Will puppet
The collapse of Ukraine in the medium term is not just likely, but most likely inevitable.
The elections held in Ukraine and in Novorossia largely determine the prospects for the near future of Russia's relations with the European Union and the Western community as a whole. The reality was not only the dual power in Ukraine and the disruption of the elections to the Rada in the southeast, which contrasted with the high activity of the inhabitants of the region when voting for the leadership of Novorossia. The results obtained in the regions of southern and eastern Ukraine controlled by Kiev are ambiguous. Low turnout - on the verge of a boycott of elections to the Rada - in some areas of this part of the country and the victory of the “Opposition bloc” in others means that the split has worsened.
As a result of the elections, Petro Poroshenko failed to secure a monopoly on power. In Ukraine, diarchy. As Poroshenko and the main beneficiary of the elections, Arseniy Yatsenyuk will share the powers, it is impossible to predict. Whether Ukraine will be a parliamentary or presidential republic, what kind of constitution its views will take is not clear to anyone. One should not disregard the radicals who were rejected by the majority of voters as a parliamentary force but retaining hundreds of thousands of supporters.
Taking into account the factor of Igor Kolomoisky and his henchmen, as well as field commanders, introduced into different factions of the Rada, the continuing issuance of EU passports to compactly living members of national minorities (Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, Greeks and Bulgarians), problems of Transcarpathia and other Western of the regions that Stalin once rejected from the countries of Eastern Europe, the future of Ukraine as a single state remains in question. Ahead is the collapse of the economy and social infrastructure of this country. Neither the EU nor the United States will support Ukraine, despite the hopes of Maidan, military assistance does not have the slightest relation to the problems of its population, and financial subsidies are designed to ensure uninterrupted transit of Russian gas to Europe - no more.
It should be noted that everything that happens fits completely into the typical line for US State Department officials to promote their henchmen to power in the countries they care for at any cost. At the same time, we recall, the initial bet of Washington was made on Yatsenyuk, and not on Poroshenko. Accordingly, in the near future, Ukraine will face a power struggle in the upper echelons, primarily between these two people. However, the extent to which the characters chosen by the American bureaucracy as agents of the policy of the United States in one country or another are able to govern the state in the case of Ukraine does not matter. Just as it meant nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. Personnel policy in satellite countries has never been a strong point of the Americans.
No gas, no future
Catastrophic dips in the US rates throughout modern stories This country for those or other presidents and prime ministers, as a rule, ultimately leads to the disintegration of states that are forced to submit to American pressure (the role of Europe in this should not be exaggerated - it is more than auxiliary). It is unlikely that the processes in Ukraine will differ from those that we observe in the Middle East. This means that its disintegration in the medium term is not only probable, but most likely inevitable, regardless of the position with respect to it to Russia.
A bet on a complete breakdown of economic relations between Kiev and Moscow, including through military-technical cooperation, a demonstrative and demonstrative destruction of the industrial potential of the south-east during the ATU initiated by Kiev, as well as a statement by Western leaders about new anti-Russian sanctions if Moscow recognizes the election results in Novorossia, they confirm the version that everything that is happening in Ukraine is the result of a targeted campaign by the American leadership to “restrict” and “return to natural Russian borders. The emergence of a “former state” in place of Ukraine, engulfed in civil war, is a danger to both Europe and Russia, but it beats the interests of the latter much more. Moscow, unlike Brussels, cannot afford to distance itself from events occurring in the neighborhood, or to ignore their consequences.
Whether Ukraine will preserve the unity of the remaining territories on an anti-Russian basis will split into parts, turn into a war zone of all against all like the one that it represented at the beginning of the twentieth century, or simply into a common European source of crime, refugees and migrants - legal and illegal, not so important. In any case, she will not be a prosperous friendly neighbor of the Russian Federation for at least a long period. The territories breaking away from it, regardless of whether their leadership manifests a desire to unite with Russia or not, will additionally burden the domestic economy and worsen Moscow’s relations with its neighbors, allowing it to play the anti-Russian card in Central Asia, Transcaucasia and Moldova just as it is played in Europe and the Baltics. At the same time, nothing directly threatens America, and it can and will sacrifice the interests of the European Union, as it always does.
