Here comes the full text of SCFR‘s interview with Dr. Mahmoud Shouri:

• What are the strategic impacts of the new tension between Moscow and the West and Russia’s confrontation with Ukraine over the Kerch Strait?

After assuming power, Trump pursued policies that inspired hope in improving relations between the West and Russia. One of these effects was to overlook the tension on the Ukrainian issue between the two sides. However recent events at the Kerch Strait led to re-emergence of serious challenges between the two sides. This crisis has become the number one issue of the relationship between the sides, and the two sides have to resolve this issue but have not yet succeeded in doing so.

Kiev is trying not to resolve this issue because its escalation will in practice open the door for Ukrainians to engage with Europe in confronting Russia. Ukrainians think that improvement in Russia-West relations will obliterate the Ukrainian issue.

On the other hand, the West always seeks to turn this issue into its first challenge in relations with Moscow. After Russia’s presence in the Syrian crisis, the issue of Ukraine was somewhat forgotten, but with the onset of tensions in the Kerch Strait, disputes rose again. Today, separatists and Russian supporters are in control of parts of Ukraine, especially the eastern parts of the country. Ukraine, with the help of the West, is trying to take back the Crimean Peninsula from Russia, but this can be done when the United States and Europe are alongside Ukraine and their punitive measures and sanctions against Russia will force Moscow to retreat from its positions. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will no longer have the means to pressure the Russians to exercise their sovereignty over these regions, which is why Kiev is unwilling to end the crisis.

• What are the strategic elements of Russophobia in the West and in what way is it being implemented?

Russophobia has been a historical issue in the West, and this has always existed in Western strategies towards Moscow. Russia continued to exist after the disintegration of the Soviet Union with specific and disturbing geopolitical dimensions and a bundle of powerful military armies and armaments and has always been a serious threat to Europe over the years.

In the past years, the Russians have tried to introduce themselves as an ally of Europe, but the West, in order to bring European and American countries together in a structural framework, had to introduce Russia as a serious threat and used this as a factor in uniting the Western states. Eventually, despite all of Russia’s efforts to present itself as a partner of the West, they continue to describe Moscow as the main threat to US and European security strategies.

The most important reason for Russophobia in the West is that Russia’s presence justifies many Western actions and behaviors are makes them meaningful. For example, efforts to strengthen the areas of military cooperation, manufacture of new weapons and expansion of the structure of NATO all become meaningful in the context of hostility to Russia otherwise many of these actions would be questioned.

Russophobia is done in different ways, including media publicity and cooperation of the Western countries in a certain way, to undermine Moscow’s position. The latest and most important example is the alleged Russian intervention in the election process in the US and certain European countries. The West tried hard to suggest that along with Russian military threats, their cyber actions are also a serious concern for the West. It should be borne in mind that the West seeks to persuade public opinion at the national and international levels that Russia is a global threat.

• What are the plans of NATO and especially the US to curb Russia and what are Moscow’s options to deal with them?

The issue of boosting NATO’s capabilities after the collapse of the Soviet Union has never been forgotten, and despite the fact that, after the disintegration of the Eastern bloc and the Warsaw Pact, the continuation of NATO was no longer justified, we have always seen NATO expansion over the years. This is one of the most important issues that these days have engulfed the Russians because they wonder what the aim of NATO expansion is and what kind of threat it is going to respond to. Under these circumstances, Moscow finds itself the ultimate goal of NATO. For years, Western strategists and experts have considered Russia to be the main threat and emphasize the expansion of NATO’s capabilities. In the meantime, Russia’s actions on the issue of Ukraine have increased the impact of these stances in the international arena.

The US and Europe maintain differing outlooks about Russia. Washington’s problem with Moscow has a global dimension and the issue of Russia’s tension with Europe is just one of the subsets of these relations. Russia’s threat for Europe is considered to be a national security threat and Moscow’s actions in Ukraine are considered to be a serious threat to them; but for the United States, it is important to know within the framework of a strategic balance in whose favor the conditions would turn. That is why the Americans may not be worried as much as Europe about Russian actions in Ukraine. But for the purpose of NATO expansion, with Washington as the main force, the Americans are on the same side with Europeans.

