Is there great understanding between Moscow and Washington?

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Those who know the US President Donald Trump during the past months since his nomination till now can say that the stability in the positions is a feature of the features of the new US electoral presidential speech, but there are things that are difficult to ignore while changing the positions, as the relationship with Russia which formed a point of weakness that affected the presidential augustness due to the organized campaigns which were corroborated by the investigations which were organized by his opponents. It is easy to explain when Trump says harshly and negatively about the relationship with Russia as a campaign of public relations to respond to his opponents, while when he talks positively about the relationship with Russia, his words must be treated seriously, because it is a sign of a transformation that expresses that something has happened between Moscow and Washington and a preparation to bear the cost of the preparation for it, taking into consideration what he did and said in the context of escalation and proving the ability of disputation.

While those who know the Russian President Vladimir Putin and how he dealt with the threats which were launched by his opponents to change his position towards Syria, and how he turned his back  repeatedly to Washington, Ankara, Paris, London, and Riyadh for long periods of time leaving the facts prove the solidity  of his positions. Moreover those who know how he bore the consequences of the war of Ukraine and the war of the oil and gas prices. And those who saw the reaction of the Russian President towards the US strike and his attempt to stop the cooperation with Washington, and his announcement of opening the warehouses to supply the Syrian army with what is needed to combat to any similar upcoming aggression, as well as his understanding with Iran and the allies of Syria in the resistance to procced in the round of long confrontation that imposes its realities in the field on the Americans in particular and on the others in general can conclude the impossibility of the retreat of the President Putin to accept welcoming the US Secretary of State in a diplomatic way, so how if after the reception there was an announcement at the spokesman of the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavror that the understanding has been settled with the Americans for not to repeat the military strike on Syria, as the understanding on an investigation carried out by the Organization of the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons  in which the Russian and the American experts participate in the incident of Khan Sheikhoun, where every party puts its information and evidences at the investigators disposal, then the Russian announcement followed by the American one regarding the return to work according to  the air safety treaty in Syria between the Russian and the US troops, then it is followed by the US presidential talk confidently that the relationship with Moscow will be fine and where there are no calls for the departure of the Syrian President, and the talk that Washington does not consider his departure a condition for the solution and the peace in Syria.

There is something great has happened between Moscow and Washington that is ruled by two equations; first the US certainty of the limited effectiveness of the strike and failure of the equation of the frightening and intimidation to change the military popular, and the political equations of Syria. Second, is the US concern of being involved in escalation that Russia may resort to and which will impose an irreversible context either regarding the quality of the weapons which will arrive to Syria, or the quality of the field work supported by Russia, in addition to the disruption which will affect the war on ISIS which America will need soon after the absence of the air coordination with Russia. But the greatest thing is explained by the US and Chinese statements about the North Korea rather than the US and the Russian statements about Syria. The US President wants to be known of his success in disarmament of the nuclear weapons of the North Korea although he knows the impossibility of achieving that militarily, and he knows that the way for that is the security and the growth of North Korea under the guarantee of its Russian and Chinese allies. This requires an international framework that is similar to five plus one framework which led to the understanding on the Iranian nuclear program through the formula of three plus one that includes America, Russia, China, and Japan to negotiate with the North Korea.

A new global system that is going to be formed with Chinese-Russian-American tripartite where there is no place for Britain or France, and a strong regional partner which is Iran at the expense of the Turkish-Saudi-Israeli tripartite, including implicitly an understanding on the future of the Israeli chemical and nuclear weapons within reviving the settlement project on the paths of negotiation. The understanding on Syria seems under Russian book of terms as shown by the statements of Trump on one hand, and the quickness of raising the Russian embargo on Washington on the other hand.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,