Direct Clash Between the Two Giants

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Speculation has mounted over a direct clash between Russia and America following the American missile strike on Syria’s Shayrat airbase. Some believed Russia was on the verge of pulling the trigger in response to the American action, which was, to some degree, humiliating for the Russians, and that America had taken the appropriate measures to confront the Russians, particularly in the Mediterranean.

This assumption was not grounded in any scientific reading of how great powers deal with one another when the causes of tension arise, and did not take into account the historical experience of past relations between America and the now-collapsed Soviet Union, nor the subsequent relations between Russia and America.

Nuclear Powers Do Not Clash Directly

Both Russia and America possess enormous nuclear arsenals, each capable of destroying the world and returning it to the Stone Age. Neither possesses merely a handful of missiles loaded with nuclear bombs — each possesses thousands of nuclear warheads and the means guaranteed to deliver them to the targets meant for destruction.

“A nuclear arsenal constitutes a decisive deterrent for whoever possesses it, and for its rival that possesses a similar arsenal. A nuclear arsenal deters its own possessor, because he fears his nuclear rival’s reaction, and knows that using his own nuclear capability will lead the other to use his. That is, the use of nuclear capability is a deterrent not only for the one receiving the strike, but for the one who initiates the first strike as well.”

Bomb-carrying missiles are no longer random or approximately accurate — their accuracy has become extremely precise, guided electronically by satellites circling the globe, and by monitoring and control centers operating on the ground. They are highly precise, and their destructive capacity is immense.

For this reason, a nuclear arsenal constitutes a decisive deterrent for whoever possesses it, and for its rival that possesses a similar arsenal. A nuclear arsenal deters its own possessor, because he fears his nuclear rival’s reaction, and knows that using his own nuclear capability will lead the other to use his. That is, the use of nuclear capability is a deterrent not only for the one receiving the strike, but for the one who initiates the first strike as well.

Destruction is mutual among states possessing nuclear armament capabilities, and for this reason every state thinks again and again before sliding into the use of nuclear weapons, or even the use of any weapon of mass destruction of any kind. A deterrent weapon deters its own owner, provided the other side possesses a similar weapon.

The great powers’ agreement to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons was not an idle gesture — it was carefully premeditated, so that the number of deterring and deterred states would not multiply at the same time. The nuclear states had an interest in the existence of deterred states subject to the threat of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear ones especially, and this falls under the heading of dominating the vulnerable, extorting them, and controlling their fate and their wealth.

For this reason, we now find, among the great nuclear states, a serious and firm stance against nuclear weapons, even as they themselves — by virtue of being nuclear states — constitute a grave threat to the world’s security and peace. They are states suffering a moral double standard, unwilling to accept for others what they accept for themselves.

Conflicting and Converging Interests

Russian and American interests conflict frequently, and converge on other occasions. Convergence does not mean agreement in approach or motive. American interest in supporting the Kurds in Syria may converge with Russian interest, but the reasons behind this convergence differ. America may support the Kurds with the aim of prolonging the fighting among the various Syrian parties, while Russian support for the Kurds may be aimed at coordination regarding oil and gas.

At the same time, this convergence may conceal an underlying divergence — America, for instance, is concerned with an oil and gas transport network structured to keep the danger of Russian dominance at bay, while Russia is concerned with a network that keeps Eastern Europe under its mercy.

The two states may also differ in approach: Russia, for instance, might pursue an approach that keeps Turkey preoccupied with the Kurdish question, to distract it from the Syrian situation, while America might be concerned with keeping the fires of war in Syria burning, to keep Russia occupied and drained.

And whenever interests conflict, the following question arises for each state: do we pursue our interests even if it leads to war, or does our more important interest lie in avoiding war? The answer is clear: avoiding war is a higher interest than the others, because the choice of war means total destruction, and sacrificing a limited interest remains more important than sacrificing oneself.

For this reason, the nuclear states are careful to resolve their disputes peacefully, however long the search for a solution takes. This is why we find politicians in both Russia and America moving quickly toward one another to contain any conflict of interest that might arise.

We recently observed how the American secretary of state rushed to Moscow to calm the situation after the bombing of the Shayrat airbase. The visit was not merely to calm things down, but also to restore standing — America had struck a site that was supposed to be under Russian protection, and it was therefore worthwhile for America to go to Russia to clarify its position and restore its standing before the world, particularly since Russia did not intercept the American missiles.

