Steven Seagal and Tony Blair walk into bar.
If that unusual event happened they would probably have more to talk about than
you would first think. Recently Seagal has started to sound more and more
political especially about recent troubles over in Ukraine allegedly involving
Russia. In an interview with the Big Issue magazine he stated that in his
view the west and Russia should not be at odds with each other since we after
all have a common enemy; Islamist extremists. To illustrate this world
view he expressed his desire to make a film showing US and Russians
joining forces to destroy militant Islam in a giant Seagal style kill
fest. While stating this view he waved off people portraying Russian
President Vladimir Putin as a bully and a thug, contrasting it with him as a
hard man and a strong leader.
Tony Blair in his implausible role as UN Middle East Peace Envoy suddenly came up with a similar brainwave. Recently he came back into the media spotlight to come up with a way of solving the Syrian Civil War. Acknowledging that Russia was the main backer of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad, Blair suggested the west should settle our differences with Russia with regards to the conflict quickly. After this settlement which would presumably have to leave Bashar Al Assad in power, the west could start to cooperate in a broader counter-terrorist alliance with the Russians.
The policy of making the enemy of our enemy our friends has regularly been used in world politics. Indeed the emergence of militant Islam itself was helped by generous western (and other countries) aid to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, with the purpose of dealing the Soviet Union a bloody nose. This laid the foundations for Al Qaeda which as well all know lead to the West’s chickens coming back to roost so to speak. Almost exactly 200 years before that Britain in its war with Napoleonic France made common cause with the deposed Bourbon royal family. Upon the French royalty’s return to power in 1815 they exacted their so called “White Terror” to exact their revenge on the beneficiaries of the revolution. But ironically the people who should know well the dangers of making common cause with the enemy are the Russians. Under the direction of Stalin the Soviet Union conspired with Hitler’s Nazi Germany to share resources and redraw the map
of Eastern Europe to their mutual liking. This lead Stalin to believe that Hitler could be dealt with and that he was on some level reasonable, thus creating an almost fatally false sense of security. Even more ironically the resources the Soviet Union sent over to Nazi Germany fuelled the latter’s war effort, hastening the inevitable clash between them.
The lesson to draw from here is not that we shouldn’t cooperate with countries who have common causes with ourselves, of course we should. But when it comes to players who play for as high stakes as Putin we can’t let our guard down. Furthermore the kind of deal Blair would propose and Seagal would back would involve a complete turnaround. We would be supporting the Syrian rebels one minute and then telling them the game is up just after. One has to wonder what encouragement that would lend to potential rebels living under other odious regimes, such as Zimbabwe and North Korea for one. Indeed the latter’s propaganda carries the same message, ‘you can’t trust the west’. If we abandon commitments we have made so readily, why should they?
Tony Blair in his implausible role as UN Middle East Peace Envoy suddenly came up with a similar brainwave. Recently he came back into the media spotlight to come up with a way of solving the Syrian Civil War. Acknowledging that Russia was the main backer of the Syrian dictator Bashar Al Assad, Blair suggested the west should settle our differences with Russia with regards to the conflict quickly. After this settlement which would presumably have to leave Bashar Al Assad in power, the west could start to cooperate in a broader counter-terrorist alliance with the Russians.
The policy of making the enemy of our enemy our friends has regularly been used in world politics. Indeed the emergence of militant Islam itself was helped by generous western (and other countries) aid to the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, with the purpose of dealing the Soviet Union a bloody nose. This laid the foundations for Al Qaeda which as well all know lead to the West’s chickens coming back to roost so to speak. Almost exactly 200 years before that Britain in its war with Napoleonic France made common cause with the deposed Bourbon royal family. Upon the French royalty’s return to power in 1815 they exacted their so called “White Terror” to exact their revenge on the beneficiaries of the revolution. But ironically the people who should know well the dangers of making common cause with the enemy are the Russians. Under the direction of Stalin the Soviet Union conspired with Hitler’s Nazi Germany to share resources and redraw the map
of Eastern Europe to their mutual liking. This lead Stalin to believe that Hitler could be dealt with and that he was on some level reasonable, thus creating an almost fatally false sense of security. Even more ironically the resources the Soviet Union sent over to Nazi Germany fuelled the latter’s war effort, hastening the inevitable clash between them.
The lesson to draw from here is not that we shouldn’t cooperate with countries who have common causes with ourselves, of course we should. But when it comes to players who play for as high stakes as Putin we can’t let our guard down. Furthermore the kind of deal Blair would propose and Seagal would back would involve a complete turnaround. We would be supporting the Syrian rebels one minute and then telling them the game is up just after. One has to wonder what encouragement that would lend to potential rebels living under other odious regimes, such as Zimbabwe and North Korea for one. Indeed the latter’s propaganda carries the same message, ‘you can’t trust the west’. If we abandon commitments we have made so readily, why should they?
To avoid confusion the UK should state clearly the rules of the game which should be the following. The UK should separate counter terrorist matters from all other dealings with Russia. Russia should be told in no uncertain terms that it will not get special treatment to elicit it’s cooperation in combating terrorism. If the UK suggests to Russia (or gives signals) that this kind of cooperation could be an incentive for the UK to change its policy with regards to other areas, we may find ourselves continuously giving with little in return. Putin would then rely on the counter terrorist card as a kind of carrot to dangle over us every time we have a problem with his conduct. Furthermore we are already a part of a vast network of countries that oppose militant Islam, so why bend over for Russia? Secondly we can say with some confidence that Russia will want mutual cooperation with regards to combating terrorism, regardless of what else is
happening with West-Russian relations, short of open war of course. Russia needs Western intelligence’s help more than we need theirs, so we should act like it.
The Blair and Seagal initiative bears much resemblance to the bright idea Churchill once had of uniting with Fascist Italy to combat Communism. History proved this idea to be unworkable as it will with this proposed alliance. If cooperation is to come about, it can’t be with an attitude to completely ignore what our partner is doing . Putin is a bully. He is responsible for bomber flights probing our airspace, killing dissidents on our soil, Russian oligarchs in Britain mysteriously being blown up and two ongoing civil wars. When bullies are given an inch they will take a mile. The diplomatic channels should always be open, but not so appeasement will be the only option. Our attitude to be Putin should reflect Jose Broz Tito’s the former leader of Yugoslavia. After refusing to take orders from Stalin a Soviet assassin was sent to kill him. The assassin was captured by Yugoslavian security and taken to Tito to deliver a message to Stalin.
Tito told he would-be assassin to tell Stalin that if this happens again Tito would send an assassin in return, and he would not have to send a second one.
No comments:
Post a Comment