• No principle, just interests  - Akram Baker
Like any major power, Russia has interests; it has no principles.

• Every bit as confused as the West  - Robert O. Freedman
Russian policy has been highly reactive and, in the case of Libya, not well coordinated.

• The Kremlin's short-term gains
are Russia's long-term losses  - Yuri Mamchur
The dearth of official Russian involvement demonstrates the country's fading influence in the world.

• Maintaining a balanced position  - Irina Zvyagelskaya
The demonstration effect of the Arab revolutions for Russia is in fact negligible.

No principle, just interests
 Akram Baker

Why anyone would expect Russia to treat revolutionary events in the Arab world any differently than the pathetic and ham-fisted manner of the West is beyond me. Like any major power, Russia has interests; it has no principles. When we look through this lens at Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev's responses to the people power upheavals, we are able to better understand where the bear is coming from.

Russia's deepest fear in this regard is the spread of these dangerous democratic movements to its own "near abroad" nations or even the Russian heartland itself. The last thing it wants is a popular uprising aimed at the corrupt ruling classes anywhere in the regions of central Asia or the Caucasus (especially the north). However, being a recent inductee into the so-called democratic international community, Russia's leadership is not free to verbalize this. Both pillars of Russian power, the prime ministry and the presidency--while not always in synch anymore--are lockstep when it comes to this issue. They both pay lip service to democracy and democratic freedoms, but honestly would prefer not to say a thing.

The most critical and obvious factors driving Russia's thinking towards the Arab region are, as always, two-fold: economic and political. As a sophisticated power, the leaders in the Kremlin do not look at the region as one mass of Arab rebels. Like their American counterparts, they are willing to confront this ruler or that one when it comes to beating up, shooting, or detaining their own peoples, and to either look the other way or even openly support others doing the exact same thing. Case in point: the US was very, very slow in tossing Egypt's aging Hosni Mubarak under the proverbial bus, yet quick to condemn the madman in Tripoli and the kid thug in Damascus. At the same time, they sat so hard on their hands regarding the brutal repression by their allies in Bahrain (and Saudi Arabia), I was afraid they would never get up again.

Mirror this with Russia's response to the latest events. Moscow has been spending an enormous amount of time and energy trying to gain control over the flow of North African gas to western Europe in order to solidify its place as absolute kingpin of the European natural and heating gas market. The state-owned economic megapower, Gazprom, has a very substantial stake in Libya's energy industry, especially the so-called "Elephant" oil field. The Russians are loath to put all that at risk for some pesky democracy protesters. They are clearly worried about losing their estimated $4 billion worth of arms contracts with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. So what we hear from the banks of the Moskva River is an almost American chorus of "restraint is called for by both sides, a ceasefire is the best possible solution" type of fence-sitting that would make US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proud. Russian saber-rattling was always going to be relatively tame, thereby allowing the West a somewhat free hand (within boundaries, of course) in its response to the Libyan regime.

Syria, however, is a completely different ball game. Russia's political, economic, cultural, and educational ties run long and deep with the Alawite ruling clique in Damascus. I cannot imagine a situation where either Putin or Medvedev would discard Bashar Assad like Obama finally did Mubarak. There is simply too much on the line for them. Short of an indigenous coup, where Assad is either expelled or killed, Moscow will not allow the West to do a Libya on Syria. They would veto any United Nations Security Council resolution, and take real military steps to show that they mean business. And why shouldn't they? The US goes overboard in propping up the Israeli occupation and the decades-long repression of the Palestinian people--why shouldn't Russia have its own pet nation?

The point is that Russia, like the western nations, will only intercede on the side of angels when it suits its perceived national economic and security interests. The peoples of the Arab worlds are proving themselves to be more brave and more determined than anyone ever thought they would be. I believe that time will prove them right and the bankrupt policies of both Russia and the West will be relegated to the dustbin of history, along with Joseph Stalin, Ferdinand Marcos and now Zine el-Abedine Bin Ali and Mubarak.-Published 28/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Akram Baker is an entrepreneur and independent political analyst.

By December 2010, Russia under Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had reemerged in the Middle East as a diplomatic, economic and military-supply actor. Yet its political influence remained limited. The ensuing "Arab spring", moreover, was to challenge Putin's economic, diplomatic and arms sales goals. It is not yet clear whether Russia has come to grips with the implications of revolutions that, at the time of writing, continue to sweep the region.

