not end up in an open-ended faceoff between the two countries. Obviously, Saudi Arabia wants to keep the US an important but not indispensable ally. That is quite obvious from its increasingly determined pursuit of sustainable industrialization and its growing strategic economic and military ties with China and Russia with its potential to change the geopolitical power equation in the region and beyond.    

Is the US-Saudi alliance crumbling? (1)

(Link on Daily Trust)

King Abdul-Azeez Al Saud and President Franklin Roosevelt

To comprehend the dimensions and dynamics of the increasingly deteriorating Saudi-US alliance and its implications on both countries, the Middle East and the world at large, it’s important to look at the alliance against the backdrop of its historical and strategic contexts.  

It all started in early 1945 towards the end of World War ll amid worries of a looming shortage of crude oil supply badly needed for post-war reconstruction and economic recovery around the world. 

The United States was busy capitalizing on the prevailing circumstances to influence the formation process of the post-war global political and economic order. The United Nations (UN) was formally founded barely a month after the end of the war. The United States was increasingly desperate for a reliable source of uninterrupted oil supply for its domestic consumption and in pursuit of the economic aspect of its global ambition. 

Meanwhile, a massive crude oil reserve with proven potential to be the world’s largest source of oil had been discovered in the then only thirteen-year-old Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which was equally in a dare need of a strategic partner with appropriate technological capabilities to develop and operate the oil sector, and indeed oversee the capacity development of generations of Saudis in various relevant engineering and technical fields. 

Also, considering the circumstances through which the Kingdom came into existence, it was expecting a partner with military capabilities strong and advanced enough to ensure the survival of the Kingdom against any foreign aggression or subversive activities from within. 

Preliminary contacts in that regard were established, which culminated in the February 1945 historic meeting on an American naval ship in the Suez Canal between the then US President, Franklin Roosevelt and the founder of Saudi Arabia, King Abdul-Azeez ibn AbdurRahman Al Saud. 

Since then the US secured access to the world’s largest source of crude oil on highly favourable purchase terms, which also opened the Saudi market for US corporations and manufacturers, marking the beginning of the dominance of American-made products in Saudi Arabia. In return, the US has, among other things, been committed to developing the Kingdom’s defence and intelligence capabilities, and indeed supporting it diplomatically in regional and international politics. 

Over the decades, the alliance has transcended administration and reign levels in Washington and Riyadh respectively, to establishment levels in both countries. Likewise, top business and political elites in both countries have maintained networks of friendship in each other’s country. 

The first major faceoff between the countries was in 1973 when the then Saudi King, Faisal ibn AbdulAzeez led Arab members of the OPEC into imposing an oil embargo on the US and some other western countries, in protest of, particularly, the US continued support of Israel in its war with Arabs. The embargo caused the worst energy crisis in the US since World War ll. The faceoff deteriorated to the extent that the then US President, Richard Nixon considered invading Saudi, Kuwait and UAE oilfields.  

The current deterioration in the US-Saudi relations is a resumption of what had begun during the Barack Obama administration. Though the relations were largely normalized during the Trump administration only to take a nosedive with the coming of President Joe Biden into power.

As a notoriously radical liberal, Barack Obama, assisted by particularly the then Vice-President Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, the then US Secretary of State and Susan Rice, the then US Ambassador to the United Nations and later US National Security Adviser, vigorously pursued radical political changes across the Middle East and North Africa during the so-called Arab Spring in 2011. The chaos it unleashed, which swept away regimes, destabilized many and indeed threatened the continued existence of all left Saudi Arabia utterly disappointed with the Obama administration.   

The Obama administration, on its part, was hugely frustrated by the Saudi’s resolute resistance against the “spring”, which averted Syria-like situations in the Gulf region. The then US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was particularly frustrated when she failed to dissuade Saudi Arabia from sending troops to neighbouring Bahrain to prevent looming chaos in the name of protests. In one of her declassified emails, Hillary Clinton lamented that “I warned Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal against sending the Peninsula Shield forces to Bahrain in 2011 because this might cause a crisis between the US and Saudi Arabia, but Prince Saud hung up the phone in my face, and forces were sent to Bahrain for its protection.” 

