Voices of the Arab press: Russian-Western escalation: Dangerous game, unpredictable results

Russian-Western escalation: Dangerous game, unpredictable results

Okaz, Saudi Arabia, November 28

Since the election of former US President Donald Trump, the world has experienced significant geopolitical shifts, with each party striving to establish new realities on the ground as leverage in ongoing conflicts. 

Nowhere is this more evident than in Ukraine, where tensions between Russia and the West have turned the country into a stage for political and military posturing. The involved factions are taking provocative actions, reflecting their desire to alter the balance of power and create conditions favorable for future negotiations.

The Russian side perceives the period leading up to January 20, when the new Trump administration officially assumes power, as a strategic window to secure military advantages that may underpin any forthcoming agreement. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not disguised this approach, openly affirming it during a phone call with the German chancellor – the first such communication in over two years. 

This posture was underscored by a fierce assault launched by Russian forces on eastern Ukraine, amid Western accusations of Moscow bolstering its positions with North Korean troops, particularly in the Kursk region, controlled by Ukrainian forces. The Kursk region holds strategic importance in this conflict; Russian dominance there would weaken the Ukrainian position, depriving it of crucial negotiating leverage.

Western powers, acutely aware of the significance of this point, quickly moved to supply Ukraine with advanced weaponry. The US announced its support for targeting deep within Russia, further complicating the situation and heightening tensions. This Western escalation is part of broader efforts to curtail Russian influence in the region and prevent Moscow from achieving a long-term victory. 

In response, Russia’s reaction was predictable yet perilous, as Moscow threatened to resort to nuclear weapons if faced with defeat. Additionally, Russia showcased its hypersonic missile, the Oreshnik, which poses a formidable challenge to Western defense systems. These military displays serve as stark warnings aimed at deterring further Western escalation. Europe, not remaining passive, with France and Britain adopting a similar stance to the US, authorized the use of home-produced weapons to target Russia’s interior, further aggravating the crisis and complicating the geopolitical landscape.

The American decision to permit strikes deep inside Russia was more than a tactical maneuver; it carried explicit strategic implications. This decision was met with approval in European circles, as it could complicate the Trump administration’s potential attempts to negotiate a settlement with Russia, thwarting a Russian triumph that might prove costly for Europe. Consequently, this development has infused the situation with additional tension, escalating political and military complexities among the disputing parties.

The prospect of this conflict escalating into a full-scale confrontation increasingly alarms international observers, particularly given the substantial military capabilities of both sides. With each escalation, the profound mistrust between the parties becomes more apparent.

This conflict transcends a mere struggle for regional influence; it is, at its core, a global standoff between two competing political ideologies. The ongoing escalation prompts grave concerns about the future of international peace and security, raising questions about the potential for a return to the negotiating table amid such a volatile atmosphere. Military maneuvers and incendiary rhetoric from both sides suggest a situation spiraling toward uncontrollable escalation.

The current climate underscores the pressing need for political rationality and restraint. The world cannot afford to slip further into a large-scale conflict that could unleash unimaginable disasters upon humanity. If this aggressive trajectory persists, its consequences might reach beyond Ukraine and Russia to impact the entire global community.

Thus, there is an urgent need for vigorous diplomatic initiatives and for wise voices to de-escalate tensions and avert further violence. International actors must recognize their responsibilities and work earnestly to prevent this conflict from escalating into a global catastrophe, considering its potentially catastrophic effects on all. – Rami Al-Khalifa Al-Ali

Sexual violence in Sudan’s civil war

Asharq Al-Awsat, London, November 24

Tom Fletcher, the UN undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, recently addressed a group of women at a school event in Port Sudan, commemorating the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women on November 25. “I feel ashamed that we could not protect you, and I feel ashamed for men like me for what they did,” Fletcher confessed.

His comments shed light on the ongoing war in Sudan and the systematic epidemic of sexual violence faced by women, which he unequivocally condemned while warning about the potential escalation of such attacks.

Fletcher was not the sole UN official to raise alarm over this disturbing phenomenon. Pramila Patten, special representative of the UN secretary-general on sexual violence in conflict, had already issued a poignant statement titled “A war waged on the bodies of women and girls.” In it, she chronicled testimonies from Sudanese refugee camps along the Chadian border, revealing harrowing accounts of rape, ethnic-targeted sexual violence, and the trafficking of women for sexual exploitation. Many victims recounted being subjected to rape as a tool for humiliation and subjugation, often in the presence of their family members.

The UN Human Rights Council’s Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan painted a grim picture of the sexual violence, describing it as “horrific.” Their report, published at the end of last month, highlighted how attacks affected women and girls of all ages, with even children not spared. The document also revealed evidence of women and girls being abducted for sexual slavery, a claim corroborated by numerous reports since the war began. In these narratives and reports, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) emerged as the primary culprits of such egregious acts, as documented by international human rights organizations, Sudanese civil groups, and the UN itself.

