zindapak
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
The geopolitical shift towards the Arab world happened during the tenure of Premier Nikita Khrushev. The Soviet Union was aware of it’s then outstanding technical and financial capabilities, and so he began to perceive newly-raised Arab states, which could be swept by waves of convenient revolutions and revolts, as which could act as fertile grounds to sprawl the Soviet’s roots of power over the region in order to challenge the USA.
Moscow then tried to exploit Arab sentiments after their losses in the war with Israel. However, en masse arms deliveries to Egypt and Syria, not to mention Libya and Iraq, bore no fruits and resulted even in some crushing defeats.
Of course, such fabulous generosity to the fraternal allies of the Soviet Union was totally misunderstood by the Soviet people themselves, especially against the backdrop of constant shortages of food and other products, which Soviet families missed out on a daily basis. The final straw was, of course, to come in 1991, when Soviet shops were virtually empty, sending the Communist party and the state in general into a spiral of doom.
During Boris Yeltsin’s years in power, charge-free assistance to foreign partners was removed from the global strategy, as Russia itself became totally dependent on Western aid. Nevertheless, then-Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Eugeniy Primakov energized steps targeted to consolidate existing contacts in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. and to develop new assets.
Within the last decade of the 20th century, Moscow’s security services experienced a transition in terms of ideology, hence switching from Soviet doctrinal concepts to a more religious orientated notion, which happened to resonate abroad, at a time when many countries came to see religious parties and movements as being at the helm of state.
Although weakened and uncertain about the new future, the first stepping stone towards advancement was Afghanistan, then came support for Iranian Ayatollahs and, up until this time, that particular ball keeps rolling. However, Russian-Iranian relations never seemed to be on a level playing field.
More vigorous efforts in solidifying Russia’s positions in the Middle East were to be taken during Putin’s times. For the record, Primakov remained first fiddle in the Arab play. Nonetheless, Russia was still too weak to deliver anything much.
The foregoing situation was easily explained by a slew of reasons: Russia’s military industrial complex was on its last legs, Russia’s financial might was crushed to the ground, Russia’s time-honoured partners like Syria and Iraq were under sanctions and were insatiably thirsty for money, let alone Russia’s immense dependence on oil and gas revenues. Finally, Russia questionably has rested the majority of its hopes on the export of mineral resources, i.e. oil and gas - a strategy that appears to be ending in tears.
As far as the latter is concerned, the Kremlin has always been interested in keeping oil and gas prices soaringly sky-high, although this is absolutely not in the best interests of the OPEC states. Consequently, their instability came to be a prerequisite of Russian economic gains.
MENA is especially susceptive for the kind of post-Soviet rhetoric, that remains a staple of Kremlin discourse to this day. This is especially true of those circles affiliated to radicalised Arab groupings, such as Palestinian militants, who seem to use missile systems of quite similar configurations of MLRS “Grad-P”, Shia-induced Hezbollah exploiting Kalashnikov assault rifles produced by Russian arms manufacturing plant IgshMash (let alone the latest article penned by “Daily Beast” regarding direct Russian arms sales to Hezbollah).
So, the tools and tactics remained Soviet-styled, however the functionaries no longer respire Communism, but are rather represented by ideology-stripped, stern and profit-thirsty private figures, undoubtedly controlled by Russian security services.
Such tendency bears its dangers. To illustrate that point, it is enough to recall the crisis in the east of Ukraine having become a solid platform for Russian arms trafficking and recruitment of mercenaries willing to fight in the Middle East.
Apart from that, Russia started to use eastern territories of Ukraine to establish illicit arms workshops, especially for the production of so called terrorist weapons, e.g. MLRS “Grad-P”, which is a simplified embodiment of Soviet MLRS BM-21 “Grad”.
The scope of this work and competition to receive a desired future financial reward could be exemplified by the recent litany of deaths occurred in Donbas, i.e. the slaughter of Aleksey Mozgovoy, commander of the terrorist grouping “Prizrak”, and Pavel Dremov, commander of terrorist grouping “Kazachy Polk”, as well as Eugeny Vagner who initially happened to be a killer of the previous two perpetrators. Besides, gossips have it that E. Vagner met the end of his life, because he recruited fighters for the former Russian private company “Slaviansky Corpus” established by FSB.
In 2013 this 200-strong organisation tried to fight war in Syria siding with Bashar el-Asad. However, that attempt to earn a buck failed to bear fruits due to its conflicting nature with the Syrian stance professed by Putin’s proxies, who rested their hopes with ISIS. So far it is generally known that the core of this terrorist organisation was constituted by army officers of Saddam Hussein’s regime and no less than 5000 Russian citizens, who somehow managed to leave Russia in such numbers but oddly failing to attract the notice of the security services.
In this case it is quite strange and alarming that Europe and the USA fail to at least keep abreast with the pace of Russia’s terrorist-peppered arms and media expansion, known as “hybrid war”, which is poised to sprawl further for the sake of the much needed oil price increase that can indeed be catalyzed by war and crisis in the Middle East.
Should Europe fail to give an efficient and effective response, illegal Russian-manufactured military hardware will find its way not only to Arab militants, but it can also fall into the hands of European neo-Nazis infamous for their hatred towards Muslims. Such political parties in the EU are already known to be in receipt of Moscow largesse. There are also still leftist anarchists who are quick on the draw against European nationalists, and who would welcome such assistance from the successors to their fraternal socialist brothers.
