Russia

Roman-Parthian Wars – a Repeat

The Roman-Parthian Wars were a series of wars that took place between the years 54 BC and 217 AD. The Parthian Empire covered a large area, among others of today’s Iran and Iraq. Sometimes the Romans were victorious, sometimes the Parthians. It was a clash of civilisations, a clash between occidental Rome and oriental Parthia. Today’s war between the United States and Iran appears to be a continuation of that old conflict that extended over centuries. The United States is a descendant of ancient Rome. The names of state institutions like Senate, the names of certain buildings like the Capital, the architectural style – all testify to it. Also, the English language whose vocabulary is almost 80% ultimately of Latin origin (including such common words like money, tender, nice, car, train, pay, peace, pound, face, battle, soldier, navy, missile, message, digital, computer, autumn, dinner, office…) shows in no uncertain terms (with the two last words also being of Latin origin) that the American-Iranian hostilities are a prolongation of that ancient feud.

The American-Israeli Operation Epic Fury, which began on 28 of February 2026 with a launch of 900 strikes within the first 24 hours marked the beginning of something that we do not yet know how it will develop. The United States had hoped for a quick and spectacular victory, a victory guaranteed by the decapitation operation in which Iran’s highest religious leader Ali Khamenei (and his daughter, and his son-in-law, and his granddaughter) was killed. But Iran rather than surrender has struck back and has struck back successfully. Sure, the Persian state cannot stand up to the American might in an old-fashioned duel. It can, however, bite back where it hurts most, and compel Washington to reconsider its policy. Iran is smaller than the United States, both in terms of population and territory, but – as unforgettable Aesop wrote in many of his fables – even a mouse can have its revenge on a lion.

So, Iran struck where it is most painful: Iran struck at the oil refineries, and effectively blocked the Straight of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most important choke point through which more than 20% of the global oil trade passes. The incapacitation of oil supply translates into higher prices of anything that is connected with oil, which in turn triggers a chain reaction of price rises, which is actually happening around the globe.

Washington appears to be surprised by Iranian resilience and Iranian defiance. The Americans had hoped for Iran to capitulate within days. Washington had hoped for a repeat of the 12-day war that took place in June last year. Nothing like that is anywhere in sight. Iran is launching missiles against American and non-American targets in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordania, and Israel. The targets are American military bases and the important infrastructure of those countries which host American bases. The oil refinery in Haifa, Israel, that is said to be hit processed 40% of Israel’s oil.

Two facts testify to America’s miscalculation and America’s second thoughts. First, Americans – Americans! – have proposed to Iran a ceasefire through a third party; second, President Donald Trump has called President Vladimir Putin to talk about… the war against Iran. What they discussed is not known: we can only guess that Washington is looking for off-ramps from the conflict.

Now, Iran seems to be to the United States what Ukraine has been to Russia for the last four years. For years the West has been sending munitions of war to Kiev; now it is Russia which is sending munitions of war to Tehran. The deal about selling Iran the advanced Russian S-400 antiaircraft and anti-missile complex has just sent shockwaves around the globe. The United States is about to taste its own medicine.

It is popular in the West to assume or even believe that Iranian people are against the religious ‘regime’ as the Western journalists are used to saying. Let us assume that it is true. If so, then the savage attack on Iran and the murder of 170 girls by the American Tomahawk missile compelled Iranians of all political persuasions to rally around the same ‘regime’. A historical repeat, again, just like it was in the thirties of the previous century in the Soviet Union. At that time there were many Soviet citizens who hated the Stalinist regime till… till the same regime was brutally attacked by the armies of the Third Reich. Precisely the same phenomenon was triggered in the Soviet Union which has been just triggered in Iran: those people who disliked communism and communist regime rallied around the communists and their leader.

The current Roman-Parthian war is going on. It is not merely a war between present-day Rome and the present-day Parthian Empire; rather, it is a war whose economic and political repercussions afflict the whole globe. India, China, South Korea, and Japan – they all depended very much on the oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. The said countries may wish to remain neutral in the ongoing hostilities, but if push comes to shove, if their economies become strangled by inadequate supplies, they may reconsider their policies and exert pressure on the participants. When Romans and Parthians fought against each other, either side would have looked for allies. Much the same is true of the present conflict. The American-Israeli alliance is facing the solidification of the political, economic, and military cooperation between Russia, Iran, and China. How long will the other countries watch from the sidelines?