The Arab spring caught Russia, as it did the United States and indeed the rulers of the countries affected, by surprise. There appeared to be some initial concern among the Russian leadership that revolution in the Arab world could spread to Russia as well. Russia too was marked by an autocratic government, widespread corruption--something President Dmitry Medvedev had openly complained about--and rising prices, with inflation reaching nearly ten percent in 2010. Indeed, Russia's pro-democracy opposition cheered the events in Tunisia and Egypt with comments such as, "the [revolutionary] train stopped at the station in Cairo. Next stop: Moscow".

Medvedev took a tough line on such attitudes, and in an almost cold war-era response asserted that the revolts in the Arab world were instigated by "outside forces" that were also trying to topple the Russian government. These concerns were much exaggerated. Russia had gone through a very chaotic period only a decade before under Boris Yeltsin, and with the exception of a relatively small group of reformers, Russians showed little inclination to oust the ruling duo of Medvedev and Putin by street protests. As for western instigation of the Arab spring, Russia's leading Middle East expert (and former prime minister and foreign minister) Yevgeny Primakov, no friend of the United States, publically ruled out the idea that the US had orchestrated the revolts.

In weighing the rapidly-changing situation in the Middle East caused by the Arab spring, Moscow could calculate some short-term gains for its Middle East position as well as the possibility of some long-term losses. By early March 2011, the price of oil had risen 24 percent in two months, reaching over $110 per barrel; by July, the price of Brent crude had reached $117. This enabled Russia to meet its projected budget deficit from increased oil revenues and even rebuild its sovereign wealth fund that had been depleted by the 2008 world economic crisis. In addition, with the possibility of natural gas supplies to Europe being cut off due to the turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, Russia saw the possibility of increasing its gas sales.

On the downside, however, Moscow had to worry about its own oil and gas investments in the Middle East that were at risk if the turmoil got worse, as well as the possible loss of arms and industrial deals it had signed with countries such as Libya and Syria. A second problem for Moscow lay in the possibility that conservative Islamist forces like the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood could be the big winners of the Arab spring, particularly if free and fair elections were held in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Syria. Given that Russia's North Caucasus continues to simmer with Islamic unrest, with continuing Islamist attacks in Dagestan, Chechnya, Northern Ossetia, and Ingushetia, and following an Islamist terror attack on Moscow's Domodedovo airport in January 2011, Moscow has cause for concern.

On the other hand, in countries like Tunisia and Egypt, the ouster of leaders closely linked to the United States and the West holds some potential benefits for Moscow. Especially in Egypt, the close link between the Mubarak regime and the United States had, due to issues like the Arab-Israel conflict, made the United States highly unpopular despite US President Barack Obama's speech in Cairo in June 2009. Whether or not Moscow could benefit from the situation was, however, an open question. Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, which is running the country until the planned September 2011 elections, has close ties with the US military, and there is a good bit of suspicion that the Egyptian army will be highly influential in the new government.

If Russia hopes to make gains in Tunisia and Egypt, it seeks to avoid losses in Libya and Syria, whose regimes are seriously challenged by the Arab spring. In the case of Libya, Russia appears to be following what might be termed a zig-zag policy: first opposing sanctions then agreeing to them; first opposing a no-fly zone then agreeing to it; and then, while criticizing NATO for using excessive force in Libya, agreeing to serve as a mediator between the Libyan rebels and the Gaddafi regime even as it has urged Gaddafi himself to step down.

What explains these apparent contradictions in Russian policy? In part, they were caused by disagreements between Medvedev and Putin---disagreements that broke into the open over the no-fly zone. In part, they reflect Moscow's reluctance to oppose an Arab consensus that supports both sanctions and the no-fly zone. Third, by offering to mediate the conflict, Russia was able to demonstrate that it was an important factor in the Middle East and evidently hoped to preserve both its investments and its markets in Libya, no matter which side eventually won the civil war.

Russian policy toward the Syrian uprising has been much more consistent. Although the crackdown by the Bashar Assad regime on its citizens has been every bit as brutal as that by Gaddafi, not only has Moscow opposed Libya-type military intervention in Syria, it has also opposed sanctions against the Assad regime. This has been the case because Syria has long been a major ally of Moscow in the Middle East and, unlike the mercurial Gaddafi regime, the Assad regime has real, if diminishing, influence in the Arab world in view of its ties to Hizballah and Hamas, whose headquarters are in Damascus.

In addition, Syria has close ties to Iran. Moscow, whose relations with Iran deteriorated because of its vote for the Security Council sanctions resolution against Iran in 2010, appears to have little interest in further alienating Tehran with pressure on the Islamic republic's primary Arab ally, Syria. Third, Syria is a major market for Russian arms and, unlike in Libya, Moscow has been given the use of naval facilities in Tartus by the Syrian government.

