The international community should amend its counterterrorism legislation by coordinating national laws as much as possible to create a homogeneous legal framework….The view that we are witnessing a clash of civilizations must be dispelled…There will be little hope for deliverance from the plague of terrorism unless peace is established in the Middle East.****It took a quarter of a century to see that the ‘end of history’ predicted by Francis Fukuyama was not going to happen…The period since the end of the 20th century has been marked by a craving for freedom of choice in everything, and decreasing trust in social and political institutions.****The Khmer Rouge, who committed more atrocities than ISIS and also hated the West, were not Muslims…The problem is rooted in the intractable economic and social problems facing the majority of third-world countries.****It is difficult to know where the interfaith disputes will end and start…a struggle for territories, oil and control over energy supply routes…the time has come to consider the options, to look for parallels in global experience, and to probe the obvious and hidden implications of the processes occurring in the Middle East…The crucial component is an unconditional respect for state sovereignty and a renunciation of attempts to supplant it with policies of political expediency.
All four quotations above are from articles in the journal “Rossia v globalnoi politke”(“Russia in Global Affairs”) republished in a new book, “Russia and the Middle East: Viewpoints, Policies, Strategies.” The selection of 28, going back to 2004, opens a window on debates within Russia and illuminates the thinking behind its Middle East policies.
These years have seen the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the demise of Israeli-Palestinian talks as the Israelis change the demography of occupied land, the signing and strangling of a U.N.-endorsed international treaty limiting Iran’s nuclear program, and mass migration within and from Middle Eastern countries undergoing violent upheaval. During that time, “Russia in Global Affairs” has analyzed trends and weighed up Russian options.
The book emerged from contacts between Fyodor Lukyanov, who edits “Rossia v globalnoi politke” (its English-language online journal is a partial translation of the Russian), and former Russian diplomat Dima Frangulov, vice-president of East View Information Services, a data provider and publisher based in Minneapolis. Lukyanov sent the proposal for the book around the time Laurence Bogoslaw, an American Slavist of Ukrainian heritage, became head of East View Press.
“This is a perspective not often heard, or written about, in the West, at least in the United States,” Bogoslaw tells me. “Once I was in the nitty-gritty, I was even more convinced of that. The book shows Russian views of how America has behaved in the Middle East, and presents, by contrast, how Russia views the region and how it has behaved in the region.”
Analysis of the Middle East by “experts” and journalists in the U.S. often follows the agendas of whoever funds or sponsors particular think-tanks or media outlets. This has led not just to consistent misunderstandings of the Middle East, but also difficulty grasping Russian policy. Lukyanov himself is described as something close to an official mouthpiece — “close to Vladimir Putin,” according to the Financial Times, and a “foreign policy adviser to the Russian government,” according to the Economist.
Bogoslaw is under no illusions as to Lukyanov’s position near “the center of what’s acceptable journalism” in Russia. But he says Lukyanov and the publications he edits are vigorous and informed: “I admire his independent, fact-based points of view, I don’t see him as a Kremlin ideologue. He is thoughtful, and has perspective. He asks questions. He considers what the consequences [of any action] might be: how will Russia react, how will Iran react, how will American react?”
The pieces in the book show a range in both opinion and approach. Yes, there are leading diplomats: Yevgeny Primakov, the late foreign minister and prime minister, and Sergey Lavrov, the current Russian foreign minister, present a more "official view.” The Russian foreign service has had an interest in vostokovedenie (“knowledge of the East”) and blizhnii vostok (the “Near East”) since Tsarist times. Primakov, who died in 2015, was one of the service’s Arabists, while Moscow’s current Tehran ambassador, Levan Dzhagarian, gives interviews for the Iranian media in a fluent Persian.
The pieces in “Russia and the Middle East” reflect a variety of thought and opinion as well as language skills. Yevgeny Satanovsky, who has three pieces in the collection, is close to Likud in his attitude to Israel, describes the peace process as “another war,” and suggests Europe is being “Islamized.” Meanwhile, Aleksei Malashenko finds Islamophobia more prevalent in popular Russian culture than traditional anti-Semitism.