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Gone are the days when the world watched, with bated breath, the many talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on reduction and control of nuclear arms development. Gone are the headlines announcing the beginning, continuation and completion of the SALT or START talks. The world has changed.

Now it is the United States – as before – Russia – a replacement for the Soviet Union – and… China! When the SALT and START talks were conducted, no one paid any attention to the Middle Kingdom. Now China is a power to reckon with, not merely economically but also militarily. China is estimated to have some 350 strategic missile launching pads as opposed to some 480 American. That’s hard on America’s heels. Now what negotiations on nuclear arms control and arms limitation can be conducted between the United States and the Russian Federation without taking into the equation the Middle Kingdom?

The problem is that Moscow says it has nothing to do with China: China is not Russia’s military ally, though Washington perceives it as such. Contrarily, Russia views France and the United Kingdom as America’s closest allies, and rightly so: all the three countries belong to NATO. Hence, Russia’s demand that both France and Great Britain be included in the talks is legitimate.

On the other hand, Washington is legitimately concerned about China: under the current circumstances Beijing can certainly be viewed as Russia’s ally rather than that of America. (Just to think of it: China’s might have been created by the United States of which we’ll make a reminder later in the text.) Neither does the Middle Kingdom want to be included in the trilateral talks with the Russian Federation: why should it? It is an independent power – superpower – and it can act at the negotiating table on its own. So much so that Beijing has something to win from Washington: ok, the Chinese may say, we could reduce our military development if you lift the sanctions on China and the countries that wish to trade with the Middle Kingdom. How about that? Nuclear might is always a fine bargaining chip, is it not?

It is even true of tiny North Korea as well: not that North Korea is so powerful as to be considered for joint talks. No. But Korean nuclear potential is a sufficient deterrent even for such a superpower as the United States. And there is something more to the nuclear potential: it is the determination of the Korean leadership to actually use the missiles if push comes to shove. It is not Venezuela, whose president can be adducted in broad daylight without the perpetrator of the abduction fearing any retaliation, but we are digressing.

The balance of forces has changed since the year in which the Soviet Union disintegrated. For maybe as many as two decades the United States dominated the globe and felt so self-assured that Washington began to dictate to the whole globe. This, however, has changed. Russia has reasserted herself while China has risen to the status of a(n almost) superpower.

Which by the way is good for humanity. One superpower with no rival to fear would soon become corrupted and degenerated. All the other countries would have felt intimidated with no alternative anywhere in sight. Fortunately, a world emerges where there are three or maybe four (if we include India) big players, which allows for the smaller entities to have a political alternative, and which keeps each superpower in check.

A new arrangement needs to be made – no one power wants the prospect of a nuclear shootout. Talks are not going to be easy, because it is now three big entities, not two.

Political persistent rumour has it that Adolf Hitler was the creation of the Western elites who wished to rebuild Germany and direct its power against the Bolshevik Soviet Union. That is why London and Paris did not react when Germany began to arm itself, when Germany incorporated Austria and annexed Czechia; that explains why they did not react when Poland was attacked. The Western elites wanted Germany to expand, grow stronger, and come into physical contact with the Soviet Union. Now Adolf Hitler – assuming he was the darling of the Western elites – stopped playing by their script and turned against them when he attacked Denmark and Norway, the Low Countries and eventually France. It came as a shock: he was supposed to attack the Soviet Union!

Isn’t history repeating itself? The Middle Kingdom was supported by the United States for the express purpose to turn it against the Soviet Union. Washington would have rubbed its hands in glee if Beijing and Moscow started a real hot war! Decades have passed and – due to clumsy American policy-making – Moscow was pushed into Beijing’s embrace while Beijing was pushed in Moscow’s. Now they are – though not formally – economic and military allies. But again, the Kremlin may repeat: we have nothing to do with it. Had not Washington acted the way it did, there would have been no war in Ukraine, no sanctions on Russia and China, and consequently no Russo-Chinese cooperation.