Should such a horrendous scenario come true, Moscow will of course be a quantum leap ahead of all others both financially and geopolitically, which should force Washington and Brussels to act on the spot. But will they?
Moscow then tried to exploit Arab sentiments after their losses in the war with Israel. However, en masse arms deliveries to Egypt and Syria, not to mention Libya and Iraq, bore no fruits and resulted even in some crushing defeats.
Of course, such fabulous generosity to the fraternal allies of the Soviet Union was totally misunderstood by the Soviet people themselves, especially against the backdrop of constant shortages of food and other products, which Soviet families missed out on a daily basis. The final straw was, of course, to come in 1991, when Soviet shops were virtually empty, sending the Communist party and the state in general into a spiral of doom.
During Boris Yeltsin’s years in power, charge-free assistance to foreign partners was removed from the global strategy, as Russia itself became totally dependent on Western aid. Nevertheless, then-Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Eugeniy Primakov energized steps targeted to consolidate existing contacts in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region. and to develop new assets.
Within the last decade of the 20th century, Moscow’s security services experienced a transition in terms of ideology, hence switching from Soviet doctrinal concepts to a more religious orientated notion, which happened to resonate abroad, at a time when many countries came to see religious parties and movements as being at the helm of state.
Although weakened and uncertain about the new future, the first stepping stone towards advancement was Afghanistan, then came support for Iranian Ayatollahs and, up until this time, that particular ball keeps rolling. However, Russian-Iranian relations never seemed to be on a level playing field.
More vigorous efforts in solidifying Russia’s positions in the Middle East were to be taken during Putin’s times. For the record, Primakov remained first fiddle in the Arab play. Nonetheless, Russia was still too weak to deliver anything much.
The foregoing situation was easily explained by a slew of reasons: Russia’s military industrial complex was on its last legs, Russia’s financial might was crushed to the ground, Russia’s time-honoured partners like Syria and Iraq were under sanctions and were insatiably thirsty for money, let alone Russia’s immense dependence on oil and gas revenues. Finally, Russia questionably has rested the majority of its hopes on the export of mineral resources, i.e. oil and gas - a strategy that appears to be ending in tears.
As far as the latter is concerned, the Kremlin has always been interested in keeping oil and gas prices soaringly sky-high, although this is absolutely not in the best interests of the OPEC states. Consequently, their instability came to be a prerequisite of Russian economic gains.
MENA is especially susceptive for the kind of post-Soviet rhetoric, that remains a staple of Kremlin discourse to this day. This is especially true of those circles affiliated to radicalised Arab groupings, such as Palestinian militants, who seem to use missile systems of quite similar configurations of MLRS “Grad-P”, Shia-induced Hezbollah exploiting Kalashnikov assault rifles produced by Russian arms manufacturing plant IgshMash (let alone the latest article penned by “Daily Beast” regarding direct Russian arms sales to Hezbollah).
So, the tools and tactics remained Soviet-styled, however the functionaries no longer respire Communism, but are rather represented by ideology-stripped, stern and profit-thirsty private figures, undoubtedly controlled by Russian security services.
Such tendency bears its dangers. To illustrate that point, it is enough to recall the crisis in the east of Ukraine having become a solid platform for Russian arms trafficking and recruitment of mercenaries willing to fight in the Middle East.
Apart from that, Russia started to use eastern territories of Ukraine to establish illicit arms workshops, especially for the production of so called terrorist weapons, e.g. MLRS “Grad-P”, which is a simplified embodiment of Soviet MLRS BM-21 “Grad”.
The scope of this work and competition to receive a desired future financial reward could be exemplified by the recent litany of deaths occurred in Donbas, i.e. the slaughter of Aleksey Mozgovoy, commander of the terrorist grouping “Prizrak”, and Pavel Dremov, commander of terrorist grouping “Kazachy Polk”, as well as Eugeny Vagner who initially happened to be a killer of the previous two perpetrators. Besides, gossips have it that E. Vagner met the end of his life, because he recruited fighters for the former Russian private company “Slaviansky Corpus” established by FSB.
In 2013 this 200-strong organisation tried to fight war in Syria siding with Bashar el-Asad. However, that attempt to earn a buck failed to bear fruits due to its conflicting nature with the Syrian stance professed by Putin’s proxies, who rested their hopes with ISIS. So far it is generally known that the core of this terrorist organisation was constituted by army officers of Saddam Hussein’s regime and no less than 5000 Russian citizens, who somehow managed to leave Russia in such numbers but oddly failing to attract the notice of the security services.
In this case it is quite strange and alarming that Europe and the USA fail to at least keep abreast with the pace of Russia’s terrorist-peppered arms and media expansion, known as “hybrid war”, which is poised to sprawl further for the sake of the much needed oil price increase that can indeed be catalyzed by war and crisis in the Middle East.
Should Europe fail to give an efficient and effective response, illegal Russian-manufactured military hardware will find its way not only to Arab militants, but it can also fall into the hands of European neo-Nazis infamous for their hatred towards Muslims. Such political parties in the EU are already known to be in receipt of Moscow largesse. There are also still leftist anarchists who are quick on the draw against European nationalists, and who would welcome such assistance from the successors to their fraternal socialist brothers.
Should such a horrendous scenario come true, Moscow will of course be a quantum leap ahead of all others both financially and geopolitically, which should force Washington and Brussels to act on the spot. But will they?