In general, these Russian authors are critical of those who demonize Muslims, despite Russia’s tough action in Chechnya and Syria and despite the national traumas of the 2002 Moscow theatre siege — when at least 170 died — and the 2004 Beslan school hostage crisis — when at least 334 died, including 186 children. Some show acute awareness of geographical proximity in their concern over Islamist parties and ideology in Central Asia, including the former Soviet republics, Afghanistan, and the Caucasian parts of Russia.
Bogoslaw notes this is contentious ground: “[They’re asking] how do we as Russians live with Islam, and what is its future as a component of government. In America it’s more ‘Why can’t they get it right? Why can’t they just separate church and state the way we do?’ There’s a more nuanced view in Russia, perhaps because there have been several forms of government on Russian territory in recent history.”
Hence the authors tend to accept that Islam – whether that of the Gulf monarchies or of the Muslim Brotherhood – cannot be somehow excised from politics in the Middle East. There is also an awareness, familiar from Russia’s 19th century debates between Slavophiles and Westernizers, that concepts of “East” and “West” are fluid.
Another theme is stability, which many of the writers stress and value more highly than moralizing. “That’s definitely a strong motif in the book,” agrees Bogoslaw. “When people are killing one another, fighting over territory, you really can’t afford to draw the line between ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys,’ especially if it comes to refusing to negotiate. Yes, there are extremists, but most of these movements are trying to protect what they have, or to take back what they have lost.”
This also feeds skepticism over street protests and the “Arab Spring.” Possibly underlying this is Russia’s 20th century experience of the 1917 Revolution, famine, collectivization, and total war — as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union.
“[T]he balance of pros and cons of regime change in the Middle East has not been in favor of revolutions,” write Aleksandr Aksenyonok and Irina Zvyagelskaya. “The experience of most revolutions in the world shows that power is not taken by the forces that stage them but by those who have ‘caught the wave’ with foreign support or by chance.”
The collection shows early concern over Russia’s military intervention in Syria in 2015 gradually lifting. By 2016, Ruslan Pukhov can draw specific military lessons. But even so, the Russian analysts consistently stress — as in Aleksei Arbatov’s 2005 piece “Winning a War Without Losing the Peace” on Chechnya, Afghanistan, and Iraq — that armed intervention must have a clear political purpose and strategy.
Unsurprisingly, criticisms of the U.S. abound. Pyotr Stegny detects lingering influence of Washington’s relations with Islamist radicals forged in Afghanistan in the 1980s. References to the Iraq invasion and “forcible democratization” pepper the book.
But this isn’t just point-scoring. There is recurrent stress on state sovereignty and the need for international rules and security frameworks. In an introduction to the book, Richard Sakwa — Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent in England and author of the forthcoming "The Putin Paradox" — notes that although “the behavior of great powers does not always accord with their normative commitments,” the stress of Russian analysts and policy-makers “is on making the existing international system work better, rather than overturning the present order to create something new.”
Russia will define its national interest and act to protect it. This predictability, even conservatism, underlies Russian success in developing working relations with Saudi Arabia as well as Iran, and with Turkey and Israel, where 12 percent of voters speak Russian. It has made Moscow the main arbitrator in Syria, replacing departing U.S. troops in the mainly Kurdish northeast and supervising the Astana peace process. We have even had a recent Washington Post op-ed by Dennis Ross, former U.S. diplomat and founder of the pro-Israel United Against Nuclear Iran, suggesting that Russia mediate between Tehran and Washington.
“Russia and the Middle East: Viewpoints, Policies, Strategies” closes with a piece published at the end of 2018 in which Lukyanov bemoans the lack of U.S.-Russian co-operation in Syria while judging Moscow’s intervention as a “poster child of Russian success.” This he measures by the crushing of Islamist radicals, the bolstering of Moscow’s ally President Bashar al-Assad and the boosting of Russia’s “military and political impact on the global stage.”
Others have written in Russia in Global Affairs of the military success. Lukyanov emphasizes political-turned-diplomatic achievement, which surely stands in contrast to simplistic U.S. policies and zig-zags. His studied realism is light years from the hyperbole and inconsistent moralizing of so many American commentators.