The latter once again raises the question that a significant part of states in the modern world no longer has real sovereignty. More precisely, countries, including developed Western states that joined the US campaign against Russia because of the situation in Ukraine, often contrary to their own vital interests, clearly demonstrated that they do not have such sovereignty and can be regarded as if they are not American-occupied territories However, if we recall the geography of the deployment of US bases outside their own borders, this is true in the literal sense of the word), then as the political colonies of Washington. That, of course, will be refuted by Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia or the EU countries, but in fact exactly corresponds to the real situation.
At the same time, as long as no steps towards the West in the Ukrainian conflict still will not be credited to Moscow as a gesture of goodwill and the response from its antagonists will not follow, this completely unleashes the Russian leadership. Whatever it does, pressure will increase, sanctions tighten, and rhetoric will not soften. As a result, Moscow’s further activities in all areas of its foreign policy currently being pursued are exclusively in their own national interests, like the Americans do. It’s not by chance that the Arabs say: “Do not listen to what America advises you, do what America does.” It is possible that for Russia this is the best recommendation - and not only in relation to Ukraine.
It is characteristic that immediately after the parliamentary elections in the south-east of Ukraine, at the initiative of Kiev, hostilities resumed. The fact that the Ukrainian army, upon completion of a relatively short truce, will be able to conduct them with a better result than before it, professional experts do not believe. Recall that the “Minsk agreements”, according to which fighting was supposed to cease in the zone of the “anti-terrorist operation,” were reached at a time when the militia of Novorossia led the offensive in several directions, and the Ukrainian army and the National Guard retreated, leaving Mariupol to the mercy of their fate and focusing on a breakthrough from the "boilers", which included large military units controlled by the central government.
On the eve of the onset of winter, official Kiev clearly demonstrates not a desire to reach agreements with Moscow, but indicative unfriendly gestures. This activity is not rational, but fully corresponds to the role of the puppet of the United States, who relied on the maximum deterioration of Russian-Ukrainian relations, the rupture of bilateral ties and the tough confrontation of the former "fraternal Soviet republics". After the elections, even those relatively modest steps towards Moscow that President Poroshenko allowed himself to do will be blocked by Yatsenyuk, known for his outrageous statements about Russia. Moreover, any compromise with Gazprom will be regarded by him and his faction in the Rada as a betrayal of national interests - with all of the ensuing consequences in a belligerent country.
Accordingly, the problem of providing the country with energy resources is solved by Ukrainian leaders any way except the simplest one: paying Russia gas debts and restoring cooperation with Moscow. In addition to attempts to organize a reverse from Europe, which are suppressed and will continue to be stopped by Gazprom in accordance with the contracts that it concluded with consumers in the West, these are possible deliveries of Qatari LNG through Poland, the Baltic States and Belarus. The supply of private Ukrainian consumers, from the point of view of official Kiev, can and should be ensured by converting local boilers from natural gas to alternative fuels. As for the national scale, the Ukrainian leadership has recently been trying to negotiate the supply of Central Asian gas to the country, bypassing Russia.
On November 4, Turkmen media reported on the meeting of the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Pavel Klimkin, with President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. It, among other things, discussed the lobbying capabilities of Ukraine in the European Union (!) To promote the construction of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline (TCG). According to sources, Klimkin argued that Kiev has enough political weight to promote the project in Brussels if it includes a branch to Ukraine, allowing it to supply Turkmen fuel without engaging the Russian gas transmission system.
Paying tribute to the most adventurous way of posing the issue, which fully characterizes the style of the foreign policy of the Ukrainian leadership, we recall the contacts between Kiev and Ashgabat that have been operating since the presidents of Kuchma and Niyazov in the economic, financial and military-political spheres, including large-scale deliveries to Turkmenistan tanks, which then "surfaced" in Afghanistan. The relations of the top leadership of the two countries, including informal ones, have more than a solid base. Given the current aggravation of the domestic political crisis in Ukraine, which tends to develop into a full-scale civil war and the collapse of the country, in parallel with the growing threats to Turkmenistan in the Afghan direction and its tense relations with Russia on the gas issue, an attempt to cooperate in the “friendship against Moscow” format is quite logical.