The three gunslingers have a hard nut to crack. Certainly, none wants a nuclear exchange, yet each wants to get the upper hand. They are observing each other attentively, not knowing in which direction to level their guns. It reminds one of the cultic cemetery scene from the 1966 The Good, the Bad and the Ugly classic movie. Do you recall it? Good Blondie (Clint Eastwood), bad Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), and ugly Tuco (Eli Wallach) are facing each other – graves and crosses around them, their hands over their holsters, their eyes darting from face to face, their minds calculating. That’s the United States, that’s the Russian Federation, and that’s the People’s Republic of China facing each other (who is the good, the bad or the ugly is a matter of your political persuasion). In the graveyard scene only one emerges victorious. How will things play out in political reality at beginning of the 21 century?

800 000 troops at Russia’s underbelly

The American peace proposals have been countered by the proposals drafted by the European Union. The European Union has frantically elaborated its own vision of the peace process because the American points are not much to the commissioners’ liking, and because – and that is utterly important – the European Union desperately seeks to become politically relevant. As it is, the war is going to be brought to an end through negotiations conducted by the Russian Federation and the United States – the only protagonists on the world’s political stage. Neither Ukraine nor the EU matters. Ukraine has been objectified, while the European Union – sidelined.

The EU’s attempt to regain political traction reminds one of France’s attempts towards the end of the Second World War to play the war game on a par with the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union. And, indeed, France managed to restore at least a semblance of its political relevance. The allies allowed Paris to be present at the ceremony of accepting the German surrender and to have its own occupational zone in Germany. It was – as said above – only due to the political generosity of the victorious powers that France was recognized as one of the winning parties because in reality France had been routed and occupied for a couple of years and – what follows – without the intervention of the Americans (and the British) France would not have liberated itself, on its own. No wonder then that when Marshal Keitel saw the French delegation attending the act of capitulation he could not restrain himself from remarking, ‘They, too, have defeated us?’

Today, it is not France alone but the entirety of the European Union plus Great Britain. In particular Germany, France, and the United Kingdom want to take a seat at the negotiating table and put forward their own proposals. They want to leave their mark on the peace process. And again, it depends on the United States of America and maybe also on the Russian Federation whether the EU will be admitted to the inner circle of world politics.

The counterpoints drafted by Brussels at times converge with those authored by Washington, and at times they diverge. Of the 28 points, Point 6 is quite peculiar. It states: ‘Size of Ukraine military to be capped at 800,000 in peacetime.’

800 000 troops at peacetime! That’s more than the standing armies of France (200 000), Germany (180 000), and the United Kingdom (140 000) combined! That’s more than twice as many troops as Turkey has (350 000). Consider that the Turkish armed forces are the second most numerous in NATO. And consider that Turkey’s standing army of 350 000 is sustained by Turkey’s population of 85 million, while Ukraine’s ‘capped’ military of 800 000 would have to be supported by 30 million, maybe even fewer people! If you add to it the devastation of Ukraine and the million or so of Ukrainian young men who have been killed or maimed, you begin to wonder how such an army could ever be raised in the first place.

The enormity of the size of Ukraine’s armed forces is one thing. The other is: why should Ukraine have such a huge standing army even if its maintenance were feasible? This question will surely be answered by Brussels along the lines of ‘making Ukraine capable of defending itself against the Russian aggressor,’ but is this explanation plausible? After all, at present, the Ukrainian army numbers maybe more than the said 800 000, and – as can be seen – it cannot withstand the Russian steady offensive. Why should it be capable of withstanding a similar offensive in the future?

Or maybe what the European Union covertly seeks is to keep using Ukraine as a permanent battering ram against Russia. in such a scenario the negotiated peace is going to be a mere ceasefire.

The proposal allowing Ukraine to have such a large army also runs counter to one of the two aims of the Special Military Operation, which is (apart from denazification) – demilitarization. How can Brussels expect Moscow to even consider Point 6? How could President Vladimir Putin or anybody in his place agree to having such an army at Russia’s underbelly after four years of war, after all the sacrifice and effort? Do Brussels politicians believe in the acceptability of this proposal? If they do, then their sanity is questionable. If we assume that their sanity remains all right, then we must come to the conclusion that this point alone serves the purpose of torpedoing the whole peace process, for a 800 000-men-strong army on Russia’s doorstep is a non-starter for Moscow.

