the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have foretold a global transformation from a unipolar world of American hegemony to a multipolar world where American effortless unilateralism is no longer the order of the day. Even with its formidable military power, polling data suggests that the American people have sought to narrow the definitions of ‘core national interests’. This tectonic power shift coincides with increasing American energy independence, budget sequestration, military force drawdowns, war weariness and a host of domestic issues (e.g. unemployment, spy scandals, the economy) that have drawn American attention away from the region.
The Middle East is a cauldron, boiling over with ethnic and sec-tarian tensions, and frothing with realism. American efforts to bring democratic liberalism have not been effective – and might never be. One reason for this is that the Middle East is a region where power, force, bribery and coercion have been the levers of power for centuries. Given Putin’s demonstrated expertise in these areas, perhaps his approach will bear more fruit. Thus far, Russia has borne no responsibility for events in Syria or the Middle East broadly. If Putin is given the chance to become a stakeholder in Syria, the silver lining is that he will have to ‘put up or shut up’, to borrow a phrase from the American vernacular. If Russian efforts do indeed help to rid Syria of chemical weapons, that is a fine outcome. But, if Putin’s regime learns firsthand about the duplicitous quagmire of operating in the region, that is fine too. So Salam, Vlad, and welcome to the neighbourhood. We were just leaving.
55