The latter explains a lot in the course of domestic Gazprom to achieve full autonomy of natural gas supplies to the south of Russia. In 2013, the Stavropol region on 40 percent depended on the stability of Moscow’s relations with the Central Asian republics. At the same time, gas was supplied to Russia at export prices - up to 380 dollars per thousand cubic meters, and was used at domestic prices. To date, the gas supply scheme that has been in effect since the USSR times has been rebuilt. By the end of October 2014, the construction of the linear part of the gas pipeline “Izobilny” - Nevinomyssk was completed; Immediately afterwards, during his visit to Turkmenistan, the deputy chairman of the Gazprom board, Alexander Medvedev, announced the termination of purchases of Turkmen gas for the coming years: Ashkhabad’s refusal to offer price discounts to Russia led to a natural result.
The inevitable consequence of this - given the simultaneous sharp reduction or complete cessation of Iranian gas purchases by Iran for internal reasons - will be the demarches of official Ashgabat against Moscow and the remnants of the Russian-speaking population of the republic (which took place more than once in independent Turkmenistan), as well as attempts to intensify the construction of the TAG, which is impossible without full assistance to this project of Azerbaijan. Whether Central Asia will retain its export potential in the event of a strike from Afghanistan on the territory of the post-Soviet republics of armed Islamists, whether this strike is directed at the Murghab valley, the Surkhandarya region or the Fergana valley, is a question that has no answer. However, it is safe to assume that any energy project that includes the anti-Russian component, economic or political, will be supported by the European Union and the United States. What President Berdymukhammedov undoubtedly takes into account.
Commonwealth of warring states
The policies of the countries of the Western bloc and their Middle Eastern allies are no less fanciful than the Ukrainian one. There is no strategy there, except for the desire to dominate at any cost at the expense of competitors, opponents, and in case of partners, is not visible. All agreements are temporary. Alliances arise only against someone, and all members of alliances of this kind simultaneously with the struggle against the enemy or competitor are trying to establish a system of informal contacts at the expense of the partners. Strong states neglect the interests of weaker allies, and the United States - the interests of all of them together, forming in essence a “terrarium of like-minded people." Openly speaking against a country, Washington does not hesitate to ask it to join the next coalition or to support the diplomatic initiative if the need arises. An example is the relationship of the United States with Russia and Iran.
At the moment, the United States intends to hold resolutions on limited no-fly zones in Syria and Yemen in the UN Security Council and is trying to draw Russia into this game. In the first case, under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State (IS), in reality, they are hoping to implement the Libyan scenario in Syria and overthrow Bashar Assad with the hands of the so-called moderate opposition, which Saudi Arabia and Turkey form from the same Islamists who are formally fighting the existing IG coalition. In the second, in order to preserve the status quo in Yemen in the interests of Saudi Arabia, which was disturbed after the Northerners, supporters of Shi'ite Zeidite Islam, not only defeated the Hashed tribal Sunni formations and eliminated al-Qaeda militants in the north of the country , but also took full control of the capital - Sana'a and the major port on the Red Sea - Hodeida, through which logistic supply channels passed weapons on the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.
With Iran, the Americans, without lifting the sanctions imposed by the States on Tehran because of its nuclear program, de facto cooperate in exchanging information on IS and transferring weapons to the Kurds who are at war with the Islamists in Syrian territory, and this causes serious friction in the US’s relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition, Washington is trying to find regional support for the period after the withdrawal of the main military contingent deployed in Afghanistan: the Islamic Republic of Iran has been invited to participate in projects in Afghanistan through the relevant Pentagon agency. However, Washington categorically objects to strengthening Iran’s position in Lebanon, demanding that Beirut not accept the military assistance offered by Iran, as well as in Syria and Iraq. Tehran, in turn, continues to support Shiite communities and organizations in the region, including the Yemeni Housits, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi sadrists, as well as the Assad government, the Shiites of Eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are fighting among themselves, using terrorist groups: Salafists - on the one hand, and supporters of political Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood - on the other. The balance of forces that they form around them changes with kaleidoscopic speed. Thus, Riyadh ousted Tehran from Sudan: Khartoum closed all Iranian cultural centers in the country, which were considered in that country as a cover for the residency of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. However, Doha benefited from this: ahead of the Saudis, Qatar literally bought out Sudan from them, including by guaranteeing deliveries of liquefied gas to that country, which gave the president the much-needed hydrocarbon reserve he did not depend on the situation in South Sudan and Juba’s relations with Khartoum.
