Problematic Relations Between Russia And The Us. Uu.

Problematic relations between Russia and the US. UU.

Introduction

The death of Iranian General Soleimani in January 2020 did nothing but to inflame the already problematic relations between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran;The execution via bombard . In contrast, the role of Russia there seems increasingly predominant, being the support point for anti -occupation resistance movements.

That said, then, the interests of the United States and Russia will be analyzed in the Middle East, being important to maintain updated reflections on this issue, since it is an important variable of contemporary international relations that translates into real effects forsystem nations;For example, the downturn of oil prices, given the envelope promoted by the OPEC members, hit Colombian finances, precipitating, among other consequences, the increase in the price of the dollar this year. Thus, the Middle East will always be a region of academic importance, amid the comings and turns of international politics. 

For this case, the text will first address the issue of oil and the interests of these powers around the energy provision through an argument by analogy;Second, a section will be presented with respect to their military interests and how they can be explained by means of an argument for examples, to continue in a third section with the analysis of the nuclear issue through an argument by authority, ending with therelevant conclusions.

Developing

The United States includes the Middle East as a strategic region at an economic level thanks to the large amount of crude oil that this geographical area has.

Oil is one of the most important engines of the US economy, which paradoxically depends on Asian extractions to maintain its rhythm. This situation can be better understood through an analogy. Suppose we are a company that produces cars, the best in the country. However, much of the pieces that we use for their manufacture are not made;Indeed, we have to resort to other companies to access them. 

Of all companies in the market, one stands out for the quality and good prices of its manufactures;It is so powerful in the sector, that, even raising prices, we have no other than to resort to it. Thus, the only way in which we can continue to be competitive in the market is to guarantee that this company gives us the pieces at good prices. Well, the United States (the car manufacturer) needs oil (the pieces) of the Middle East (the manufacturer of the pieces) to apply its economy and keep it robust, a situation for which it is necessary for such oil to be maintainedAt good prices.

This concern has caused invasions in the past;Beyond the excuses to attack the Iraq regime in 2003, the truth is that ensuring the Petroleum Provision of Middle East has been one of the external policies to those that most human, military, economic, and others have invested the powerNorth American. This investment has its revenues for one of the most industrialized economies on the planet, which only in recent years, begins to replace the importance of oil with national production.

In contrast, Russia, who also has interests in the region, does not subsist the energy provision of Middle East. Unlike the American giant, this country has vast energy sources, especially gas, which give it the privilege of being their main commercial partner before the European Union. Thus, Russia’s relationship with respect to the Middle East in relation to oil has more to do with cooperation than with need. Russia does not seek access to energy sources in the area;At least not actively. His interest in the region has more to do with the Real Politik Military.

The military predominance

The cold war was, above all, a cooperation lesson. The two most important powers of the globe avoided direct confrontation through the use of allies willing to destroy each other (or within itself). Middle East was no exception;Next to an anti Iranian Saudi Arabia, there are a United States willing to provide equipment, technology and resources to the emerging Arab power;Russia would do the same with Iran.

The region is a mandatory step in the East;Its geostrategic importance is evident. With access to Africa and the Far East, who controls the area controls the transit of much of Asian merchandise, some of them vital for the world economy, such as oil. Having military presence in the region allows the effective deployment of force in circumstances in which the circulation of indispensable goods can be threatened, or effectiveness in geographically close interventions is required to said area.

Israel has been the most important American enclave in the region;This nation, rebuilt in the fifties to house the millions of wandering Jews after World War II, has become the most important military center in the area for that country. Iran, his counterpart, was, in turn, the Soviet, and currently Russian commitment, in the subcontinent. Military enclaves are a territorial control strategy that has been historically used to maintain the hegemony of a State on a given region. As an example of this, we find the American colonies possession of Spain, Portugal or Britain, the African territories conquered at the end of the 19th century by France, Great Britain, Germany, among other European powers or the presence of the United States and its troops,legally, in Colombian territory.

In all cases mentioned, logic is the same: either through cooperation or imposition, military presence in strategically located areas is indispensable for the development of a power at a particular historical moment. As in the examples indicated, it is essential for the United States and Russia to maintain a presence in the Middle East, since one power must persuade the other not to end up such valuable commercial routes. The interest here, as has happened in history, is to maintain strongly militarized areas to protect them.

The nuclear threat

President John F. Kennedy, about nuclear power declared:

Today, all the inhabitants of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet can no longer be habitable. Each man, woman and child lives under a sword of nuclear Damocles, hanging by the thinnest of the threads, capable of being cut at any time by accident or calculation error or by madness. Weapons of war must be abolished before they end us.

As the first authority of the United States, the president reflected in his words the concern for the nuclear arms, which paradoxically, led to the non -use of these weapons during the Cold War. Anyway, this concern today transcends the international sphere about nations that are not part of the UN Security Council (such as China) are dictatorships with active nuclear programs. To prevent atomic power from falling into wrong hands, the United States and its allies have threatened economic sanctions to those nations that do not have their permission to advance armed development programs along this line, being Iran, one of them. Thus, one of the interests of North America is to avoid the proliferation of nuclear weapons, under the assumptions proposed by Kennedy, according to which.

However, Russia has openly supported the Iranian program, through the donation of technical and financial resources for its execution. This situation, reflects one of Russia’s main interests in the region, that of scarking, through the war threat, to the nations of the West in the area. The truth is that, while an authority such as Kennedy advocated a world without this armament class, nations like Russia openly support him. It is true, however, that the argument of this is at least hypocritical, since the interest of the United States does not dispense with political interest: nuclear weapons for its allies (France, the United Kingdom, etc.) and disarmament for their enemies.

Conclusions

Three are the main reasons why the United States and Russia maintain interest in the Middle East. A first, to do with oil income, which, as described with the analogy of the car factory, interests the United States much more than Russia, given the Super Avit Energy that allows it to be the main gas supplierTo Western Europe. However, in terms of military presence as a mechanism for the protection of commercial routes or strategic areas, Russia and the United States maintain a strong interest in maintaining it as a deterrent;Through the argument for examples that accounts for the historical orientation of nations to have military enclaves in strategic sites to ensure their power in certain areas of importance, the mechanism that motivates both states to maintain military presence in the region is described.

 Finally, through an argument of authority, in this case, by John F. Kennedy, president of the United States during part of the Cold War, explains the Iranian nuclear anti-program attitude of the United States, which, however, is hypocritical since it is a policy aimed at disarming enemies. Russia, on the contrary, has the interest that this program will be maintained, taking into account its open cooperation to it in past decades. 

It is hypocritical since it is a policy aimed at disarming enemies. Russia, on the contrary, has the interest that this program will be maintained, taking into account its open cooperation to it in past decades. It is hypocritical since it is a policy aimed at disarming enemies. Russia, on the contrary, has the interest that this program will be maintained, taking into account its open cooperation to it in past decades. Middle East is a contrast zone, which is still an open confrontation field for the two great world powers.