In the context of its extrapolation of the Russian-Ukrainian war and its international repercussions, "Al-Khandak" held a dialogue with the former French diplomat and writer, Mr. Michel Raimbaud, to find out his most prominent views and approaches on the war today.

***

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to express my opinions on such a controversial War which set fire on a worldwide flammable situation:

Allow me to begin with some remarks. Yes this operation seemed to be launched all of a sudden, but it was fully foreseeable since we take in consideration the historical background and the evolution in the World for the past thirty years since the fall of the USSR in 1991. Anyway, the impact of this geopolitical earthquake was visible everywhere, but specifically heavy in the surroundings of the former Soviet territories.

We had to be very naïve to believe that the “regime change” resulting from the USSR breaking up could bring peace between the former western and eastern camps of the Cold War. It implied to ignore the ideological hatred of the US leadership against communism and its remnants, including any kind of Russian ruler. Anyway, there was never any intention in the Western side to make friends with a weakened former enemy as Russia, on the contrary, a deep desire to destroy the fallen superpower. That is the reason why tension continued to prevail in the aforesaid regions (Eastern Europe and the Balkans, in the Middle East and Central Asia) because of the extension of NATO towards the borders of Russia, the Heartland of the World, that was undertaken immediately, in spite of previous western commitments, recognized by most US and European officials.

It is interesting to notice that those conflicts referred to can be called “existential” for Russia that is defending its territories in its natural land, while Americans pretend to have vital interests in a part of the world located very far away from their headquarters and homeland.

You are quite right when noting that there are several approaches to this war, including in the Middle East region, where Russian is back and competing the US soft power influence. We can say that the United States has turned a challenge into an opportunity, restoring his role as a regulator of international politics and European security, but not beyond.

Does it mean that Russia has “stumbled” or “failed”, as long as nobody knows exactly the military goals of this operation. Unlike their Russian counterparts, western reporters, analysts and decision-makers are very talkative, but not very touchy about making a difference between documented realities and deliberate fake news and lies, or “wishful thinking” or War propaganda.

As far as I am concerned, I don’t trust the fake reports or comments fueling so many medias about the conflict, or about Russia at large, given the reigning madness and hysteria…This scepticism will explain some parts of my answers…

1- How will this war affect the Iranian-American negotiations? In other words: will this war accelerate the signing of the agreement, or it will feel the Americans that they are closer to delay the signing of the agreement, and instead they will reorganize their relations with their allies in the Middle East (with Gulf states, Israel, and Turkey)?

As far as the ongoing negotiations between Iranians and Americans are concerned, we must recall that the nuclear agreement that was violated by Washington is not a bilateral one. It was negotiated and signed by Iran and six countries - US, Russia, China, France, UK and Germany, plus the European Union: five of them against Iran, and two supporters (Russia and China). In my opinion, and in the prevailing context, the signing or delaying or even refusal will clearly be linked to the ongoing global confrontation between Eurasia and the West.

Iran and Russia and China are strategic partners. And none of them violated the agreement. It’s up to the three westerners to make the necessary concessions. And it is not very sure that they will agree to agree. It could be reasonable to expect the military outcome of the conflict before thinking of any solution, happy end or not.

In what regards the reorganization of the roles between the allies of the US, the process has started, the Emirates taking over the role of the “Chief-proxy” in the Middle East, to relay Saudi Arabia…No change for Qatar…

No change for Israel that remains the beating-heart of America in the ME and the region at large, including perhaps in the Ukrainian conflict to some extent, and as a first impression. But Israel's siding with Ukraine will contribute to raise the level of tension in the Middle East, since it unveiled some new and unprecedented expectations for the Israeli future.

As regards the Syrian airspace, which is submitted to monthly or weekly violations by Israeli Air Force, the evolution will depend on the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on the bilateral mood between Tel-Aviv and Moscow. It is a matter of fact that the War in Ukraine is deeply connected to the Syrian conflict, a reality often silenced but never forgotten.

Turkey is a real challenge for the US and Russia altogether. Erdogan is a member of NATO (America’s friend and allied). He is a geographic and strategic neighbor and an important trade partner for Russia, midway between partnership and hostility. He is the Muslim Brotherhood leader for some Arabs, and an ambiguous partner for Israel…Not very trustworthy for anybody, as he has many ambitions for the future and for himself, to remake the Ottoman Empire (one century after the fall of the sultanate and Califate, i.e. within a couple of years). I am not sure that Washington has got a real grip on this very unpredictable character… nor that Erdogan is ready to remain under the US tutelage.

2- Will the war bring the positions of Ankara and Washington closer? Didn’t you consider that the reforming the US relationship with Turkey has become an urgent matter?

Reading this second question, I realize I gave a piece of advice, without bringing an answer. At this stage of the war, nobody is able to say whether Ankara and Washington can share any position, closer or not. Turkey is a state of the region and Erdogan is aware, if not conscious, of all the ins and outs of the situation. Biden is an American foreigner, and I doubt he might have a real and deep knowledge about Ukraine and the Balkans sensitivity, even about the capacity of Russia and its people to resist and win wars. Even taking into account his long background as a political US leader….

3- Do you not think that the concerns of countries in Eurasia will return again, which means that India will be closer to Russia in the future? And how can China proceed with a settlement with the United States?

Of course, this is evidently a geopolitical confrontation between Eurasia (Russia, China, Iran) and the Atlantic Empire, the outcome of which will impact drastically the forthcoming years and the New World Order at large. In my opinion, the Western hegemony on the World is over and there will be no backward movement, whatever the daily details of the story-telling.

I believe that India which is a giant country as China and linked to Russia through the BRICS organization will finally support Moscow, more firmly than before, in spite of all the pressures. India has refused to condemn and sanction Russia at the United Nations.

Another example: “We are not your slaves” was the Pakistani Prime Minister’s answer to the US request…Indonesia invited Poutine to the G20 Summit and seems to be willing to resist the US pressures.

Can we think about a settlement between China and the US? 1,5 billion people, the first economy and trading position in the World, probably the First Navy, the Factory of the World and the Producer number one for so many items. Let’s not forget his financial superpower, and his role of Banker of the Planet… China is less and less in a mood to begging a settlement with America. Biden is a very poor diplomat while his State Secretary seems to be lost in the Foreign Affairs domain.

4- What are the repercussions of this war on the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Baltics? Do you not think that Russia can resort to pricing tension in these regions if it suffers a setback in Ukraine?

Of course, this war will have strong repercussions on the whole western border zone of Russia from the Baltics in the North down to Poland, Belarus, Romania and Bulgaria and Caucasus (Azerbaidjan, Armenia, Moldavia, Transnistria), parts of the former USSR, as well as in former Yugoslavia. All those countries have a common past and a special relationship with Russia, ranging from close proximity to hard hostility depending on their history, their political background in the soviet framework, or their ethnic roots. For those reasons they have a great geopolitical importance for Moscow.

Of course President Poutine could yield to the temptation you refer to, as a compensation to a setback in Ukraine. But the best-documented sources give an analysis very different from the version available in western medias. Taking into account the new configuration of the world order, including the alliances and the wholesome pressure of the international worldwide expectations, I don’t believe that Russia will suffer a real or final setback, that’s what the History should teach us. The unilateral game is over…