Thus, Sudan fell out of the anti-Ethiopian alliance formed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Eritrea remained in it. Ethiopia, with its course of cooperation with the United States and a deadly dangerous hydropower project for Egypt on the Blue Nile, is the original enemy of Eritrea. The Salafi preachers, supported by Riyadh, were at one time exiled by Addis Ababa from the Muslim-populated Somali ethnic origin of Ogaden, replaced by the “moderate Islamists” supported by Qatar. As a result, Saudi Arabia has lost ground in Ethiopia in favor of Qatar, in contrast to Egypt. There, on the contrary, the army supported by the Saudis ousted President Mohammed Mursi with his pro-Cathar Muslim Brotherhood government.
As a specific detail of the current state of relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we note that the rearmament of the Egyptian army with Saudi money will be peaked for Washington not by the US military industrial complex, but by France, which the kingdom lobbies, and Russia, whose weapons in a number of positions are preferred by Cairo. Formally, Egypt is in a coalition against the IG, but President Al-Sisi is limited to conducting military operations against the Islamists on the Sinai Peninsula, including creating a buffer zone on the border with the Gaza Strip, maintaining the status quo on the Saudi-Iraqi border, and fighting terrorists inside country.
Simply put, Ukraine, as an American satellite, was not entirely in the company where it was striving. But this is currently only her own problem.
The elections held in Ukraine and in Novorossia largely determine the prospects for the near future of Russia's relations with the European Union and the Western community as a whole. The reality was not only the dual power in Ukraine and the disruption of the elections to the Rada in the southeast, which contrasted with the high activity of the inhabitants of the region when voting for the leadership of Novorossia. The results obtained in the regions of southern and eastern Ukraine controlled by Kiev are ambiguous. Low turnout - on the verge of a boycott of elections to the Rada - in some areas of this part of the country and the victory of the “Opposition bloc” in others means that the split has worsened.
As a result of the elections, Petro Poroshenko failed to secure a monopoly on power. In Ukraine, diarchy. As Poroshenko and the main beneficiary of the elections, Arseniy Yatsenyuk will share the powers, it is impossible to predict. Whether Ukraine will be a parliamentary or presidential republic, what kind of constitution its views will take is not clear to anyone. One should not disregard the radicals who were rejected by the majority of voters as a parliamentary force but retaining hundreds of thousands of supporters.
Taking into account the factor of Igor Kolomoisky and his henchmen, as well as field commanders, introduced into different factions of the Rada, the continuing issuance of EU passports to compactly living members of national minorities (Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Romanians, Greeks and Bulgarians), problems of Transcarpathia and other Western of the regions that Stalin once rejected from the countries of Eastern Europe, the future of Ukraine as a single state remains in question. Ahead is the collapse of the economy and social infrastructure of this country. Neither the EU nor the United States will support Ukraine, despite the hopes of Maidan, military assistance does not have the slightest relation to the problems of its population, and financial subsidies are designed to ensure uninterrupted transit of Russian gas to Europe - no more.
It should be noted that everything that happens fits completely into the typical line for US State Department officials to promote their henchmen to power in the countries they care for at any cost. At the same time, we recall, the initial bet of Washington was made on Yatsenyuk, and not on Poroshenko. Accordingly, in the near future, Ukraine will face a power struggle in the upper echelons, primarily between these two people. However, the extent to which the characters chosen by the American bureaucracy as agents of the policy of the United States in one country or another are able to govern the state in the case of Ukraine does not matter. Just as it meant nothing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. Personnel policy in satellite countries has never been a strong point of the Americans.