Last October a UN report, grounded in thorough investigations, confirmed that the RSF was responsible for most of the sexual assaults. The horror stories from displaced individuals who fled RSF-occupied territories are chilling. Some recount women being gang-raped in front of their families, while others regretfully drowned attempting desperate escapes. Many families went to the lengths of equipping their daughters with knives for self-defense or, tragically, self-harm to prevent rape by armed men. There were also instances of girls resorting to suicide after being violated.

The repercussions of these crimes extend deep into psychological and societal realms, demanding immediate attention and a long-term commitment to victims’ recovery. It is imperative to allocate resources to support centers offering medical and psychological care and to enhance community awareness to eradicate social stigma. Such efforts are vital to prevent survivors from suffering in isolation and facing harsh treatment fueled by misplaced shame. Sudanese organizations play a crucial role here, persistently working under challenging conditions since the war’s outbreak to document cases and provide holistic support to victims.

The state bears significant responsibility and should draw insights from other nations that have combated similar crimes. Engaging both local and international expertise can aid in establishing judicial bodies with special powers, employing international laws that categorize sexual violence as a war crime and a crime against humanity, with parallels to genocide based on race, sex, or gender.

For instance, Rwanda addressed sexual violence cases under its genocide laws as part of its post-conflict measures. The fundamental principle of accountability necessitates integrating sexual violence issues and the pursuit of justice for perpetrators into comprehensive solutions, even post-conflict. These crimes are indefensible, and securing justice for victims demands resolute deterrence to send a clear message to all potential violators.

Equally important is the inclusion of women in peace-building and conflict resolution processes. Women and children frequently bear the brunt of wartime atrocities, and their involvement offers a distinctive and empathetic perspective on tackling the complex issue of sexual violence. – Osman Mirghani

Arab action against regional chaos

Al-Masry Al-Youm, Egypt, November 24

The Middle East is undergoing a dramatic transformation in terms of geography, politics, economics, society, and national security. These comprehensive strategic changes should urge Arab countries to engage and cooperate more effectively, both individually and regionally, as well as together as a cohesive Arab alliance. The current political apathy mirrors a scenario in which a cancerous growth is allowed to spread unchecked, infiltrating the Arab world without any countermeasures.

On an optimistic note, the demographic landscape of the Arab world, characterized by a significant youth population, offers a glimmer of hope for the future. A young populace presents the opportunity to build a forward-thinking national identity – grounded in accountability and transparency – essential for effective governance.

However, the picture is not wholly positive. Territorial disputes are prevalent across the region, particularly between Arab and non-Arab states vying for sovereignty or imposing their jurisdictions. Political tensions are mounting within and across these borders, while economic and resource challenges attract diverse actors from both inside and outside the region.

Moreover, the areas of energy, maritime access, and security face significant hurdles. Countless state and non-state entities are forcing their ideologies on others, reassessing policies and practices in pursuit of regional geopolitical ambitions through national security measures. The increasingly common resorting to force to resolve disputes is perhaps the most alarming trend, and this has been greeted with a tepid response regionally and internationally, suggesting a tacit acceptance as long as such practices remain confined to the region.

It’s time for decisive action. Despite the stark global divisions, UN Secretary-General António Guterres convened a “Summit for the Future” in New York this fall, aiming to reinvigorate multilateralism and collective responsibility in the 21st century. Within this framework, Arab countries must take decisive measures and make deterrent political decisions concerning their aggressive neighbors. They should adopt a proactive geopolitical vision for the Middle East’s future, establishing the necessary conditions to cultivate constructive and advantageous relations between Arab and non-Arab nations. 

Some might contend that the region cannot withstand further military conflict. Regardless of the veracity of this claim, it misses the point of the discussion. This is not a call for war; rather, it is a call for potent political action with tangible repercussions. Turning a blind eye to injustice and violence will inevitably escalate conflict and war at our doorstep. Others may argue that the Arab world is too unstable to instigate regional transformation, adhering to the saying, “better the devil you know.” This perspective fails to acknowledge the ongoing regional changes, often occurring to their detriment.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s declaration that Israel was “changing the Middle East” was swiftly followed by Israeli encroachments across the Levant, in countries such as Lebanon and Syria, extending to Yemen.

Frankly, I am deeply troubled by these excesses and developments that redefine the Middle East, often at the cost of Arab national interests. Moreover, I foresee no immediate resolution to the prevailing escalation and humanitarian failures. We stand at a pivotal junction, and the forthcoming developments are likely to worsen. This is certainly not a moment for complacency or indifference.

Given the blatant violation of international law presented by current actions, Arab UN member states, in conjunction with former members of the Non-Aligned Movement and several Security Council members, must rapidly draft a resolution urging the cessation of Israel’s cross-border operations and enforce a cease-fire, regardless of any dissent from permanent council members.

The recommended measures consist of a few things. First, Arab countries should embrace a gradual approach to reform in order to meet the aspirations of their youth. Building solid foundations and robust national security capabilities will shield these nations and their young populations from recurring shocks and disillusionment, exacerbated by increasing injustice and inequality.

Second, Arab countries must recalibrate, diversify, and balance their regional and international relations to reduce reliance on any single power. They should then bolster their political and security strengths to forge more balanced and stable regional alliances with their neighbors, fostering mutual benefit. This should be the basis for enhancing Arab nations’ credibility and political leverage. Otherwise, their regional proposals will be disregarded by adversaries and ignored domestically.

Third, Arab countries need to proactively craft future-oriented visions for a more equitable and advantageous security framework for the region, preempting efforts by others to reshape and reallocate alliances for their own interests. The most effective path to this goal is to establish a regional framework document featuring two tracks, initially proposed by Arab nations and discussed internally, before being presented to non-Arab regional parties.

The first track of this document should reaffirm the UN Charter and emphasize the principles of good neighborly relations among states and principles particularly significant to the region, such as the inadmissibility of acquiring territory through force. The second track should create a regional consultative structure for national security that prioritizes conflict resolution via diplomacy, crisis management, regional threat reduction, and disarmament. Participants respecting and adhering to these proposed principles will be invited to join the more consultative second track.

The events currently unfolding in the Middle East and beyond are challenging. Many question whether now is the appropriate time for a forward-thinking regional initiative. I ponder this frequently, always concluding that the staggering costs of inaction – especially for the vulnerable or passive – demand action and positive steps, before it is too late. – Nabil Fahmy

Gaza deal following Lebanon agreement?

Al-Ittihad, UAE, November 30

The lingering question following the Hezbollah-Israel agreement is whether it will extend its influence to the Gaza Strip. This raises considerations about the political dynamics between Israel and both the Lebanese and Gaza fronts. Prime Minister Netanyahu has used this agreement as a strategy to alleviate domestic pressure and revitalize the Israeli armed forces. However, he faces significant challenges from right-wing opposition, which perceives the agreement as a perilous concession.

Netanyahu acknowledges that the ongoing conflict strains the military resources and sends a clear message to the domestic audience that the Israeli army has fulfilled its objectives. The primary aim was to push Hezbollah away from the area south of the Litani River and to cripple its capabilities by dismantling the infrastructure in the southern villages. This would neutralize any threats like those faced on Oct. 7.

Through the agreement, Israel has not only achieved this but has also secured a strategic advantage by targeting senior Hezbollah leaders, making the decision to agree preferable to a protracted war, which would expose the home front to ongoing assaults. Hezbollah, on the other side, sees any ceasefire agreement as a way to cement its political and operational gains, ensuring its continued role as a military resistance force in the region.

Israel sought an agreement allowing it leeway to respond to future threats, aware that past agreements between these parties have been tenuous. For instance, UN Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war, failed to prevent subsequent flare-ups. Without robust international assurances, any new accord could quickly unravel. The recurring confrontations underscore the erosion of mutual deterrence; Israel has not been able to dismantle Hezbollah, and Hezbollah has not achieved significant strategic success.

Israel’s goal is to fortify its security by adhering to Security Council resolutions. Netanyahu aimed to capitalize on military achievements secured during the conflict, knowing that prolonged warfare could diminish Israel’s political and military standing. The continuation of hostilities might even provoke Hezbollah to expand its targets deeper into Israeli territory, perpetuating displacement among settlers. Nevertheless, the durability of the ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon hinges on fulfilling critical conditions, especially the disbanding of armed groups as outlined in the agreement – with Hezbollah at the forefront – and establishing comprehensive Lebanese state control.

This remains challenging, given Lebanon’s limited military capacity to monitor borders and prevent arms flow from Syria. The primary hurdle is not the agreement’s sustainability but Hezbollah’s potential rearmament, despite its commitment. While Hezbollah may temporarily refrain from deploying arms south of the Litani River, it can augment its arsenal north of the river, launching strikes from any location in Lebanon. This is exacerbated by the lack of oversight on the Lebanese-Syrian border. Internally, Hezbollah grapples with numerous challenges, notably from voices within Lebanon blaming the organization for the devastation and damaged infrastructure due to the war.

Amid this backdrop, increased American pressure has been a significant factor, with Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri negotiating with the US on Hezbollah’s behalf. Hezbollah faces mounting pressure to accept the ceasefire initiative, motivated by Lebanon’s losses, which reportedly exceed $5 billion, all while grappling with a preexisting severe economic crisis.

Concerning the Gaza Strip, any ongoing or forthcoming endeavors regarding a ceasefire after the Hezbollah-Israel agreement necessitate restructuring approaches concerning prisoner and detainee exchanges. The objective is to reach a consensus among all stakeholders on broad strategies that align with US President-elect Trump’s vision for ending hostilities in the Strip. This requires mediators to engage directly with the Israeli government, especially as Hamas is ready to negotiate a ceasefire and exchange of prisoners.

The prevailing conditions are ripe to pressure Netanyahu into accepting such deals, mirroring public opinion in Israel, which favors a similar resolution to the one achieved with Hezbollah. Public opinion surveys depict a divide between supporters and opponents of continuing the conflict in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Israeli government is engaging with President-elect Trump’s administration, in line with his call for a ceasefire on the Lebanon-Gaza fronts and minimizing regional conflicts. – Tarek Fahmy

Translated by Asaf Zilberfarb. All assertions, opinions, facts, and information presented in these articles are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and are not necessarily those of The Media Line, which assumes no responsibility for their content.