“The preserved Astana format…bears witness to the cooperation of states that are largely distrustful of each other and have different interests in most regards…the Russia-Turkey-Iran triangle demonstrates a new type of partnership, he says. “The parties are united by the desire not to attain a common goal, but for each to achieve its own. However, each party understands that the other two make it all possible.”
Two years ago on Feb. 24, 2022, the world watched as Russian tanks rolled into the outskirts of Kyiv and missiles struck the capital city.
Contrary to initial predictions, Kyiv never fell, but the country today remains embroiled in conflict. The front line holds in the southeastern region of the country, with contested areas largely focused on the Russian-speaking Donbas and port cities around the Black Sea.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, having recognized the Russian-occupied territories of Donetsk and Luhansk as independent days before the invasion, has from the beginning declared the war a “special military operation” to “demilitarize and denazify” Ukraine. His goals have alternated, however, between existential — bringing all of Ukraine into the influence of Russia — and strategic — laying claim to only those Russian-speaking areas in the east and south of the country.
It is in the latter that Russia has been much more successful. Yet after two winters of brutal fighting and hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides, as of the end of 2023 Russia only laid claim to 18% of Ukraine’s territory, as compared to 7% on the eve of the war and 27% in the weeks after the invasion.
Meanwhile, the West’s coffers have been opened — and, as some say, drained — to help Ukraine’s government, led by President Volodymyr Zelensky, defend itself against Moscow.
Regardless, Ukraine’s military forces have been wholly depleted as they compete with a much more resourced and populous Russia. While Ukraine’s military campaign was able to take advantage of Russian tactical mistakes in the first year, its much-heralded counteroffensive in 2023 failed to provide the boost needed not only to rid the country of the Russian occupation, but also to put Kyiv in the best position to call for terms.
If anything, as Quincy Institute experts Anatol Lieven and George Beebe point out in their new brief, “there is now little realistic prospect of further Ukrainian territorial gains on the battlefield, and there is a significant risk that Ukraine might exhaust its manpower and munitions and lay itself open to a devastating Russian counterattack.”
The only and best solution, they say, is to drive all sides to the negotiating table before Ukraine is destroyed.
The narrative of the war — how it began, where it is today — is well documented. On the second anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion, RS thought it might be instructive to look at the numbers — weapons, aid, polling, population, and more — that illustrate the cost and the contours of the conflict over 24 months, and counting.
The U.S. Congress has allocated a total of $113 billion in funding related to the war. The vast majority of this money went directly to defending Ukraine ($45.2 billion in military aid) and keeping its government and society functioning ($46 billion in economic and humanitarian aid). Other funds went to rearming allies ($4.7 billion) and expanding U.S. military operations in Europe ($15.2 billion).
After two years of war, that funding has dried up. The Biden administration, which once shipped two or three new weapons packages each month, has not sent Ukraine a major arms shipment since Dec. 27, 2023. As Congress struggles to pass an additional $60 billion in Ukraine-related funding, observers increasingly believe that aid package may have been the last.
The Pentagon has sent at least 3,097,000 rounds of artillery to Ukraine since Russia’s invasion. Most of those (2,000,000) have been 155 mm shells, the standard size used by the U.S. and its NATO allies. For perspective, that’s about 95,000 tons of 155 mm ammunition alone.
Despite ramping up military manufacturing, the U.S. still only produces about 340,000 155 mm shells per year, meaning that Ukraine has been firing rounds at three times the rate of American production.
Washington has also given Kyiv 76 tanks, including 31 Abrams tanks and 45 Soviet-era T-72Bs. Ukraine has received 3,631 American armored vehicles of various types, from infantry fighting vehicles to personnel carriers and medical trucks.
Meanwhile, Ukraine has made use of 39 American-made HIMARS, a mobile rocket launcher that has become famous for its utility in the war. As for smaller arms, the U.S. has sent at least 400,000,000 grenades and bullets in the past 24 months.
The war has killed at least 10,378 civilians and injured an additional 19,632, according to the UN. More than three in four non-combatant casualties occurred in areas held by the Ukrainian government, indicating that Moscow is responsible for the lion’s share of civilian harm.