No gas, no future
Catastrophic dips in the US rates throughout modern stories This country for those or other presidents and prime ministers, as a rule, ultimately leads to the disintegration of states that are forced to submit to American pressure (the role of Europe in this should not be exaggerated - it is more than auxiliary). It is unlikely that the processes in Ukraine will differ from those that we observe in the Middle East. This means that its disintegration in the medium term is not only probable, but most likely inevitable, regardless of the position with respect to it to Russia.
A bet on a complete breakdown of economic relations between Kiev and Moscow, including through military-technical cooperation, a demonstrative and demonstrative destruction of the industrial potential of the south-east during the ATU initiated by Kiev, as well as a statement by Western leaders about new anti-Russian sanctions if Moscow recognizes the election results in Novorossia, they confirm the version that everything that is happening in Ukraine is the result of a targeted campaign by the American leadership to “restrict” and “return to natural Russian borders. The emergence of a “former state” in place of Ukraine, engulfed in civil war, is a danger to both Europe and Russia, but it beats the interests of the latter much more. Moscow, unlike Brussels, cannot afford to distance itself from events occurring in the neighborhood, or to ignore their consequences.Whether Ukraine will preserve the unity of the remaining territories on an anti-Russian basis will split into parts, turn into a war zone of all against all like the one that it represented at the beginning of the twentieth century, or simply into a common European source of crime, refugees and migrants - legal and illegal, not so important. In any case, she will not be a prosperous friendly neighbor of the Russian Federation for at least a long period. The territories breaking away from it, regardless of whether their leadership manifests a desire to unite with Russia or not, will additionally burden the domestic economy and worsen Moscow’s relations with its neighbors, allowing it to play the anti-Russian card in Central Asia, Transcaucasia and Moldova just as it is played in Europe and the Baltics. At the same time, nothing directly threatens America, and it can and will sacrifice the interests of the European Union, as it always does.
The latter once again raises the question that a significant part of states in the modern world no longer has real sovereignty. More precisely, countries, including developed Western states that joined the US campaign against Russia because of the situation in Ukraine, often contrary to their own vital interests, clearly demonstrated that they do not have such sovereignty and can be regarded as if they are not American-occupied territories However, if we recall the geography of the deployment of US bases outside their own borders, this is true in the literal sense of the word), then as the political colonies of Washington. That, of course, will be refuted by Japan, Korea, Canada, Australia or the EU countries, but in fact exactly corresponds to the real situation.
At the same time, as long as no steps towards the West in the Ukrainian conflict still will not be credited to Moscow as a gesture of goodwill and the response from its antagonists will not follow, this completely unleashes the Russian leadership. Whatever it does, pressure will increase, sanctions tighten, and rhetoric will not soften. As a result, Moscow’s further activities in all areas of its foreign policy currently being pursued are exclusively in their own national interests, like the Americans do. It’s not by chance that the Arabs say: “Do not listen to what America advises you, do what America does.” It is possible that for Russia this is the best recommendation - and not only in relation to Ukraine.
It is characteristic that immediately after the parliamentary elections in the south-east of Ukraine, at the initiative of Kiev, hostilities resumed. The fact that the Ukrainian army, upon completion of a relatively short truce, will be able to conduct them with a better result than before it, professional experts do not believe. Recall that the “Minsk agreements”, according to which fighting was supposed to cease in the zone of the “anti-terrorist operation,” were reached at a time when the militia of Novorossia led the offensive in several directions, and the Ukrainian army and the National Guard retreated, leaving Mariupol to the mercy of their fate and focusing on a breakthrough from the "boilers", which included large military units controlled by the central government.
