Downed Plane in Egypt

The news this week has been dominated by new revelations into the fate of flight A321 which crashed 23 minutes after taking off from the Sharm al-Sheikh tourist resort eight days ago, killing all 224 passengers and crew. Da'esh (IS) militants fighting Egyptian security forces in Sinai claimed to have brought it down - initially these claims were disregarded but new UK and US intelligence, coupled with analysis of the wreckage, has led investigators to state that they are "90 percent sure" the cause of the crash was indeed a bomb.

In today's events driven society, will the downing of flight A321 prompt Russia to escalate its interventions in Syria? Are the US and UK guilty of a 'shocking failure' to share intelligence? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. The contributors best insights will be invited to explore their views further for our journal Sir!

“Vers l’Orient compliqué, je volais avec des idées simples”

Jean-Baptiste Begat

This is a featured piece sent in response to our Focus of the Week. Keep an eye out for future topics and let us know your views!

On 30th September, the Russian Air Force led their first airstrikes in Syria, flying over the Turkish territory. These events took place only two months after the public backing of the highly controversial Turkish airstrikes in north-west Syria and south-east of Turkey by NATO’s General Secretary Stoltenberg. In what seems to be an escalation of involvement in the region between Russia and the western world, NATO announced the doubling of the size of its Response Force. These recent facts should not be interpreted through the only prism of history, specifically the resurgence of the so-called “bi-polar world” where the rest is the theatre of power struggle between the two main poles. Far from denying the impact of Russian recent involvement in the Iraqi-Syrian crisis on the conflictual relationship between Western countries and Russia, the international network of interest that is at stake in the ISIS crisis should be kept in mind. What are Putin’s goals in a massive Russian participation to the fight against the Islamic State ? Are these goals realistic, considering the Western geopolitical stances and interests in the region ? Do they form part of a long-term Russian political vision of stability in the area ?

Three main incentives may have caused Russia to become a protagonist in the war against ISIS. First of all, the recent Russian involvement in the Middle-East appears, in conventional wisdom, to be a matter of domestic policy for Putin. It is a historical cliché that governments which face difficulties in meeting domestic expectations tend to become hyperactive on the international stage, thus giving the impression that dealing with international emergencies is far more important than unemployment, demographic crisis and the economic recovery. The culturalist politico-historical point made by those who consider that Putin flatters Russian pride should not be neglected either. Historically, the geographical spectrum of Russian political influence has been only recently shrunk, and Putin’s propaganda is keen on asserting that the country of the Tsars must take on its historical responsibility and fight to protect Middle East minorities, just like it did under Catherine the Great or Stalin. Putin’s rhetoric to justify Russian involvement in Syria also successfully links the conflict in the Middle-East with terrorist attacks on the motherland. Such arguments are effective in convincing the Russian of the need for a deeper military involvement in the fight against ISIS, and they are also used by Western countries (see recent public speeches by the French Defence Minister Le Drian to justify new airstrikes in Syria). However, one should keep in mind that Russia does not seem a target of importance for terrorist attacks by ISIS propaganda, unlike France or the United States, for instance. Finally, there is Putin’s energy policy: the new Vienna agreement is leading to the massive entry of Iranian gas on the Western energy market, provoking an important devaluation of Russian oil. In that context, new primary sources of energy are sought by the Russians, especially with the Iraqi government and the Kurdish government of Barzani. But war is not good for business. 

Secondly, Putin’s policy in the Middle-East is also much of a regional one. Flying over Turkey was not a pilot navigational mistake; it was intended to be understood by the Turkish as a strong signal. Indeed, Turkey recently led airstrikes against the PKK (Kurdish autonomist political party, based in south-east Turkey, known for its use of violence and considered by most countries as a terrorist organisation) positions as well as against ISIS. However, the Kurds are one of Putin’s strongest allies in the Middle-East, for reasons bothhistoric - the father of Masoud Barzani, leader of the pre-eminent Kurdish party the KDP, found shelter in Moscow in 1946 after the failure of his coup d’état in Iraq - and military - the Kurdish Peshmerga are the only ground force efficient against ISIS in the north. Since the Russians cannot publicly back the Kurdish military effort without offending Iran (they only provide the Kurds with intelligence at the moment), which also has to deal with Kurdish secessionism in the north-west of the country, the only option left for Russia is to deliver a strong message directly to Turkey. Flying over its territories with warplanes is one way to do so.

Another regional incentive for Putin’s policy in the Middle-East is to woo Iran. Russia was particularly quiet during the diplomatic negotiations that led to the Vienna agreement, and now has the opportunity to show Iran that it doesn’t follow blindly the “international coalition” (the West), fighting ISIS its own way, just as Iran does by backing the Iraqi government, and could strengthen ties with Iran, whose supreme leader Ali Khamenei recently reminded that in spite of the agreement, Iranian international interests remained very different from those of Western countries. Add to this the fact that, by backing Bashar al-Assad, Putin supports the Shi’ite Alawi Syrian minority and you have all the reasons to believe in future rapprochement between Russia and Iran. 

