There are no fewer than 10 articles on Russia (and Ukraine) this week. I have only managed three so far.
The argument that stood out for me was, "What should the West do? Time is on its side. A declining power needs containing until it is eventually overrun by its own contradictions—even as the urge to lash out remains."
Others have mentioned Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Several times I have wondered if this is not linked to the Russian problem. The US and the EU turn a blind eye to the Saudi pounding of Yemen in return for the Saudi's maintaining a low oil price which is destroying the Russian economy. Shameful, but plausible if not probable.
Your highlighted bold part is exactly the quote I was referring too.
The italicised part is part of a bigger picture. Not just plausible but pretty much open knowledge and no one really denies it (mass consumption media aside).
The West's strategic allies in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey.
"History is one damn thing after another" said Churchill, and to understand the history there one needs to go back tad.
Post World War 2, the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 1953, long termed a conspiracy theory blaming CIA, but officially acknowledged after the usual generational time lag fir declassification brought the Shah into power. It also swapped American interest for British interest. So Iran was pro US, as indeed was Saudi Arabia with its House of Saud.
The oil crisis following the Yom Kippur war of 1973 was superbly handled by the US who got the Saudis to hand over petro dollar for every possible project handed out to US contractors. And of course non stop arms deals benefiting the US arms producers.
However, in 1979, the Shah was overthrown, and with the Soviet Union going into Afghanistan with an eye on warm waters and oil in the Middle East, things looked shaky. Ties with Iraw were soon cultivated, leading to an Iraqi offensive into Iran in 1980. Iraqi engineers and postgraduate students now started appearing in droves at the best US technical schools.
Also in 1979, Pakistan was cultivated too. They took in 5 million Afghan refugees fleeing the Soviets, funded by Saudi Arabia and the US. The "mujahideen" were born, with visits from George Bush senior snd Casper Weinberger. The mujahideen were provided not nist training and arms but combative non Afghan mujahideen were brought into a purported battle between just God fearing Muslims and Christians vs the Godless Soviets. Remember the film Rocky 4?
In 1989, Soviets withdrew bloodied and exhausted. Unwisely, the US withdrew from the area in haste, and the same "God fearing holy warriors", the mujahideen, metamorphosed into the atavistic Talibsn.
Iraq too had had been turned back after its 1980 to 1988 battle with Iran. The Soviets now defeated in Afghanistan but Iran not brought back into control, a presence in the Middle East beyond just Saudi Arabia was needed.
The opportunity came in 1990 when Saddam Hussein took Iraq into Kuwait.
We know the history since (but but not from the Daily Mail).
In geopolitics, innocence is a relative concept. Most parties end up either doing work which no one would approve, or instigate indirectly, or look the other way when someone else does it to one's purported benefit. Hue and cry only appears when things don't go one's way, or to bear pressure through media and propaganda.
With draconian sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s (another topic) the country was helpless. This was well known. Saddam though still had to pirtray hinself in a show of bravado as the local strong man, most notably against Iran and Syria, both Shia states. The action against Iraq in 2003 was ill advised from every possible geo strategic angle.
With Saddam bow gone, and Iran a bigger player, tge issue focused on Syria. Iran is not easily taken out. Syria smaller and with Assad doing his little dictator routine to quell his own version of the Arab spring, an opportunity arose. It was badly taken.
An opportunity was presented to Erdogan, as part of Nato Turkey, to train Syrian "freedom fighters" in Turkey, backed by US, UK, and France in particular, funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two close Sunni economic ally states of the West. The same motley crew of rag tag "freedom fighters" were trained and let loose.
Caliph Baghdadi, or whatever his latest preferred name, was around way before the barbarian ISIS. One can google pictures of him meeting John McCain on the internet. But as with the holy mujahideen become atavistic Taliban, the Syrian freedom fighters metamorphed into barbarian ISIS. A most unholy mess.
As Russia started sabre rattling, seeing its diminished influence on the planet, its only real economic strength was the price of oil. But with a slow down in world wide demand due to the credit crunch, when the Saudis suddenly opened their taps, Russia took a serious hammer blow that left it reeling. Why did the Saudis suddenly open their taps in the manner they did? One to ponder. There are as many denials as theories.
One thing is clear though. The blowback from the military adventures in the Middle East has been both the regugee crisis, and the security situation. Downing of various airlines, and terrorist attacks in Turkey, France, and Belgium, are not isolated incidents. There is indeed a theory that Erdogan was complicit in the Paris attacks as he was left with the refugee crisis and complaining bitterly. The bizarre coup attempt and his subsequent handling show his tenuous grip on matters.
Same too with Russia. Having lost out everywhere, vit seeing the West make a mess of what it gets into, it is keen to be both a nuisance and to be seen as important, and to salvage what it can. Therefore Ukraine, therefore Syria, and therefore more noise.
Once one can look beyond the usual nonsense peddled by one's own media, the jigsaw is less so. The problem is that all countries flood their own populations with one sided view of matters.
Forget mass media. Even intellectual think tanks are set up for one purpose or another. To push an agenda, a viewpoint, and therefore a vested interest.
The bottom line on Russia is that it got handed an opportunity. It is taking it wisely or unwisely (latter in my opinion). But it is also severely constrained.
Leadership in the West has much to answer for too. It is not a simple 1 dimensional left to right political spectrum question. Driven largely by special interests, and unable to form coherent policies they can execute on, Western leaders have ill served their own people.
The adventures in the Middle East have not beem to our benefit in any way, but have of course benefited special interests. Real issues lie not only unaddressed but unmasked.
I tend to scan news from a variety of sources, aware that none are likely presenting a full or unbiased version. But combing versions, clearer pictures tend to emerge.