On the eve of the onset of winter, official Kiev clearly demonstrates not a desire to reach agreements with Moscow, but indicative unfriendly gestures. This activity is not rational, but fully corresponds to the role of the puppet of the United States, who relied on the maximum deterioration of Russian-Ukrainian relations, the rupture of bilateral ties and the tough confrontation of the former "fraternal Soviet republics". After the elections, even those relatively modest steps towards Moscow that President Poroshenko allowed himself to do will be blocked by Yatsenyuk, known for his outrageous statements about Russia. Moreover, any compromise with Gazprom will be regarded by him and his faction in the Rada as a betrayal of national interests - with all of the ensuing consequences in a belligerent country.Accordingly, the problem of providing the country with energy resources is solved by Ukrainian leaders any way except the simplest one: paying Russia gas debts and restoring cooperation with Moscow. In addition to attempts to organize a reverse from Europe, which are suppressed and will continue to be stopped by Gazprom in accordance with the contracts that it concluded with consumers in the West, these are possible deliveries of Qatari LNG through Poland, the Baltic States and Belarus. The supply of private Ukrainian consumers, from the point of view of official Kiev, can and should be ensured by converting local boilers from natural gas to alternative fuels. As for the national scale, the Ukrainian leadership has recently been trying to negotiate the supply of Central Asian gas to the country, bypassing Russia.
On November 4, Turkmen media reported on the meeting of the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, Pavel Klimkin, with President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov. It, among other things, discussed the lobbying capabilities of Ukraine in the European Union (!) To promote the construction of the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline (TCG). According to sources, Klimkin argued that Kiev has enough political weight to promote the project in Brussels if it includes a branch to Ukraine, allowing it to supply Turkmen fuel without engaging the Russian gas transmission system.
Paying tribute to the most adventurous way of posing the issue, which fully characterizes the style of the foreign policy of the Ukrainian leadership, we recall the contacts between Kiev and Ashgabat that have been operating since the presidents of Kuchma and Niyazov in the economic, financial and military-political spheres, including large-scale deliveries to Turkmenistan tanks, which then "surfaced" in Afghanistan. The relations of the top leadership of the two countries, including informal ones, have more than a solid base. Given the current aggravation of the domestic political crisis in Ukraine, which tends to develop into a full-scale civil war and the collapse of the country, in parallel with the growing threats to Turkmenistan in the Afghan direction and its tense relations with Russia on the gas issue, an attempt to cooperate in the “friendship against Moscow” format is quite logical.
The latter explains a lot in the course of domestic Gazprom to achieve full autonomy of natural gas supplies to the south of Russia. In 2013, the Stavropol region on 40 percent depended on the stability of Moscow’s relations with the Central Asian republics. At the same time, gas was supplied to Russia at export prices - up to 380 dollars per thousand cubic meters, and was used at domestic prices. To date, the gas supply scheme that has been in effect since the USSR times has been rebuilt. By the end of October 2014, the construction of the linear part of the gas pipeline “Izobilny” - Nevinomyssk was completed; Immediately afterwards, during his visit to Turkmenistan, the deputy chairman of the Gazprom board, Alexander Medvedev, announced the termination of purchases of Turkmen gas for the coming years: Ashkhabad’s refusal to offer price discounts to Russia led to a natural result.
The inevitable consequence of this - given the simultaneous sharp reduction or complete cessation of Iranian gas purchases by Iran for internal reasons - will be the demarches of official Ashgabat against Moscow and the remnants of the Russian-speaking population of the republic (which took place more than once in independent Turkmenistan), as well as attempts to intensify the construction of the TAG, which is impossible without full assistance to this project of Azerbaijan. Whether Central Asia will retain its export potential in the event of a strike from Afghanistan on the territory of the post-Soviet republics of armed Islamists, whether this strike is directed at the Murghab valley, the Surkhandarya region or the Fergana valley, is a question that has no answer. However, it is safe to assume that any energy project that includes the anti-Russian component, economic or political, will be supported by the European Union and the United States. What President Berdymukhammedov undoubtedly takes into account.