Finally, the Russian fight against ISIS should also be interpreted in the broader context of international relations with the West. Many Cassandras have spoken and written about the rise of a new Russian imperialism, and even a “second Cold War”. Without going into these difficult prophetic exercises, Putin must have considered the big picture when he decided to fight actively and publicly against ISIS. Putin’s international policy – which reminds much of the Cold War “linkage” policy - should be seen as a whole, and a potential success of the Russian in their fight against ISIS would put the OSCE and NATO in a very difficult position when it comes to diplomatic negotiations about the Ukrainian “frozen conflict”. To a great extent, the Middle East question was one of the last productive diplomatic channels between the West and Russia. If Russia intervene its own way In Syria - and succeeds - the legitimacy which will be drawn from it may give him the possibility to cut that channel too. This is especially true if the West keeps on refusing any political solution in Syria that includes Bashar al-Assad, a man who made use of chemical weapons banned by international laws against his own people. 

Countries already committed to the fight against ISIS should wisely consider these two alternatives. From a diplomatic standpoint, it seems like there is little chance that Western countries will go along with the Russian proposal of fighting ISIS alongside with Assad. Most Eastern European countries are concerned by Russian expansionism in the West, and see in Russia the first threat to their national security. It would be difficult to imagine these same countries, who keep asking NATO for a more significant military presence, going along with the Russian Middle East policy. As for Western European countries, which are the most cautious ones regarding military operations in the international coalition, they are faced with the difficult choice between sticking to their first policy, finding a political consensus in Syria that excludes the dictator before leading any massive military operations, with the risk of waiting too long while the Russians take all the credit of potential military successes, or following the Russian policy, thus giving the diplomatic credit to Putin. These countries are also attached to international laws, under the light of which Putin’s intervention in Syria is on the very edge of legality (does help to self-defence apply to the Assad regime which clearly does not represent the Syrian people as a whole?). The same goes for American countries. Finally, it is very difficult to imagine Saudi Arabia – an important protagonist in the international coalition because of its military infrastructures and its proximity to the Iraqi-Syrian theatre - going along with Russia, considering its diplomatic proximity with Western countries and its rivalry with Iran. 

From a military standpoint, it is a bit too early to say whether the Russian backing of Bashar al-Assad (which, in concrete terms, means airstrikes, financial and logistical support, building of infrastructures and sending of non-fighting military troops) is actually efficient in the fight against ISIS. Doubts are reasonable though since the Russian should face the same difficulties the international coalitions met, namely a lack of intelligence, which should be the first step towards efficient targeting and successful military operations.  The only advantage the Russians may have on the international coalition is that they do not have to deal with the very difficult issue of coordination between several national air forces with their own command structures. 

The most important military concern, however, is to be found in the fact that a huge proportion of Russian airstrikes in Syria do not seem to aim at ISIS positions, but rather at the Syrian opposition. The United-Kingdom has recently announced that the British intelligence is currently working in order to identify what the Russian targets are. It is more than clear that Western countries cannot be part of a military coalition that fights the political opposition of an unwanted dictator. At the end of the day, the Russian policy may run counter to Russian interests; on top of accelerating the phenomenon of Syrian refugees who flee to Europe, these airstrikes are counterproductive since they help ISIS - whom the Syrian opposition to Bashar also fight. And if he does not get any military success quickly, Putin may wake the old Afghan trauma of the Russian people. Maybe he should read De Gaulle’s Mémoires de Guerre once more before going too hastily into the Middle East: “Vers l’Orient compliqué, je volais avec des idées simples”. 

Caucasian Culture: The Rocky Road

Marianna Hunt

The mountain range of the Caucasus acts as a jagged dividing line of ice and rock between Europe and Asia. Formed in the south of individual sovereign states, such as Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, and in the north by regions such as Chechnya and Dagestan which fall under Russian jurisdiction, it is one of the most politically unstable areas in the world. Its natural landscape almost rivals the lifestyle of its native clans in its awe-inspiring, yet treacherous nature.

This mountainous region has found itself, at different points in history, on the periphery of Ottoman, Russian, and Persian empires. Its historical scars, artistic marvels and political upheavals are a manifestation of the region's liminal nature and the inexorable influence of its borders. 

Supposedly deriving its name from the Scythian kroy-khasis (“ice-shining, white with snow”), the area is a natural barrier, with many passes only accessible at certain times of the year. Yet this inhospitable region has also earned itself a reputation as a melting pot of cultures and nationalities.  With more than 50 ethnic groups and a linguistic variety second only to that of New Guinea, the numerous and glittering facets of identity and culture in the Caucasus have inspired thousands of artists, authors, and poets throughout history. The region's status as a "border" is therefore key to understanding the cultural representations of the Caucasus.  

