To perceive Vladimir Putin as a super-villain from a James Bond movie, maneuvering global chaos from a colossal control panel hidden amidst mountains, would be provocative, yet misconceived. The palpable notion catastrophically magnifies the Russian leader’s international leverage.
True, Russia maintains cordial relations with Hamas and has evolved as a close ally to Iran. Portraying their bond, the US alleges that a robust defense partnership now binds Moscow and Teheran. However, it cannot be implied that Moscow was directly involved or privy to the recent Hamas attack on Israel.
Israel’s ambassador to Moscow, Alexander Ben Zvi dispels this—emphatically stressing there’s no Russian link to any Hamas-led atrocities in Israel. His remarks find resonance in Hanna Notte, a Berlin-based expert on Russia and Middle Eastern affairs, who too fails to trace any evidence of direct Russian weapons supplies to Hamas or the Russian military training Hamas militants.
Notte, however, affirms Russia’s longstanding relationship with Hamas, without tagging them as a terrorist organization. While she admits that Russian-made systems may have tread their path into the Gaza Strip, possibly via Egypt’s Sinai with Iranian assistance, it doesn’t extend to elaborate military backing
On a broader note, this prevents us from labeling President Putin as the instigator of the Middle East war. He is, however, primed to leverage the situation – with a conspicuous pivot away from the simmering war in Ukraine. This dual distraction aims to divert Western arms supplies destined for Ukraine to Israel, thereby covertly tipping the scales in Russia’s favor—an intricate stratagem, expressed by Russian diplomat Konstantin Gavrilov.
This wishful geopolitical diversion, however, takes a firm rebuke from the US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin who pledges “unwavering support to both—Israel and Ukraine”.
Despite this affirmation, a prolonged conflict in the Middle East will challenge America’s capacity to concurrently uphold its allyship in two different war zones.
Simultaneously, Russia looks to elevate its Middle Eastern narrative, projecting itself as a promising peacemaker. With past precedents where Russia joined international coalitions seeking to end regional conflicts, President Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov voices their intent to play a similar role, negating any skepticism around their mediation abilities.
Still, it is unlikely to forget Russia’s unchecked invasion into Ukraine, causing large-scale destruction which echoed globally. This, coupled with the readiness to mediate the Middle East conflict, doesn’t necessarily assure acceptability as a Peacemaker.
Historically, Russia has found strategic interest in the Middle East. Post the Soviet collapse, its relations with Israel experienced growth, primarily due to an influx of more than a million Jews from former Soviet republics into Israel. Recently though, Russia shows a stronger affinity towards Israel’s adversaries like Iran, thereby straining its rapport with Israel.
These convoluted geopolitical dynamics do present an opportunity for Russia—a chance to mirror its vilifying sentiments towards America. It fuels Moscow’s anti-American narrative and in doing so, fosters its stature in the Middle East, concurrently undermining Washington’s influence.
However, Russia treads a thin line between advantage and peril, particularly in a volatile region like the Middle East as cautioned by Ms. Notte. While for now, they may potentially benefit from the crisis by diverting attention from Ukraine, the risks of a broader regional conflict remain real and dangerous. Russia certainly doesn’t desire a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran—enemies whom they share conflicted affiliations with. Yet, an inevitable escalation may spar Russia’s diplomatic tap dance, pushing the obligate-neutral into a corner where they may be forced to pick sides, something they would steer clear of at any cost.
