Pepe Escobar has published an interesting article that goes into the issues surrounding President Putin’s views regarding Israel and the views of powerful players (siloviki) in the Russian defense and intel establishments. I’m always cautious about using Escobar, but his article deserves a careful reading:
Russia’s neutrality ballet on Israel-Palestine
While some Russian heavyweights push to recast Israel as a hostile state, the Kremlin is unlikely to budge. Instead, Moscow will stay 'neutral' to maximize its West Asian influence, all while edging closer to the Arab and Muslim worlds.
Escobar characterizes Putin as “philo-semitic”, a description I’ve read before. This is in contrast to the siloviki, according to Escobar, who almost uniformly regard Israel as hostile to Russia:
They consider that Israel may be a de facto enemy of the Russian Federation, allied with Ukraine, the US and NATO.
In fact, it’s easy to understand how they could come to this conclusion. While Escobar states that:
Tel Aviv has been extremely cautious not to frontally antagonize Russia in Ukraine
it is nevertheless a fact that Israel has provided military assistance to Ukraine, even if Israel has not exactly advertized the fact. But it’s also a fact—one which Escobar inexplicably fails to mention—that Israel has been a key weapons provider to both Georgia and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus, in ways that have run directly contrary to Russian interests. Israeli collaboration with Azerbaijan can, in part, be attributed to concerns about Iran, but assistance to Georgia led pretty directly to the Russian invasion in 2008 to prevent Georgian entry into NATO. In that respect this Israeli involvement also relates pretty directly to the current conflict in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Putin has generally maintained a fairly strict neutrality with regard to the current conflict in Palestine. Generally …
Except for one stunning statement last Friday at the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Summit in Bishkek, when Putin blasted Israel’s “cruel methods” employed to blockade Gaza, and compared it with “the siege of Leningrad during World War Two.”
“That’s unacceptable,” declared the Russian president, and warned that when all of Gaza’s 2.2 million civilians “have to suffer, including women and children, it’s hard for anyone to agree with this."
Putin’s other expressed views are typically cautious and directed toward a cessation of hostilities, although he has been outspoken with regard to the failures of US policy:
The Russian president favors the UN’s original “two states” solution and believes that a Palestinian state should be established “by peaceful means.” But, as much as the conflict was “a direct result of the failed policy of the United States in the Middle East,” Putin rejects Tel Aviv’s plans to launch a ground operation in Gaza.
What Escobar points to, however, is that Putin—faced with the dynamics of Russian foreign policy—may be forced to more clearly side with the Muslim world against Israel and the US. Again, Escobar doesn’t say so directly, but this dynamic of Russian foreign policy has been forced upon Russia by the Neocons against Putin’s will. Putin has always been Western oriented—probably from his early days growing up in Russia’s window to the West, St. Petersburg—but implacable Neocon hostility to Russia has forced Putin to look to China and Iran and other non-Western partners in defense of Russia’s very existence.
Yet way more consequential than Israel on the geopolitical chessboard are Moscow’s evolving relations with Arab states today, especially OPEC+ partner Saudi Arabia which has helped thwart western efforts to control oil prices.
Also highly central to Russia’s regional policymaking is its strategic partnership with Iran, which has reaped dividends in Syria and the Caucasus, and which helps contain US expansionism. Finally, Moscow’s complex, multi-layered, back-and-forth with Ankara is crucial to Russian economic and geopolitical ambitions in Eurasia.
All three West Asian powers are Muslim-majority states, important affiliations for a multipolar Russia that hosts its own sizable Muslim population.
And for these three regional actors, without distinction, the current collective punishment of Gaza transgresses any possible red line.
Israel is also not that significant anymore in Moscow’s financial considerations. Since the 1990s, immense quantities of Russian funds have been transiting to Israel, but now, a substantial portion is returning right back to Russia. Yet way more consequential than Israel on the geopolitical chessboard are Moscow’s evolving relations with Arab states today, especially OPEC+ partner Saudi Arabia which has helped thwart western efforts to control oil prices. Thus:
Also highly central to Russia’s regional policymaking is its strategic partnership with Iran, which has reaped dividends in Syria and the Caucasus, and which helps contain US expansionism. Finally, Moscow’s complex, multi-layered, back-and-forth with Ankara is crucial to Russian economic and geopolitical ambitions in Eurasia.
All three West Asian powers are Muslim-majority states, important affiliations for a multipolar Russia that hosts its own sizable Muslim population.
And for these three regional actors, without distinction, the current collective punishment of Gaza transgresses any possible red line.
Israel is also not that significant anymore in Moscow’s financial considerations. Since the 1990s, immense quantities of Russian funds have been transiting to Israel, but now, a substantial portion is returning right back to Russia.
It looks like another Neocon own goal.
Escobar continues with some interesting speculation. His overall expectation is that Russia will continue to play the role of a mediator, leaving it to the Neocons to continue firing away at their own feet in the eyes of most of the world. But the dynamics for a Russian shift are in place.
Now, Kim Dotcom goes much further. Like Escobar, he has his own axes to grind, but it would not be smart to simply reject the possibility of what he sets out. The Neocons are guiding the US and the world into uncharted waters. First, however, it may be well to take note of an older Israeli intel assessment regarding Iran and Hamas. I will readily grant that conditions have changed since 2007, but Iran will surely remember that Hamas sided with Israel against Syria and Hezbollah:
Israeli Defense Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in 2007: “Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state”, going on to downplay significance of Iran in Gaza “as long as they don't have a port." Link: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/07TELAVIV1733_a.html…
Now a tweet stream from Kim Dotcom:
Kim Dotcom @KimDotcom
The US Govt can’t win a war against Russia, China and the Islamic world simultaneously. If the US does not back off WW3 is guaranteed and it would become a nuclear war.
We are now in the critical phase.
3:22 AM · Oct 18, 2023
I think he’s right about that, for multiple reasons (military as well as economic), and the US surely understands that. Which is why, as I suggested from my position out on a limb, that the US has almost certainly been advising Israel to rethink a ground invasion.
Caitlin Johnstone @caitoz
Oct 18
Israel: Our intelligence services had no idea Hamas was planning its attack on October 7.
Also Israel: Here's an audio clip from our intelligence archives of Hamas fighters talking to each other.
Now, please note these two tweets very carefully:
Kim Dotcom @KimDotcom
Putin said today that Russian hypersonic missiles launched from the Black Sea can reach US aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean. He added it’s not a threat, just a fact.
US aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in the age of hypersonic missiles. Russia, China and Iran have them.
7:56 AM · Oct 18, 2023
A UN Security Council resolution on Iran’s missile program has expired today. Russia is free to deliver hypersonic missiles to Iran. First deliveries are probably arriving at Iranian ports. Russia will support Iran in the upcoming war against Israel/US. Payback for Ukraine.
Granted, that last part is speculative. Nevertheless, the idea that Russia will seek payback in one form or another … Yeah, that seems possible. In fact, any US policy maker would be a fool if they didn’t take that possibility into account. And geopolitical realities appear to be aligning in such a way as to facilitate that payback.
Again, we’re talking about the Neocons forcing these adverse developments. That includes forcing Russia into a close military relationship with China. Listen to the craziness coming out of DC about war with Russia, China, and Iran. That’s nuts, but our “representatives” will apparently say anything for money, without regard for consequences:
As horrifc as it may seem, CVN78 or CVN69 will bear the brunt of US stupidity after which major changes in DC will take place.
Meanwhile our very own chucklehead “representatives” are salivating over putting together a $100 Billion aid package to feed on. The insanity. Our representatives and Regime simply view the world chaos as opportunity to stuff their pockets.