Commonwealth of warring states
The policies of the countries of the Western bloc and their Middle Eastern allies are no less fanciful than the Ukrainian one. There is no strategy there, except for the desire to dominate at any cost at the expense of competitors, opponents, and in case of partners, is not visible. All agreements are temporary. Alliances arise only against someone, and all members of alliances of this kind simultaneously with the struggle against the enemy or competitor are trying to establish a system of informal contacts at the expense of the partners. Strong states neglect the interests of weaker allies, and the United States - the interests of all of them together, forming in essence a “terrarium of like-minded people." Openly speaking against a country, Washington does not hesitate to ask it to join the next coalition or to support the diplomatic initiative if the need arises. An example is the relationship of the United States with Russia and Iran.
At the moment, the United States intends to hold resolutions on limited no-fly zones in Syria and Yemen in the UN Security Council and is trying to draw Russia into this game. In the first case, under the pretext of fighting the Islamic State (IS), in reality, they are hoping to implement the Libyan scenario in Syria and overthrow Bashar Assad with the hands of the so-called moderate opposition, which Saudi Arabia and Turkey form from the same Islamists who are formally fighting the existing IG coalition. In the second, in order to preserve the status quo in Yemen in the interests of Saudi Arabia, which was disturbed after the Northerners, supporters of Shi'ite Zeidite Islam, not only defeated the Hashed tribal Sunni formations and eliminated al-Qaeda militants in the north of the country , but also took full control of the capital - Sana'a and the major port on the Red Sea - Hodeida, through which logistic supply channels passed weapons on the Horn of Africa and the Arabian Peninsula.
With Iran, the Americans, without lifting the sanctions imposed by the States on Tehran because of its nuclear program, de facto cooperate in exchanging information on IS and transferring weapons to the Kurds who are at war with the Islamists in Syrian territory, and this causes serious friction in the US’s relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia. In addition, Washington is trying to find regional support for the period after the withdrawal of the main military contingent deployed in Afghanistan: the Islamic Republic of Iran has been invited to participate in projects in Afghanistan through the relevant Pentagon agency. However, Washington categorically objects to strengthening Iran’s position in Lebanon, demanding that Beirut not accept the military assistance offered by Iran, as well as in Syria and Iraq. Tehran, in turn, continues to support Shiite communities and organizations in the region, including the Yemeni Housits, the Lebanese Hezbollah and Iraqi sadrists, as well as the Assad government, the Shiites of Eastern Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are fighting among themselves, using terrorist groups: Salafists - on the one hand, and supporters of political Islam like the Muslim Brotherhood - on the other. The balance of forces that they form around them changes with kaleidoscopic speed. Thus, Riyadh ousted Tehran from Sudan: Khartoum closed all Iranian cultural centers in the country, which were considered in that country as a cover for the residency of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. However, Doha benefited from this: ahead of the Saudis, Qatar literally bought out Sudan from them, including by guaranteeing deliveries of liquefied gas to that country, which gave the president the much-needed hydrocarbon reserve he did not depend on the situation in South Sudan and Juba’s relations with Khartoum.
Thus, Sudan fell out of the anti-Ethiopian alliance formed by Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Eritrea remained in it. Ethiopia, with its course of cooperation with the United States and a deadly dangerous hydropower project for Egypt on the Blue Nile, is the original enemy of Eritrea. The Salafi preachers, supported by Riyadh, were at one time exiled by Addis Ababa from the Muslim-populated Somali ethnic origin of Ogaden, replaced by the “moderate Islamists” supported by Qatar. As a result, Saudi Arabia has lost ground in Ethiopia in favor of Qatar, in contrast to Egypt. There, on the contrary, the army supported by the Saudis ousted President Mohammed Mursi with his pro-Cathar Muslim Brotherhood government.
As a specific detail of the current state of relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia, we note that the rearmament of the Egyptian army with Saudi money will be peaked for Washington not by the US military industrial complex, but by France, which the kingdom lobbies, and Russia, whose weapons in a number of positions are preferred by Cairo. Formally, Egypt is in a coalition against the IG, but President Al-Sisi is limited to conducting military operations against the Islamists on the Sinai Peninsula, including creating a buffer zone on the border with the Gaza Strip, maintaining the status quo on the Saudi-Iraqi border, and fighting terrorists inside country.
Simply put, Ukraine, as an American satellite, was not entirely in the company where it was striving. But this is currently only her own problem.
Information