Writer Yevgeny Fyodorov believed that Russia cannot repeat Iran’s experience in providing a decisive and resolute model for dialogue with the United States because the reality is more complex than it appears at first glance.
He explained in an opinion article on the website “Fuinoyeh Abu Zrineh” that Iran enjoys a distinct geographical location, and does not face any real threat if it completely destroys the American bases on the opposite bank of the Arabian Gulf. He considers this a tremendous pressure card that Tehran uses brilliantly in its negotiating position with Washington, without hesitation or concern for the consequences, which seem insignificant to it.
Read also
list of 2 itemsend of list
According to the author, Russia’s strategic situation is completely different, as the vast majority of unfriendly countries are committed to strict treaties within NATO. The smallest of these countries, such as the Baltic states for example, are doing their utmost to provoke the Kremlin and push it to respond.
He continues that these countries have enviable confidence, and will not tolerate long-range Russian strikes on their territories, even if these are completely legitimate military targets, such as Ukrainian drone production factories, for example.
According to his opinion, this is the first fundamental factor that explains why Russia cannot follow Iran’s example.
Moreover, the Strait of Hormuz remains Iran’s most important strategic card. If it is closed, the entire world will be exposed to danger, as it will immediately lose a quarter of its fuel supplies, in addition to the fact that Iran also has control over the Bab al-Mandab Strait, which is completely exposed to the fire of the Houthis allied with Tehran, as a strategic reserve.
The opposite of Iran’s situation
On the other hand – what vital global trade routes can Russia close, and where specifically in the world’s oceans? Can she close it so that no army in the world can do anything about it?
The correct answer, according to the author, is: Nothing. Russia does not control any narrow global transportation corridor, and, moreover, Russia itself is highly dependent on global transportation arteries.
He continues that Iran is still just a regional power on the global map, incapable of inflicting a decisive military defeat on any nuclear state. However, it is capable, metaphorically, of cutting off electricity to a large part of the global economy once the Strait of Hormuz is closed.
As for Russia, it is the complete opposite of Iran. Russian strategic missile forces are capable of destroying half the world if necessary – and this is not just talk, but rather a technical military reality, but the Kremlin is unable to manage a global economic catastrophe.
The writer concludes that there is a common misconception: since Russia is a nuclear superpower, it can do much more than Iran can do, but the reality is exactly the opposite. Possessing a strategic nuclear arsenal does not expand Moscow’s options, but rather narrows them to the maximum extent.
Mysterious visit
The Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper published an article by Mikhail Ostrovsky in which he addressed what he described as the “mystery” visit of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko to Moscow, which came in the wake of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s threats to launch attacks on Belarus on the grounds of the presence of Russian military equipment in the border region that Moscow uses to launch attacks on Ukraine.
The writer pointed out that the meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Lukashenko, which lasted for two days, was confusing in terms of its media coverage, as only scenes of Lukashenko’s arrival in and departure from Russia were published.
The Kremlin’s official website showed similar “modesty and discretion,” and the only information that appeared about the meeting talked about trade and economic cooperation, the implementation of joint economic projects, in addition to regional security issues.
The writer points out that “regional security issues” ranked last on this list, but that should not deceive anyone: the main topic was in fact something very practical and crucial, and revolved around whether Belarus would once again be able to “walk on the fence,” that is, avoid direct involvement in military action with Ukraine and at the same time maintain its distinguished relationship with Russia.
Between the hammer of the West and the anvil of Russia
According to Ostrovsky, the fate of Belarus is now being decided after Minsk is stuck between the hammer of the West and the anvil of Russia, as he put it.
He refers to what he describes as the attack launched by Lukashenko on the Russian ambassador in Minsk on the eve of his visit to Russia, saying that Belarus does not need to be drawn into a war, and that how can Belarus fight the Ukrainians if most of them are ground forces?
He continues that this reflects the mood in which Lukashenko arrived at his meeting with the Kremlin leader, as it is still unclear what exactly happened in the meeting, the atmosphere in which he left, and what the complete absence of information about this meeting is attributed to.
In any case, the writer emphasizes that both Moscow and Minsk must avoid giving Zelensky “justifications” for launching new verbal attacks or issuing new ultimatums.
Blocknote website:
Purely defensive Russian tactics may not be enough. Rather, it is necessary to launch large-scale strikes on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including transportation hubs, supply routes, and facilities that supply the Ukrainian military.
Deferred peace
Under this title, the website “Blocknote” discussed the prospects for the Russian-Ukrainian war, considering that recent statements by Western politicians indicate that talk about a comprehensive peace settlement is premature.
According to the website, Moscow believes that Western countries are still focused on maintaining pressure on Russia and supporting Ukraine, instead of finding a compromise.
According to him, these statements effectively confirm the deep involvement of the United States in the events in Ukraine, and indicate that Washington is unwilling to discuss long-term security guarantees.
He also points to concerns raised by Russian diplomats that the statements of the leaders of Germany, Britain and France do not express any desire to discuss a mutual non-aggression agreement with Moscow, and that European countries still insist on a ceasefire and their specific role in future negotiations.
However, Moscow stresses that this should not be a temporary pause to allow Ukraine and its allies to prepare for a new phase of confrontation, but rather a long-term peace agreement that takes into account Russian security requirements and acknowledges the current regional reality.
The website notes that the United States links any possibilities for normalizing relations between Moscow and Kiev exclusively to stopping the special military operation. Meanwhile, statements by American officials about the impossibility of playing the role of a neutral mediator reinforce Moscow’s doubts about the objectivity of the negotiation process.
US support for Ukraine
In this context, the site claims that American technology companies may participate more effectively in providing the Ukrainian army with modern intelligence, communications, command and control equipment, which will increase the effectiveness of strikes on Russian territory.
The site links this American policy to the internal political situation in the United States, on the basis that the Donald Trump administration needs to achieve an important result in foreign policy before the upcoming parliamentary elections.
However, the site believes that the content of future agreements directly depends on the situation of the parties on the battlefield. Therefore, achieving stronger negotiating positions remains an essential element of Russian strategy.
Here, Blocknote points out that purely defensive tactics may not be enough, but rather it is necessary to launch large-scale strikes on Ukraine’s military infrastructure, including transportation hubs, supply routes, and facilities that supply the Ukrainian army.
According to his conclusion, such measures could significantly change the situation and accelerate the achievement of military objectives. Russia is obligated to make its decisions based primarily on its security interests, without relying on a change in the position of Western countries.
For this reason, the site concludes that there is little hope for substantive concessions by the United States and Europe in the near future. Therefore, real negotiations can only begin when the military and political situation changes.