Finally, unlike the case in Libya, there is no Arab consensus on dealing with Syria. Nevertheless, as with Libya, Moscow has sought to maintain ties not only with the Syrian government but also with the Syrian opposition. Thus an opposition delegation was invited to visit Moscow by the Russian Afro-Asian Solidarity and Cooperation Society.

In sum, in its response to the first six months of the Arab spring, Russian policy, while highly visible in the region, has also been highly reactive and in the case of Libya, not well-coordinated. Whether, as the Arab spring evolves into the summer and fall, Russia will be able to formulate a more pro-active policy is a very open question, as Russian policymakers seem to be every bit as confused as those in the West as to how to handle the tumultuous events in the Arab world.-Published 28/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org.

Robert O. Freedman is Peggy Meyerhoff Pearlstone Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Baltimore Hebrew University and is currently visiting professor of political science at Johns Hopkins University.

When the recent anti-government demonstrations began in the Arab world, the planet's only superpower--the United States of America--became actively involved. The American government cheered, making public statements supporting Arab nations' rights to freedom. But given how much closer Russia is to the Arab world than the United States--geographically speaking, at least--it's worth asking where Russia has been during the Middle East's great upheaval.

More Russians than Americans travel to Egypt. According to RusTourism News, in March 2009 alone 300,000 Russian tourists traveled to Egypt. In March 2010, that number grew by 90.4 percent. Oil prices affect Russia more than they do America--after all, not only private businesses, but Russia's federal budget is strictly tied to the price per barrel of oil. Simply put, stability in the Arab world would seem to matter at least as much--if not more--to Russia as it does to the US. But action, or in this case, inaction, may speak louder than words.

The dearth of official Russian involvement in the "Arab spring" demonstrates the country's fading influence in the world, at least the type of influence needed to carry out precise international intelligence operations and foresee long-term geopolitical effects. While some have said that the US intelligence community may have helped facilitate the Arab spring (or at least desired it), no one is even giving Russian intelligence the honor of such speculation and rumor. Instead, Russia's most notable intelligence activity of recent international memory was the embarrassment over last year's spy scandal, when Russian intelligence officers were kicked out of the US after being caught spying for Russia. Embarrassingly for Russia, the only "intelligence" those intelligence officers ever obtained were nothing more than street rumors and data from daily print media, all of which could have been easily found online, without ever leaving Moscow.

Perhaps Russia didn't show up at the Arab spring because the upheaval doesn't seem to carry any political threat to the Kremlin's current inhabitants. Middle East instability has increased the price of oil. As a result, the Dmitry Medvedev-Vladimir Putin team has benefited, gaining the ability to balance Russia's troubled budget and to boost the country's social programs--great outcomes for them in light of Russia's upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections and Russians' rising dissatisfaction with the nation's leaders.

Speaking about Russians' discontent with Medvedev and Putin, some Washington DC think-tank scholars have suggested the possibility of a similar Russian uprising against the Kremlin. Such claims are unfulfilled desires of the anti-Putin Washington establishment. After centuries of authoritarianism and a decade of poverty during the 1990s, Putin gave Russians all they wanted: relative stability, freedoms and rising incomes. Unfortunately, the means became goals, and Putin's team became too caught up with balancing the status quo for the sake of stability. No technological, scientific, or entrepreneurial advancements took place in the country, and small- and medium-sized private business barely saw the results of Russia's new-found wealth. Russia's financial health has become heavily dependent on oil revenues, which have blurred the leader's vision for the nation.

Events in Libya serve as a great case study. Libyan instability means two contradicting things for Russia: rising oil prices (good) and the loss of an economic and strategic partner (bad). The positive trend in the oil market is a very shortsighted gain that doesn't really help Russia's long-term national policy. It may have put Russia's federal budget into the black, but the Russian military will lose significant defense markets in the Middle East in the long term. The end of Muammar Gaddafi's regime--a good thing for all of us who like to see iron-fisted despots removed from power--could eventually mean an end to at least $4 billion worth of Russian weapons sales over the next five years. "There is a chance we might lose something," Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said in a press conference. His job depends on a Medvedev-Putin reelection. With Russia sitting on the sidelines, it has been in no position to shape what a post-Gaddafi Libya might look like and is probably missing its chance for influence going forward.