When it comes to military casualties, good data still remains hard to come by and estimates are sometimes wildly different. Neither Russia nor Ukraine have offered detailed, public indications of the war’s impact on their soldiers.
The U.S. estimated in August that 70,000 Ukrainian soldiers had died and an additional 100,000 to 120,000 had been injured, putting the number of total casualties at over 170,000. Russia, for its part, claimed in November that 383,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been killed or wounded.
On the other side, the United Kingdom estimates that Russia has suffered at least 320,000 casualties, with 50,000 deaths among Russian soldiers and 20,000 deaths among Wagner Group mercenaries. Washington said in December that Moscow had suffered 315,000 casualties, though American officials did not provide a breakdown of deaths and injuries.
The United Nations estimates that the Ukrainian population (the entire country within internationally recognized borders), which totaled 43.5 million people in 2021, dropped to 39.7 million in 2022 as war swept through the country’s east. This trend continued into 2023, as the population dropped to 36.7 million — the lowest level since Ukraine became independent in 1990.
As of January, 6.3 million Ukrainians have become refugees abroad, with another 3.7 million displaced internally. As the frontlines have settled, Ukraine’s population has slowly started to grow again, reaching 37.9 million in early 2024. Meanwhile, demographer Elena Libanova estimates that only 28 million of those people live within areas currently under Ukrainian government control (outside of Crimea and the Donbas).
Two new polls that came out within the last week illustrate the complexities of Americans’ feelings toward the war in Ukraine and the U.S. role in it.
First, a Pew poll published February 16 found that a large majority of Americans (74%) see the war between Russia and Ukraine as somewhat (30%) or very important (43%) to U.S. interests. And another survey, from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, found that Americans broadly support a U.S.-led negotiated end to the conflict.
But the past few months in Washington have been largely focused on U.S. aid to Ukraine, specifically whether Congress will pass President Biden’s request for roughly $60 billion for Kyiv’s fight against Russia.
According to Pew, in March 2022, 74% of Americans said U.S. aid to Ukraine was “just right” or “not enough.” In December 2023, that same survey found that just 47% said the same. The biggest change came from Republicans: 49% said in March, 2022 that U.S. aid was “not enough,” while just 13% said the same in December.
Meanwhile, Gallup found in August 2022 that 74% of Americans said U.S. aid to Ukraine was “about right” (36%) or “not enough” (38%). Those numbers came down slightly in Gallup’s latest track on this question in October, 2023, with 58% saying U.S. aid was about right (33%) or not enough (25%).
There have been several attempts to bring nations together to outline talks to end the war. Russia and Ukraine engaged in five rounds of talks in Belarus and Turkey shortly after the invasion, but the talks collapsed amid allegations of Russian war crimes and Western pressure on Kyiv to keep fighting.
Since then, the belligerents have spoken directly about secondary issues, like Black Sea shipping and prisoner swaps. Ukraine, meanwhile, laid out a “10-point peace plan” that has formed the basis for five international summits, none of which included Russia. These took place in Copenhagen, Denmark, in June 2023; in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, in August 2023; in Malta in October, 2023; in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in December 2023; and Davos, Switzerland, in January of this year.
Since the start of the war, Congress has passed four aid packages for Ukraine, totaling $113 billion. While none of the four packages were identical and aid for Ukraine was sometimes bundled with other spending, the trends for support for Kyiv in Congress are similar to those we see in polling, particularly among congressional Republicans.
The 2022 supplemental, which became law in May 2022 and provided Ukraine with $39.34 billion in aid passed the House 368-57 and the Senate by a vote of 86-11. By September 2023, when the House voted on the Ukraine Security Assistance and Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, which provided Kyiv with $300 million in security assistance, it passed by a vote of 311-117, with a majority of Republican members opposing the legislation.
On February 12 of this year, the Senate voted 70-29 to pass a national security supplemental, which would provide approximately $60 billion in aid for Kyiv alongside money for Israel and partners in the Indo-Pacific. The bill has not yet been voted on in the House.
