The capitalism loses its ground against Russia and once more we are going to have multi-polar world. It is not power shifts, it is power struggles in Middle East/ and the Eastern Europe.

conflicts on the axis of Russia - Ukraine, or even earlier with Georgia or Chechnya took place in periods when GDP behaved very poorly. Recession took place in the economy of Russia.

We already do have a multipolar world - or uni-multipolar, if you prefer, for there still are striking differences in capabilities of the poles. I do not have a suggestion, I would like to ask: should we attempt to "connect the dots"? I got the impression that scientists are ill-occupied with looking for a pattern, a map or connections even in cases where this is not relevant.. I am not claiming outright this is such a case (yet I cannot see a link), I am just pointing out that connecting looks fancy and that fancy may mislead one.

You might be right Pavol, I was just wondering whether the happenings are related since it is difficult to think(in our global world) that "power-players" would allow any country to act/react individually. I am not an experienced academic ( if it helps) just a novice of this world, not a voracious reader, just an observer, coming from politically loaded country and household :)

Knowing and living in delicate balance changes in the Middle East, I cannot imagine that what's is being performed there are just individual 'plays' of small actors. That's it.I see the political events like moving clashing and fault building geological movements of continents. When one pushes the other one might create an earthquake and cause another volcano to erupt etc. I might be wrong that's why I needed the input of yours and those of many more. Thank you:)

I tend to agree with you, leyla, me aswell am new here, i think the events which happen simultaneously are a matter of geopolitics or strategic politics, the cold war ended, but the diverging interests remained! Of course things must not necessarily have a strong pattern, some is just given, like history (e.g. The western part of ukraine has a strong "european" history and has not been slavonic until 1945) whilst crimea was part of russia until 1954 when chruchtschow gave it to ukraine (which was still a part of soviet republic). Other is strategy, such as creating an atmosphere of mistrust again russia (do "western" politicians really believe they are going to annect other parts of ucraine or is it only to create a certain atmosphere). Let us observe (i like this particularly about your post) and see what happens next in syria (if the crimsea crisis has an impact or rather not)

I was not suggesting outright that the events are not connected, only that they need not to be this. I welcome relevant link suggestions, and I still cannot see any between, letˇs say, Ukraine and Egypt.

Dear Susanne, European history of what is now Western Ukraine is no longer a little known story but what do you mean by saying it "has not been Slavonic until 1945"? Because it definitely was. Ukrainians, Ruthenians, Poles, Czechs are all Slavs and combined they formed an overwhelming majority of the regionˇs population before 1945. Sure, there were non-Slavonic minorities but only Jews counted larger numbers (the other minorities having been Armenians, Germans, Hungarians, Romanians (Valahians)) abd Karaim Tartars). Did you refer to state level? Sure, Galicia was an Austrian Crown country (1772-1918), while todayˇs Zakarpatyya was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary. The clue was Galicia proper, either administred by the Austrians, or, from 1867 onwards, by the Polish Autonomy. What you probably wanted to say that Western Ukraine was not Russian (in the modern sense of the word) until 1945.

More still, Russia and Ukraine were both republics of the USSR in the ˇ50s. So Ukraine was not "a part of", it was "a" Soviet republic. I sense the root of the trouble here in the fact that, prior to 1991 realities, "Russia" frequently denoted both the Soviet Union and Russia proper. What Khrushev did was quite a tricky thing. In Soviet constitutional theory, the republics retained their international legal sovereignty - this is why Ukraine and Belarus counted to the founding nations of the UN and were represented there, at times even in the Security Council - they have only ceded its execution to the Union. This was a theory, of course, but once the USSR disbanded, Kyiv had an undisputable right to control Crimea.

However, if I understand this question right it pointed out to a possibility to connect several conflict theatres. Strategy and historical/cultural background are variables present in (almost) every conflict. Do they play comparable role in conflicts in question?

Thank you Pavol, due to sudden changes in the Middle East, thinking of growing power in the Far East (China and also India) I thought as a "lay" that world powers might have some manipulation or influence in Arab Spring ! and the powerful brothers might want to show 'teeth' to each other by simply stepping on those Grass countries. Of course, this could be a conspiracy theory of a 'lay" :)) That's the reason why I wanted to know what my expert peers like yourself, would say to it.Has Putin's move something to do with the economic struggle US is said to be suffering? Does he think it's time to state the actual longing of Russia being an imperial power in the region and slowly intimidating the maybe weakening enemy the West and so forth.

Leyla,

You have interesting, but difficult questions. The fiasco that is the Middle East is a result of colonialism, failure of the Arab modernization, religious tensions and a young demographic that is unemployed. Let’s take on one topic at a time:

1. Colonialism was a disaster for the Middle East. Unlike in India, the British did not develop an adequate infrastructure or professional class that could run a modern bureaucracy. In fact, the British seized power in Egypt because of the incompetence of the state to pay its foreign debts. Each country in the Middle East is the creation of Western political designs not based on ethnic or traditional Arab state boundaries. In countries like Iraq, the geographic boundaries cut directly through ethnic enclaves that are traditionally antagonistic: The tensions between the Kurds, Sunni and Shiite majority are toxic. Winston Churchill is often quoted stating he created Trans-Jordan with a stroke of the pen in an afternoon.

2. The Arabs have tried every kind of government imaginable to include quasi-democracies, Arab nationalism, socialism and Islam. The current trend towards Islam is a sign that the Middle East is secure with a secular form of government. However, Islam is fighting uphill with a global economy that operates on uber-capitalism. These issues can be ironed out, but the fundamentalist fervor is slowing much needed change; for example, usury laws are a difficult subject for strict followers of Islam. But on the bright side China has learned to work with capitalism so will the Middle East. A perfect illustration of this point is the UAE Persian Gulf city of Dubai.