Russia had declared, ever since it brought air-defense missiles into Syria, that Syrian airspace was secure, and warned other states against violating that airspace. America violated Syrian airspace, but the Russian missiles were not launched, which affects Russia’s credibility before the world and casts doubt on its capabilities. For this reason, both Russia and America are keen to ensure that conflicts of interest do not lead to mutual humiliation.

Proxy Wars

The situation now between Russia and America is no different from what it was between America and the Soviet Union. Both avoid direct confrontation, but both support parties willing to fight on their behalf. Instead of the two states searching for peaceful means to resolve disputes between and within states, they work to support one party or parties against others, further fanning the flames of war.

Russia and America — and the rest of the great nuclear states as well — do not sacrifice their own citizens, but always stand ready to sacrifice the citizens of other states. As is customary in various societies, the sons of the masters do not take part in internal wars, but use the sons of the poor and the vulnerable to die in their place — and, regrettably, the sons of these very people stand ready to sacrifice themselves for the interests of others, or for the masters who inflict injustice upon them.

In many cases, the sons of the vulnerable accept becoming a whip in the hands of their own executioners, used to lash whoever they are told deserves confrontation for some injustice. The great powers resort to this method, drawing in poor and vulnerable states to wage wars on their behalf, under national slogans accepted by the ordinary person whose heart and mind ignorance has sealed shut.

The sons of the great powers have people to defend them and work to protect them, and behind them people pressing to keep them from being sent into the furnace of battle, and they find media working to raise public awareness of the dangers of war and the psychological and material pain that could befall society as a result of wars in which their own citizens die.

The sons of the poor and vulnerable, meanwhile, sometimes find in war an opportunity to secure a salary and improve their living conditions, and some of them fall for the deception of national slogans aimed at nothing but propping up a ruling system that is, more often than not, unjust, corrupt, and despotic. The political regimes of poor and vulnerable states stand ready to sacrifice their own sons in exchange for money, or in exchange for shoring up the ruling political system, and history has witnessed many examples of this.

If we apply this to the Syrian situation, we find that the great powers — France and Britain especially — were quick to ignite the fire of strife, or to offer whatever they could to fan its flames. The great powers worked to incite Arab countries, parties, and organizations to take part in a war whose price only the Syrian people would pay.

Volunteers from the great powers came to Syria to take part in the war, but they came in a personal capacity, not through official channels adopted by their states. Some great powers even show concern for their own volunteer citizens who met their deaths in Syria, while the killing of Syrians may simply find itself a file gathering dust on a shelf in the Security Council’s archive.

The American Voter Drags the World into Trouble

There is a great problem the American voter creates, in that he sometimes brings to power an American president who is nearly ignorant and lacking in experience in international politics and its behind-the-scenes workings. This inevitably has a negative effect on the United States’ relations with international parties, as is happening now under Donald Trump.

The American voter previously brought to power George W. Bush, marked by “cluelessness” and ignorance of international affairs, and dragged the world into wars on terror that proved, over time, to be failures.

This president tried to fight those he called the “axis of evil” and “terrorists” before ever addressing American and Zionist terrorism against the world; wars broke out and countries — Iraq among them — were destroyed, without America ever achieving victory. He sent his country’s forces abroad because he found no one to fight in his place, destroying and draining money without his own soldiers escaping being killed.

Nor was the American voter stingy with us afterward — he brought us Trump, who is no more intelligent than Bush Jr., and no less arrogant. A new American president arrived possessing neither experience, nor knowledge, nor intelligence, except perhaps in financial and economic matters. He stumbles about, and perhaps is swept along by illusions of American greatness and its long arm bearing lethal weapons.

The man does not appear to calculate carefully, or to possess a clear vision regarding the issues the world suffers from. It appears there are people within his departments steering and driving him toward a field of adventures that could leave grave and lasting effects on both the American and the global stage. His advisers led him to launch his missiles at Shayrat without properly weighing the reactions that could slide into extremely dangerous territory.

Perhaps it is important for the world to work to educate the American voter on how to vote, and on the principles that ought to be present in his mind when he goes to the ballot box. Everyone knows the American voter’s illiteracy when it comes to global issues, and it is the job of the American media to raise the American public’s level of knowledge on these issues.

But it appears American media is concerned with carrying out the policies of those with financial and economic influence, even at the expense of America’s and the world’s own interests.

And thanks, in the end, to the threat posed by nuclear weapons — which sometimes prevents wars from igniting in the first place.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “الصدام المباشر بين العظميين” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.