Ben Armbruster, Blaise Malley, Connor Echols and Kelley Vlahos contributed reporting. Graphics by Khody Akhavi.
keep readingShow less
A woman lays flowers at the monument to the victims of political repressions following the death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, in Moscow, Russia February 16, 2024. REUTERS/Stringer
President Biden was entirely correct in the first part of his judgment on the death of Alexei Navalny: “Putin is responsible, whether he ordered it, or he is responsible for the circumstances he put that man in.” Even if Navalny eventually died of “natural causes,” his previous poisoning, and the circumstances of his imprisonment, must obviously be considered as critical factors in his death.
For his tremendous courage in returning to Russia after his medical treatment in the West — knowing well the dangers that he faced — the memory of Navalny should be held in great honor. He joins the immense list of Russians who have died for their beliefs at the hands of the state. Public expressions of anger and disgust at the manner of his death are justified and correct.
The problem comes with the other part of Biden’s statement, that “[Navalny’s death] is a reflection of who [Putin] is. And it just cannot be tolerated.” If he had said “approved,” “justified,” or “defended,” that would have been absolutely right. But “tolerated”? What can Biden do in response, that he has not done already?
The U.S. president has promised major new sanctions intended to “cut Russia off from the world economy” — but that requires Washington to control the world economy. Economic sanctions against Russia in response to the invasion of Ukraine have failed, and even strengthened the Russian economy and the state’s grip on it. They cannot be significantly extended, because this would damage and infuriate countries that are dependent on Russian energy exports, including India, a key U.S. partner. As to sanctions against Russian individuals part of or linked to the Russian regime, there are already thousands of them, and they have had no effect whatsoever.
Statements like Biden’s are both pointless and dangerous. For the spoken or unspoken implication is that it is impossible to deal with Putin. But like it or not, Putin is the president of Russia. To all appearances, he will remain so for a considerable time to come, and will hand over to a successor of his own choosing. The Biden administration has said that it wants Ukrainian victory (whatever that now means), but it has also said that it believes that the war will end in negotiations, and following the failure of last year’s Ukrainian offensive, is now reported to be moving in this direction.
Who does Biden think that he will negotiate with, if not Putin? Seeking talks on an end to the Ukraine war does not imply approval of Putin’s crimes or his invasion of Ukraine, any more than the Eisenhower administration’s negotiation of an end to the Korean War implied approval of the North Korean regime and its invasion of South Korea.
By its own account, the Biden administration has supposedly made the promotion of democracy around the world a central part of its diplomacy, with the clear implication that only democratic governments that respect human rights are truly legitimate. Actual U.S. diplomacy does not work like this and never has; not because of American imperialist or capitalist wickedness, but because the world does not work like this.
Nobody should be required to like or admire the governments of Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi, Mohammed Bin Salman or Narendra Modi (though we might well wish that U.S. officials had been less effusive in their praise of them). Like Putin, they are however the heads of their countries’ governments, and likely to remain so. You deal with Saudi Arabia and India — and you have to deal with Saudi Arabia and India — you deal with MBS and Modi.
The other thing to be wary of in the outpouring of outrage at the death of Navalny, is that this is already being used to build a strategy of greatly increased Western official support for the Russian opposition. Many (not all) people and groups in the Russian liberal opposition are personally and politically admirable. Some, like Navalny, have shown tremendous courage. To say this is quite different from believing that they are ever likely to form the government of Russia, and that the U.S. should base its policy towards Russia on the hope that this will be so.
The sad truth is that the Ukraine war has placed the Russian liberal opposition in a politically impossible position. Having been largely chased into exile by Putin, they are dependent on Western support. This means however that their principled opposition to the Russian invasion can be portrayed by the Russian government — and is seen by many ordinary Russians — as treason in time of war. As with the Iranian, Chinese, and other oppositions, official support from Washington only allows the ruling regimes to paint the name “traitor” in brighter colors.
A combination (differing from individual to individual) of idealism, dependence on the West and hatred of Putin means that instead of advocating a compromise peace in Ukraine, many Russian oppositionists have — willingly or unwillingly — identified themselves with Ukrainian and Western positions that explicitly demand complete Russian defeat.