3. The religious fundamentalism that is sweeping across the Islamic world is worrisome, but not fatal, yet. While a large majority of Muslims outright reject Wahhabi and Deobandi religious tenets, countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are on the cusp of becoming failing states under the auspices of religious fundamentalists. Mercifully, the power of Muslim right-wing terrorist movements that are predicted to wane (e.g., see: David Rapoport, Four Waves of Terrorism). Turkey is currently struggling with an Islamic MP that is trying to undue decades of Ataturk’s modernization efforts. It will be interesting to see if the Turkish people are willing to hitch a ride on Erdogan’s nonsecular authoritarian rule.

4. The Middle East has shifted to a younger demographic that is educated, globally savvy and unemployed. The cradle to grave state system- with a burgeoning bureaucracy - has become an unmanageable burden that does not bode well for the young. How do you employ so many with an economy that produces so little?

Leyla, I hope this gives your research some direction. These are complex issues that are far from being corrected any time soon.

Thank you Patrick, I started to see better, still my eyes hurt when I think of the upcoming elections in my home country :( If you, like me and my people, stayed in the middle of that entire turbulence, you would also wonder and ask "difficult" questions. I still cannot see anything through the binocular, still your explanations corrected my eyesight a lot, although I didn't fancy clearly seeing the desperation of the future Middle East.I am sometimes having childish moments in which I want to wait for an extraterrestrial threat ! for humanity to 'even out' differences and find solutions together, even if temporarily.

Leyla,

I love your extraterrestrial premise… A crisis can make strange bedfellows. Do not despair; Islam has been trying to find a middle ground between secularism and the Quran since the mid-1800. If you look at the first notable Islamic modernists, like Jamal ad-din al-Afghani, you can see the struggle begin to take form. This fight, between modernity and religious, strict constructionists, is what shaped movements like al-Qaeda, Hizb-i Islami and Taliban. Sadly, it is little different from modern secularists constant bickering with the religious right in the United States. Everyone struggles with the ethereal. Islam is making strides in the right direction, but it will take time to evolve, especially with xenophobic and atavistic ideologues determined to prevent modernization.

Think about the combination of three variables:

1. free market of ideas facilitated by globalism,

2. social networks and technology,

3. fragility of the international system in the sense of absence of superpowers balance and awakening of national aspirations.

if the three work in all cases than you have something to begin with.

kobi michael

I would start with reading Scott Anderson: Lawrence in Arabia - War, Deceit, Imperial Folly and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Explains a lot...

Well, thank you Frank, what happens now in the world after I asked this question tells also a lot I guess.When it comes to reading, I embarrassingly admit, I am a bibliophobe :( Despite being in academic world, I am not very much fond of written word. I rather read (if I have to) the words of readers, listen and watch a lot.I prefer to make up my mind by synthesizing the thoughts and comments of well-read people like yourself. However, I certainly know about the Lawrence issue and can guess what you imply. Thanks a lot!

thinking about your question again I think that we might find something which could connect the dots - the changing role of the USA as a superpower or more correctly its unwillingness to act as a superpower and its misperception and irrelevant strategy regarding the world order. in other words the strategic choices the Americans prefer and the wrong interpretations they give to the essence of political cultures which are non-western ones. 

You might be right, Kobi.M, by the time when I was asking this question the world was even a better and safer place, I am really concerned about the worse !

i hope the last events mainly in the middle east will become awaking call for the free world and mostly Europe that might lose its liberal essence. in order to preserve your freedom you have to be ready to pay a price and to fight, you have to be able differentiating between good and evil, right and wrong, and you must stop thinking that by appeasing the evil you will keep your way of life. if the only policeman in the neighborhood decides to close his eyes and to cooperate in this way or another with the bunch of criminals, thinking that by doing so he is able controlling them, the neighborhood might find itself occupied by the criminals and the policeman will be shoot down. 

Animals are being territorial and we praise ourselves for being "all inclusive, all embracing, non-discriminating" open our doors to everyone, being colorblind and otherwise blind. The more I think about the differences between nature(wildlife) and our so called civilized and soo intellectual world system, the more I believe that our four legged relatives are doing better to keep their territories safer and sounder. I am surely not a racist nor a discriminatory person. How could I? I am a Turkish living in Queen's Canada. However, I do not believe in multiculturalism in a sense which allows cultures keep themselves as they were in their home country in a foreign soil, If you do not apply an integration/education/screening policy and say "come as you are"like in NIrvana's song. Honour killings, or similar terror acts will follow  You should be careful who you invite into your territory, Now we are dealing with 'enemies within' our countries ! People are in many ways not equal and yes! certain cultures can be a threat for your territory. Animals know better :(

It's intriguing when you study the history of U.S-Russian relations and how each perceives each other's interests and actions. It's amazing how misperception and assumptions cloud rational thought. For example, when Ukraine's former President temporarily cancelled its association agreement with the EU, people protested and the U.S intervened. Russia, feeling threatened by the possible loss of its strategic buffer to the EU and the West, intervened. They annexed Crimea due to its support for the ethnic Russians (ethnic Russian enclave that comprises 60% of Crimea's inhabitants), its naval interests in the Black Sea (Sevastopol), its economic interests (pipelines traversing through Ukraine), and geopolitical ambitions. Thus, the Cold War rivalry was conjured from its crypt once again.

One can only hope, it stays "cold" !