The Arab spring has short-term positive and long-term negative effects for Russia. Most importantly, during the biggest upheaval in the Middle East in modern history, Russia involuntarily positioned itself as a silent bystander. Eventually, Medvedev, Putin, and the Russian intelligence community will be the ones to blame for foregoing Russia's national interests in pursue of higher oil revenues in the short term. But, "Each country," as Aldous Huxley said, "gets the leader it deserves." Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians have sought internal stability and personal financial gain. In the meantime, the world around Russia has continued to evolve. One day, Russians may wake and find themselves in a world that does not favor Russia and its interests. Such macroeconomic and geopolitical conditions will outweigh small personal gains. Maybe then, Russia will be ready for its own Eurasian spring.-Published 28/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Yuri Mamchur directs the Real Russia Project at Discovery Institute in Seattle and manages the Russia Blog.

Mass uprisings in the Arab world have opened a new stage in the development of the Middle East, marked by a systemic transformation. This has formed or deepened several vectors of tension, including the exacerbation of traditional socio-economic conflicts, sharpening conflict between Sunnis and Shiites, generational conflict (50-60 percent of the population in the Middle East are under 25 years old), and political controversy among liberals, conservatives and Islamists.

Social upheaval in the Arab countries came as a great surprise to Russian politicians and the academic community. Nobody predicted the events that began in stable and westernized countries like Egypt and Tunisia. Politicians insisted that the revolutions were provoked and organized by "external forces" that sought to impose democracy on societies that did not share liberal values. In contrast, the vast majority of experts characterized the events as social revolutions caused by domestic problems.

The initial reaction of the political leaders can be explained by the after-effects of the "orange revolutions" in post-Soviet Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, where foreign forces had been very active in mobilizing and supporting protest movements that toppled the local regimes. The "revolutionary virus" that swept through the Arab world so quickly raised concerns that former Soviet republics, primarily in Central Asia and the Caucasus and even Russia itself, could be affected.

In the Arab countries, the main causes of upheaval could be traced to social problems that became unbearable for a young, educated generation that felt it had no future in societies dominated by corrupt, immutable regimes. Youth movements with no national leaders became the driving force of the revolutions, followed by representatives of traditional society. Facebook and Google played an important role in uniting people and in the formation of their slogans and ideas, yet the mosque remained a tool of mobilization: following Friday prayers and sermons, people demonstrated with even greater enthusiasm.

The revolutions in the Arab world also differ from one another. In Tunisia and Egypt results were achieved through political pressure, while in Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria, violence has become almost chronic and civil wars are characterized by heavy fighting and heavy weapons.

The demonstration effect of the Arab revolutions for Russia and other members of the Commonwealth of Independent States is in fact negligible. True, there is a similarity of certain trends such as growing numbers of educated youth unable to find good jobs at home, a painful process of urbanization, negative social implications of the market economy, corruption, poverty, and rampant nationalism. Still, in Russia, protests are of local character only and can be effectively dealt with. As for Central Asia, a real explosion occurs there only when there is a split among the elites and their rivalry over power and resources leads to mobilization on a regional or local basis.

Nevertheless, there are lessons to be learned.

From a Russian perspective, the ongoing events in the Arab world have generated a high level of uncertainty. The growth of radicalism and nationalism could become a source of new challenges and threats both regionally and globally. Even assuming the new leaders in the Arab states would be interested in the preservation of political and business ties with Russia, Moscow's desire to support Russian business in the Arab world faces instability with the departure of authoritarian and odious but reliable partners and with the prospect of a new redistribution of power and markets. Some Russian experts believe that in Libya, where energy contracts have been suspended, Russian companies will not be able to regain lost ground in the oil sector because they will have to negotiate with new authorities in a completely different environment. Western countries that have been providing support for the rebels will be given priority in the signing of new agreements, as has happened in Iraq.

The events in the Arab world prove once again that the region plays an important role in Russia's relations with the West. Again, Libya provides an example. Russia abstained in the vote on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 that called for the establishment of a no-flight zone over Libya. Later, when the operation became practically a manhunt for Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Russia criticized the actions of NATO. Then, having maintained ties with Gaddafi and established relations with the rebels, Russia was asked to mediate an agreement between the opponents.

Overall, a situation of uncertainty obliges Russia to maintain a balanced position. Moscow realizes that its old Arab partners are doomed, yet has no trust in external intervention. It is trying to promote political negotiations that both reduce tensions and preclude any eventual animosity toward Russia on the part of the Arabs.-Published 28/7/2011 © bitterlemons-international.org

Irina Zvyagelskaya is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Oriental Studies (Moscow) and professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations under the Foreign Ministry.