And while not many Russians wanted the war, not many Russians want to see Russia defeated. As I have remarked before, even many Americans who strongly opposed the war in Vietnam were outraged when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi. If she stood a chance of being elected to any office in the U.S. before that trip, she certainly didn’t afterwards.
Any hope of rebuilding liberalism in Russia (and indeed Ukraine, albeit to a much lesser extent) therefore requires an end to the war. For some degree of authoritarianism is a natural accompaniment to every war, and regimes all over the world have exploited this to increase their own power. Equally importantly, mass support for Putin is critically dependent on the general belief that the West intends not just to defeat Russia but to cripple it as a state, and that to prevent this it is essential to support the government.
For the moment at least, this has eclipsed previously widespread resentments —which Navalny channeled — at regime corruption. No amount of Western or Russian opposition propaganda can change this Russian picture. Peace might, if it is given a chance.
For the third year in a row, globally, the number of investors in nuclear weapons producers has fallen but the overall amount invested in these companies has increased, largely thanks to some of the biggest investment banks and funds in the U.S.
“As for the U.S., while there is, like past years, indeed a dominance, and total financing from U.S.-based institutions has increased, the total number of U.S. investors has dropped for the third year in a row (similar to our global findings), and we hope to see this number will continue to fall in the coming years,” Alejandar Munoz, the report’s primary author, told Responsible Statecraft.
In 2023, the top 10 share and bondholders of nuclear weapons producing companies are all American firms. The firms — Vanguard, Capital Group, State Street, BlackRock, Wellington Management, Fidelity Investments, Newport Group, Geode Capital Holdings, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley — held $327 billion in investments in nuclear weapons producing companies in 2023, an $18 billion increase from 2022.
These companies are also profiting from the enormous government contracts they receive for developing and modernizing nuclear weapons.
“All nuclear-armed states are currently modernizing their nuclear weapon systems,” says the annual “Don’t Bank on the Bomb” report from PAX and ICAN. “In 2022, the nine nuclear-armed states together spent $82.9 billion on their nuclear weapons arsenals, an increase of $2.5 billion compared to the previous year, and with the United States spending more than all other nuclear powers combined.”
American weapons companies are some of the biggest recipients of contracts for nuclear weapons. Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics are “the biggest nuclear weapons profiteers,” according to the report. Combined, the two American weapons manufacturers have outstanding nuclear weapons related contracts with a combined potential value of at least $44.9 billion.
Those enormous government contracts for nuclear weapons, alongside contracts for conventional weapons, have helped make nuclear weapons producers an attractive investment for American investment banks and funds.
“Altogether, 287 financial institutions were identified for having substantial financing or investment relations with 24 companies involved in nuclear weapon production,” says the report. “$477 billion was held in bonds and shares, and $343 billion was provided in loans and underwriting.”
The report notes that while the total amount invested in nuclear weapons has increased, the number of investors has fallen and trends toward firms in countries with nuclear weapons.
ICAN and PAX suggest that concentration may be a result of prohibitions on nuclear weapons development for signatories to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), a 93 signatory treaty committing to the ultimate goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The report says:
The TPNW comprehensively prohibits the development, manufacturing, testing, possession, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as assistance with those acts. For companies that build the key components needed to maintain and expand countries’ nuclear arsenals, access to private funding is crucial. As such, the banks, pension funds, asset managers and other financiers that continue to invest in or grant credit to these companies allow for the production of inhumane and indiscriminate weapons to proceed. By divesting from their business relationships with these companies, financial institutions can reduce available capital for nuclear weapon related activities and thereby be instrumental in supporting the fulfilment of the TPNW’s objectives.
Susi Snyder, managing director of the Don’t Bank on the Bomb Project, told Responsible Statecraft that even U.S. banks, like Pittsburgh based PNC Bank, are facing shareholder pressure to divest from nuclear weapons and that the tide may be shifting as shareholders in U.S. companies grow increasingly sensitive to investments in nuclear weapons.
“For three years shareholder resolutions have been put forward at PNC bank raising concerns that their investments in nuclear weapon producers are a violation of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and that they are not in line with the bank's overall human rights policy guidelines,” she said.