Stated goals – genuine goals

Among the twenty-eight points of the peace proposal that has been drafted by the Americans is one that – if agreed upon – promises amnesty to all the participants of the conflict in Ukraine. This point reveals a huge lot.

For a long time now we’ve been fed the narrative that it was the Russian soldiers who were cruel and inhumane. Stories were spun and, indeed, pictures shown in the media about the atrocities committed by the Russians on Ukrainians. Do you still remember the notorious Bucha massacre? The intended pun on words – Butchery in Bucha or Butchers from Bucha – and the village carefully and intentionally selected to make the headlines sound alarming?

At the same time we’ve been fed the narrative that Ukrainian soldiers behave themselves gallantly. They are not the ones who commit atrocities, they are not the ones who assault civilians. Such things are only done by those evil Russians.

Let us assume the veracity of such statements. Then, like a bombshell, we can read one of the points of the peace proposals about pardoning the perpetrators of war crimes or other atrocities. If it was the Russians who committed those crimes, then the pardon extends to them and them alone, right? Why does the United States want to spare the Russian ruffians in uniform? Why such magnanimity? Didn’t the collective West – the United States and the European Union – label Russia’s president a killer, didn’t the commissioners want him on trial in the Hague? They wanted to hold accountable no less a figure than Russia’s president: surely they would be much stricter while handling figures of a lesser caliber!

Reading this point of the peace proposal you suddenly learn that atrocities and war crimes are not worth prosecuting. Are the Americans genuinely trying to shield the hated Russian evil-doers? Do the Americans genuinely suggest that justice should not be done? No, certainly not.

As usual, we need to distinguish between stated goals and genuine goals. The stated goal is the amnesty, something enticing for the Russians who are allegedly up to their hilts in blood. The genuine goal is – yes, you guessed it right – to protect the Ukrainian soldiers and the multiple mercenaries fighting on the Ukrainian side who have committed atrocities and downright war crimes. They are to be shielded from justice, they are to be protected, they are to be saved for future conflicts when they will come in handy.

Barely anyone remembers or, indeed, knows about the 2014 Odessa fire, a fire that burnt fifty or so (Russian) men and women alive in the Trade Union House, which was set ablaze by Ukrainian political activists. Still fewer people took notice when Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced in one of his speeches at the very beginning of the conflict in Ukraine that Moscow knew the identity of the perpetrators of that fire and was about to track them down with the purpose of bringing them to book. Europeans or Americans may not have taken notice of those words; most probably they wouldn’t have heard them, since they only consume the news from the official channels. Yet, the wrongdoers would certainly have heard those words and consequently must have had the fright of their lives. The influential ones, those with connections to the powerful figures in the West, must have used all their influence to extract that kind of guarantee for themselves from their Western overlords.

The Burevestnik

The Burevestnik is a Russian name for a bird species. It corresponds to the petrel in English. The name itself carries a meaning. It stands for an announcer or herald of storms. The bird is known for its ability to fly long distances and to be able to defy the natural elements. Maxim Gorky, one of Russia’s greater writers and poets, composed a rhythmic blank verse about the bird. He describes a petrel or the burevestnik soaring up in the skies in expectation of the gathering storm while other species of birds – be it seagulls or penguins – are trying to find shelter. Maxim Gorky depicts the petrel or the Burevestnik not because of the bird’s natural features; rather, he points to the bird as to a rebellious or defiant human character that is in constant quest of change, of victory, of challenge.

A few days ago Russia’s President Vladimir Putin announced a successful test concerning a new missile by the name of Burevestnik. The technological novelty consists in the engine: the missile is powered by a nuclear reactor. The fact that it is powered but a nuclear reactor makes it possible for the rocket to stay in flight for a very, unimaginably very, long time. That in turn means that it can be positioned anywhere around the globe in air and keep flying back and forth, in circles or along any trajectory, and remain on constant alert. Apart from receiving signals from Moscow, it is most likely equipped with AI. The Burevestnik is not supersonic, but its maneuverability makes it difficult to detect, let alone to be intercepted or downed. Russia does not need to rely anymore so much on its submarines located somewhere close to the United States: soon, Russia will be able to position its the Burevestniks in proximity to America. Unlike the nuclear but manned submarines that from time to time need to return to their bases because of the human factor, the said missiles are unmanned. Hence, the only fatigue that one can think of in reference to the Burevestnik is the fatigue of the stuff from which the missile is made, not that of humans.