Now, having come into power as President, Joe Biden was/is, of course, more frustrated than Hillary. That’s why no sooner had he assumed office than he embarked on policies and measures that undermine the longstanding US-Saudi alliance. He even vowed to make a pariah out of the Kingdom. 

On its part, Saudi Arabia has since resorted to fighting back largely from within the US political establishment itself, using lobbying to blackmail Biden through members of the opposition Conservative Party and even his Democratic Party, for that matter. 

In the conclusion, I will, God willing, look at how either country plays its tactics, and indeed how it seeks to blackmail the other into submission.     To be concluded

As Rainbow resumes...

(Link on Daily Trust)

This piece marks the resumption of this column after more than a ten-week unannounced break necessitated by travels and other distracting schedules too successive to accommodate writing a newspaper article. It has been the longest break since the launch of this column more than ten years ago, though it was only titled Rainbow last year.  

I appreciate the understanding of those who, all through, looked forward to my humble thoughts on some interesting developments on the global stage. Many reached out wondering about my prolonged inactivity in both print and electronic media. My appreciation also goes to Daily Trust’s Editor-in-Chief and others who checked on me.

Though, writing and, of course, maintaining a regular newspaper column, more so weekly, is fulfilling, it’s equally demanding. It’s fulfilling in the sense that one derives the fulfilment of literally relieving one’s mind of some nagging thoughts over some developments, events or issues one addresses regardless of who agrees or disagrees with one. Once one feels strongly about something, a persistently nagging urge to write it sets in especially when one observes the need for an alternative perspective. 

That’s also particularly demanding when one is expected to write on a regular basis to maintain a column. It’s even more demanding when one isn’t in a particularly enabling field e.g. journalism, for, in this case, one has to always struggle to meet the deadline for sending in one’s piece while still constantly obsessed with what to write about next amid other unrelated schedules. At this juncture, I must appreciate the editor for bearing with me as I mostly manage to send in my piece quite late. 

Yet, maintaining the column has been fulfilling anyway; the associated pressure, being self-induced, has been exciting. That’s what happens when one is driven by a sheer passion to do things voluntarily. The like-minded would certainly relate more. 

Now, though a lot of interesting developments especially on the international scene have occurred over the break, I would, God willing, revisit the most relevant of them in due course to highlight their underlying politics, geopolitical, economic and strategic implications. 

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war along with its attendant US-led NATO and Russia geopolitical power struggle and its economic and political implications on the global stage would remain of particular interest to this column. After all, my last piece was at the height of the tensions between the two countries a few days before it escalated into a full-scale war.

In a broader context, Rainbow would equally be addressing instances of Russia’s assertive pursuit of global political influence that suggests its determination to grow influential enough to rival the US. 

Rainbow would similarly be looking at instances of China’s resolve to equally grow strong enough militarily to rival the US having already risen to become the world’s second-largest economy after the US, and is, in fact, expected to overtake it.

Also, as the world consequently and steadily transforms from unipolar, where the US has practically enjoyed unrivalled global influence since the collapse of the former USSR in 1991, into a multipolar world, Rainbow would be examining the multifaceted implications of that transformation in international politics.  

Rainbow would also be looking at the lingering negotiations between some major western powers and Iran over the latter’s nuclear program to examine the dilemma behind President Biden's failure to revive the deal, which was rendered effectively ineffective by his predecessor Donald Trump following his withdrawal from it. 

Another interesting development that Rainbow would be examining is Turkish President Erdoğan’s persistent entreaties to pacify and restore normal ties with the countries he  fell out with in, the Middle East e.g. the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and even Israel.

Equally interesting is the unprecedented deterioration in the almost eighty-year-old US-Saudi alliance under the current administration in Washington and reigning reign in Riyadh. Rainbow would be addressing the development by tracing its genesis and highlighting the interests involved and its geopolitical implications in the region and economic impacts beyond. 

Of course, the decades-old Palestinian-Israel conflict and its complex impacts in the Middle East and indeed international politics would always remain a matter of major interest to Rainbow, for, after all, it’s the “mother” of all crises in the region. 

As usual also, Rainbow would also be analyzing other global and geopolitical issues to identify the underlying interests of the countries involved and look at how each country plays its politics in pursuit of its interests.