Bordering on some of the mightiest empires in history, the Caucasus's reputation as a stage for drama was established early. The rising red curtain of this theatre reveals a similarly scarlet, bloodstained history of medieval Arab, Persian, and Mongol invasions, conquest by Russian colonialists, massacres of able-bodied males in Armenia, deportation en masse of entire nationalities by the Soviet Union, and more recently, barbaric infringements of human rights during the suppression of "terrorists" in the Chechen wars of the 1990s. The instability of this region persists even today. Its proximity to the volatile Middle Eastern border has led to the recent insurgence of Da'esh extremists, affiliated with jihadists in Syria, in Chechnya. The perilous lifestyle, both politically and physically, of this rocky borderland has had an indelible effect on its native peoples, earning them a reputation in history as some of the world's fiercest warriors and most resilient spirits. Countless invasions of their borders are often seen as having cultivated fiercely independent characters, and many of the highland clans of the Caucasus were never conquered — or even discovered — by invading powers. This proud "Caucasian" spirit can still be seen in modern times, in the activities of freedom fighters in the northern Caucasus, struggling against centralised Russian governance. 

The trend of depicting the Caucasus in art and literature finds its roots in antiquity. In Greek mythology, the Caucasus region held a special significance and was seen to be one of the great pillars supporting the world. Greek myths also established its ancient tradition of acting as a stage for drama - transforming from earthly borderland to border between the heavenly and terrestrial. The Caucasus also functioned as the sight on which Prometheus was chained and faced his eternal punishment for having presented man with the gift of fire.  Though more recent dramas have featured fewer eagles pecking out human livers, the gory history of the Caucasus was thus established.  

Despite the salience of the Caucasus in Russian culture, beneath idealised perceptions lurked the realities of arrogant colonialist thinking. Representations of the region and its peoples as idealistically simple stemmed from the basic assumption that they were less civilized than European Russia. The simplicity of Caucasian maidens such as Dina in "The Prisoner of the Caucasus", by Tolstoy, is a manifestation of their assumed inferiority and lesser intelligence. Thus the representations of Caucasian natives ranged from the simple creature of nature, to barbaric savage.  Though writers such as Lermontov and Pushkin may have admired the beauty of the Caucasus, their belief in Russia’s right to rule there emerges equally strongly. The ending of Pushkin’s Prisoner of the Caucasus is heavy with imperialistic undertones: "So the furious shouts of war were silenced; All was subjected by the Russian sword". 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new artistic trend seems to have emerged. The increase in personal liberties following perestroika and glasnost led to a search, in both the Caucasus and other regions on the fringes of the USSR, for their own national identity through art and literature. For example, Armen Gevorgyan's 2012 sculpture, entitled “Disintegration”, is an exploration of his Armenian origins. The broken wheel symbolises the broken circle of life of those who are torn from their motherland - an artistic expression of the long history of resettlement suffered by the Armenian people. 

In conjunction with this increased concern with their own independence in art, Caucasian writers in more recent times have expressed an increasingly dissatisfied view of Russian authority. This can be seen as the literary expression of Caucasian bids for independence, which have resulted in territorial conflicts, such as the Chechen wars, with the Russian state in recent years. 

The status of the Caucasus region as a land on the fringes of many different societies, as a "border", has left an ineffaceable mark on the artistic creations which it has inspired over the centuries. Examining the transformations of art and literature taking Caucasian culture as their subject matter traces the dramatic development and often tragic history of this fascinating region.   

Violence in Jerusalem

Recent violence in Israel and Palestine has been marked by its brutal but sporadic nature, with over forty Palestinians and seven Israelis killed. Many attacks have involved Palestinians armed with knives, many being shot by Israeli forces or indeed armed civilians. Unlike much past violence, these attacks have not been linked to active militant groups but seem rather to be the actions of independent individuals. As with much of the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, social media presents many different accounts of events, with people disagreeing frequently on whether those killed were armed or presenting a danger to others.

s the violence symptomatic of Israeli oppression, or are Palestinians becoming more violent? And what role is social media coverage playing in the coverage and the violence itself? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. The contributors best insights will be invited to explore their views further for our journal Sir!

Russia in Syria

The news this week has been dominated by Russia’s escalating intervention in Syria, beginning with airstrikes on the 30th of September. Reversing the trend of President Assad’s declining fortunes, the operations have heightened tensions with NATO, especially since Russian aircraft flew over Turkish airspace on Saturday, and NATO has since doubled the size of its Response Force to 40,000. However, Putin maintains that his actions are supporting the only credible opposition to the growing threat of Islamic extremism in the Middle East. 

Has Russia, with its already burdened economy, bitten off more than it can chew? Does Putin have an end-game in sight, and can he reconcile it with the goals of the West? Whatever your view, send it in - via Twitter, Facebook or our website. The contributors best insights will be invited to explore their views further for our journal Sir!