In recent years, the United States has always tried to maintain its superiority in the military industry in relation to Russia and not allow Moscow’s superiority in conventional and unconventional military weapons or at least restrict it. The US has also practically tried to impose its strategic advantage on Russia by withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Missiles Treaty. Eventually, the United States pursues two main goals for Russia’s containment. In the first phase, it aims to strengthen NATO’s expansion, and secondly pursue a strategic balance against Russia.

But on the other hand, Russia’s most important means of countering Western actions are to strengthen its military power in terms of accuracy and strength. The Russians are struggling to increase their military capabilities, while not losing sight of their international treaties with the United States, and are trying to strengthen their capabilities and strengthen their military structure within the same scope of international obligations.

Also, in the CIS states (former the Soviet Union), Moscow does not allow the presence and influence of the West and their superior hands in these areas. That is why, we witnessed Russia’s actions in Georgia and Ukraine, but at the same time they do not hold geopolitical views in other regions, especially in the Middle East, and they do not try to impose their supremacy on the West by dominating countries and geographic regions. Instead, the Russians are seeking to strengthen military capability and attempt to reduce their economic imbalance towards the West.

• What are the strategic areas of conflict, rivalry, and cooperation between the West and Russia, and how will it be classified and become operational for both sides?

The world today is in a special condition. Unlike the Cold War and the first decade after its end, the great powers do not determine all international issues anymore. This was witnessed when the West and Russia tried to make changes in the Middle East region but regional players did not allow their plans to be implemented. Yet, it cannot be said with certainty that the two sides have no power to change any subject in the international geographic arena and they always possess instruments to make some changes.

Today, unlike the Cold War there is no ideological opposition that would give direction to all the behaviors of the two sides but these very events determine what is considered conflict and what is regarded as cooperation. Perhaps this is why, in the Middle East, and in particular Syria, Russia and the West are trying to manage and resolve the crises through cooperation, not confrontation. Both sides know that if they adopt the strategy of confrontation in Syria, they will not be able to win anything, and this is a clear example of interaction between the two sides.

The Iran Nuclear Deal (also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) follows the same line. Here too, Russia and the West are not seeking to oppose each other. Although there are few reasons for cooperation on this particular issue, the JCPOA is one of the issues that will be a ground for US-Russian cooperation in the future.

Increasing missile capabilities is always an important issue between the two sides, and each attempts to prevent the use of missile defense in the form of a strategic balance of power, although each year there are news of new missile tests in Russia and the United States, and the two are lining up against one another on missile capability.

But the point is that after the end of the Cold War, the United States and Russia do not have a geopolitical outlook at their global competitions; that is, if the United States is to make a profit in a region, then there will be no definition of loss for Russia. However, during the Cold War, after one side made a gain, a loss was defined for the other party. Today, this situation is not in force between the two sides. Russia and the United States can have win-win games on various issues, and in other areas, the victory of one party does not mean the failure of the other.

As in the case of Afghanistan, Russia did not prevent the US from engaging in Afghanistan, and with certain diplomacy threw the ball of the war expenditures into the US court and refused to get involved in the war. Nevertheless, if it feels threatened on its national security from the Afghanistan front it would address the issue and try to have a say on the issue. An example of this was the recent talks with the Taliban on the issue of peace in Afghanistan; yet this does not mean that Russia is seeking confrontation with the US on Afghanistan.

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) was signed in 1978 and was a major step towards détente in the Cold War era. China is not a member.

[i] The 1987 Middle Ages Non-Proliferation Treaty between the United States and the former Soviet Union was one of the basic measures for the decolonization of the Cold War, and China is not a party to it.

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, commonly referred to as the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces) Treaty, requires destruction of the Parties’ ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.

The treaty prohibits all missiles range from 500 to 5500 kilometers, including ground-based missiles capable of carrying conventional nuclear warheads. The treaty was signed on December 8th in Washington by US President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev.