UAE Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed with Putin's ally Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, November 2018 [photo credit: @MSuchkov_ALM]
On 27 February Anwar Gargash, the UAE’s former minister of state for foreign affairs, reinforced that stand tweeting,
without naming Russia that “our priorities are to encourage all parties
to adopt diplomacy and negotiate to find a political settlement that
ends this crisis.”
Still, a few days later on 2 March,
as the tempo of Russian shelling and the consequent civilian casualties
grew inexorably in Ukraine, the UAE was one of 141 nations, among them
Saudi Arabia and Egypt to back a UN General Assembly motion condemning
the Russian invasion and demanding the immediate withdrawal of its
troops.
Aside from the awkwardness of appearing to defend a country that
stands accused of committing war crimes on an industrial scale, the
Emiratis were persuaded (and probably not too reluctantly given the
ineffectual nature of such votes) by their comrade in the Abraham
Accords, Israel, to support the General Assembly resolution.
The Israelis were already feeling heat from the Biden administration for a number of foot-dragging episodes including their refusal to allow the Iron Dome anti-missile defense to be made available to Ukraine as storm clouds gathered. And, according to Axios,
Biden also was annoyed at Israel’s refusal to co-sponsor the UNSC vote.
The Israelis were tapped by senior White House officials to apply
gentle pressure on the UAE. As Barak Ravid, the Axios Tel Aviv
correspondent, wrote:
“Ahead of Wednesday's vote, Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid
approached his Emirati counterpart, Abdullah Bin Zayed, and told him
that Israel believed voting to condemn Russia would be the right thing
to do, a senior Israeli official told me.”
The Israelis have their own agenda, largely centred on not annoying the Kremlin which has given them what has amounted to carte blanche to carry out air strikes against Hezbollah in Syria. Seth Frantzman
writing in the Jerusalem Post argues “Syria is a huge issue for the
Jewish state…Iran and Hezbollah are continuing to build up dangerous
sites in Syria that threaten the region.”
So they have muted their criticism despite the fact that Volodymyr
Zelensky the Ukrainian president, David against Goliath, is Jewish and a
Russian missile strike on a Kyiv television tower damaged the Holocaust memorial of Babyn Yar. That softly, softly approach has infuriated commentators like Haaretz’ Anshell Pfeffer:
The shameful posture of Israel’s leaders in the face of another
invasion, by a dictator, of an independent nation, the way (Prime
Minister) Bennett has avoided in all his speeches of even mentioning the
word "Russia" in relation to the war and his partner foreign minister
Yair Lapid’s all-too-measured statements of mild condemnation are signs
of moral and historic blindness.
On Saturday Bennett
flew to Moscow and had a three hour conversation with Putin before
calling the embattled Zelensky. He then moved on to Berlin and a meeting
with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Back in Israel he had more phone
conversations with Zelensky and spoke of Israel’s “moral obligation,” to, as he put it, “assist the dialogue between all of the sides, of course with the blessing and encouragement of all players.”
Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, perhaps with one eye on
elections next year and his AK party stumbling badly in the polls, has
been more vigorous
than his counterparts in Israel and the UAE. He denounced the invasion
and has called for an immediate ceasefire while offering Turkey as a
mediator. He also invoked the 1936 Montreux Convention and prohibited
four Russian warships from entering the Black Sea. Given that Turkey is a
NATO member that is not so surprising. Still he has not followed along
with other NATO members in imposing sanctions and denying Turkish
airspace to Russian carriers.
That is an acknowledgement of Turkey’s economic dependence on selling
goods to Russia whilst buying Russian energy at a time when the Turkish
economy is seriously stressed. Erdoğan is also keenly aware that
pushing Russia too far could cause him significant problems in the north
of Syria where a rapprochement between the two has seen them avoiding
confrontations while getting on with taking care of business managing
the spheres of influence they have carved out for themselves.
On Sunday Erdoğan spoke with Putin
and called for a ceasefire but the Russian leader appeared unmoved.
Walking a careful line, the Turkish president repeated his offer to
mediate between Kviv and Moscow.
Were Erdoğan, in what would be a bold, even reckless move, to veer
strongly to the Ukrainian side, it would undoubtedly be signalled by the
mass delivery of lethal drones, the Bayraktar TB-2, which was described last year
by the UK defense minister Ben Wallace as “a gamechanger.” The TB-2 has
been used to devastating effect in northern Syria, in Libya against the
UAE-backed warlord Khalifa Haftar and in the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
won decisively by Azerbaijan (see our 23 June newsletter.)
The Turks had sold
the TB-2 to Ukraine but in limited numbers and well before Putin
launched his war. Those drones, said to be about 20 in number, have been
used against the Russians with the Ukrainian ambassador to Ankara
saluting their effectiveness in tweets.
It is impossible to know with certainty but it may well be the case
that the TB-2 has played a role in slowing the 40 mile convoy aimed at
Kyiv.
Still without a massive injection of drones, the gamechanger effect
will not be duplicated in Ukraine and Putin will continue his massive
destruction of the country. And even if there was such a delivery, it is
doubtful it could overcome Russia’s overwhelming military superiority.
But Putin’s victory if or rather when it comes will be a Pyrrhic one
that will leave Israel, Turkey and the UAE wondering if, after all, the
balancing game that they have played with the Russian bear will have
been the right one.