Besides the Oreshnik and the Sarmat, the Burevestnik is yet another novelty in Russia’s missile arsenal. The announcement of the rocket’s successful tests may have been intended as a means to force the West to sit down at the negotiating table over the conflict in Ukraine. The announcement about the missiles might also be framed as a response to America’s plans of providing Ukraine with Tomahawks. Neither the United States nor Europe have anything comparable with the Burevestnik. The Western leaders might feel ill at ease. That this is so can be proven indirectly by the West’s reaction. Rather than showing an interest in the news, Western diplomats and experts make believe that they couldn’t be bothered about the expanding Russian arsenal. President Donald Trump is reported to have commented that [Putin] “ought to get the war [in Ukraine] ended. A war that should have taken one week is now soon in its fourth year. That’s what he ought to do instead of testing missiles.”

It is also symptomatic and concurrently funny that the experts who admit to not having enough information about the Burevestnik still belittle, devalue or critique its technical capabilities or its usefulness. Let it sink in: they know nothing about the missile and yet they keep talking about its accuracy, duration of flight, usability, purposefulness and, and, and. One of the problems that those experts point to is that the Burevestnik will pollute the environment with radiation. But will it? If the Burevestnik is to be effective, and an effective missile is one that it is hard to locate, then it might be that it is provided with such technology of the engine that makes this engine leave no radiation. Consequently, no radiation trace gives away the position of the rocket. If that is the case, what then?

The Burevestnik has its undersea counterpart which is the nuclear-driven drone – the Poseidon. It, too, can remain in water for a very long time; it, too, is unmanned, and it, too, can lurk somewhere along the American eastern or Western coastline. For the time being these new weapons are unmatched game changers.

America has no chance in the Arctic

The conflict between Israel and Hamas is good for Russia. When the Israeli army began its operation in the Gaza Strip and the Houthis began attacking container ships in the Persian Gulf in retaliation, shipments through the Russian Northeast Passage increased rapidly. No wonder: the route is 30% shorter than the one through the Suez Canal, free of terrorists and Somali pirates (who have something to say in the case of the other alternative route – around Africa).

The ice is melting and Russia, having the largest fleet of icebreakers, is modernizing the ports in Murmansk and Sabetta and is expanding old military bases built during times of the Soviet Union in the north. Experts believe that the Arctic Ocean will probably be ice-free by the 2040 summer season due to climate change. Moscow estimates that 44% of the Arctic shelf is under its control, and the oil and gas reserves there are estimated to be worth around 20 trillion dollars. The Arctic has huge energy reserves of global importance. According to the US Geological Survey, around 30% of the world’s natural gas reserves and 13% oil fields (90 billion barrels) lie beyond the Arctic Circle. However, there are technical and financial problems with their production. The extraction of deposits in difficult polar conditions requires modern technologies and enormous investments, which Russia is still often unable to afford.

And this is where the Chinese friends come to the rescue, for whom the Northeast Passage (NSR) is a plan B for the New Silk Road: the Chinese are financing LNG projects, developing cooperation in the construction of satellites to monitor ice density, participating in the modernization of ports and the construction of transhipment terminals. Examples include the participation of CNPC, the largest Chinese oil and gas trading company, and the Chinese Silk Road Fund in the Yamal LNG project, as well as the announced investment in Arctic LNG 2. In the fall of 2024, the Chinese Coast Guard announced its first patrol in the waters of the Arctic Ocean, and the operation was carried out in cooperation with the Russian Coast Guard. Chinese shipping companies and logistics firms are increasingly operating transits via the NSR; specific liner projects (container shipping) and joint ventures with Russian players (e.g. Rosatom cooperation) emerged in 2023-2024.

Meanwhile, America is letting go of its opportunities in the north, is barely expanding its fleet of icebreakers, no new bases are being built and Donald Trump is on a collision course with Canada, the most important partner when it comes to the alternative northern passage through Canadian waters. Period.

VIDEOS

...

Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow

Russia

VIDEOS

MORE NEWS

GEFIRA Newsletter
Enter your email address for free newsletter:

Confirm Email:

Russia

VIDEOS

MORE NEWS

GEFIRA

GEFIRA

Subscription