By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Putin cited Russia’s close ties with Israel’s large Russian-speaking population as a factor influencing its level of support for Iran in the ongoing conflict. He highlighted existing nuclear energy cooperation with Iran as sufficient support, rejecting claims of insufficient assistance. Conversely, Ukrainian President Zelensky alleged that Russia deceptively included a Russian mercenary with Israeli citizenship among the bodies repatriated to Ukraine. This exchange of prisoners and bodies, part of a larger agreement, included at least 1,200 prisoners from each side. Despite this exchange, a ceasefire remains elusive due to Russia’s stringent demands and the ongoing military momentum.
Read the original article here
Putin’s surprising justification for not aiding Iran in its war, as he has publicly stated, centers on the significant Russian-speaking population within Israel. He frames this demographic as creating a substantial “Russian-speaking country,” thereby implying a level of interconnectedness that necessitates caution in providing military assistance to Iran. This explanation is presented, not as a factual account of Israel’s linguistic landscape, but as a politically expedient justification for inaction.
The claim itself is demonstrably a stretch. While a sizeable Russian-speaking community exists in Israel, it doesn’t define the country’s national identity or language. The emphasis on this demographic, therefore, appears less about genuine concern for Russian speakers and more about a calculated attempt to deflect criticism for failing to support a stated ally.
This alleged concern for Russian speakers in Israel seems particularly out of place given the history of Russia’s actions in regions with large Russian-speaking populations. The implication that Russia would refrain from actions detrimental to its citizens abroad feels at odds with past behaviors in places like Ukraine, where the pretext of protecting Russian speakers has been used to justify military intervention.
The timing of this justification is also crucial. Russia is currently facing significant challenges in its war with Ukraine, experiencing considerable military losses and facing crippling international sanctions. Providing substantial military aid to Iran would further strain Russia’s already depleted resources and potentially provoke further international condemnation.
The suggestion that the “cupboard is bare” for Russia’s military is entirely credible. The scale of the conflict in Ukraine has clearly exposed limitations in Russia’s military capabilities and supply chain. Iran’s needs – advanced air defense systems, radars, and other sophisticated weaponry – are precisely the areas where Russia itself is experiencing shortages.
Furthermore, the geopolitical implications of supporting Iran must be considered. Israel, a significant regional power, has a long-standing history of conflict with Iran. Providing military aid to Iran would be a direct challenge to Israel, which potentially holds serious ramifications for Russia, particularly given the substantial Russian-speaking population residing in Israel. This act could very well provoke a strong Israeli response, possibly extending the conflict into new, unpredictable territories.
Therefore, Putin’s focus on the Russian-speaking population within Israel serves as a convenient smokescreen. The real reasons for Russia’s inaction likely stem from its own military weaknesses and the high risk associated with escalating tensions in a strategically sensitive region. The focus on the Russian-speaking population in Israel allows Putin to avoid admitting his inability or unwillingness to provide material support, while simultaneously attempting to portray a degree of concern for the well-being of Russian speakers internationally. This explanation, however plausible it may sound on the surface, seems ultimately a thinly veiled excuse.
The narrative that Putin’s justification is a strategic maneuver is strengthened by the considerable historical and political context. His past comments on the close ties between Russia and Israel, even referring to Israel as “almost a Russian-speaking state,” can be interpreted as a carefully laid groundwork for future justifications. This strategy would allow Putin to shift blame from his government’s limitations, to concerns about the safety and well-being of the large Russian-speaking population in Israel. In other words, a calculated strategy to deflect responsibility for his lack of action in supporting a supposed ally.
In conclusion, while the stated reason regarding the large number of Russian speakers in Israel may seem peculiar, it fits within the context of Putin’s broader geopolitical strategy and Russia’s current military limitations. It’s a convenient and arguably self-serving explanation for a failure to support Iran, born out of Russia’s own internal vulnerabilities and external pressures. The reality is far more complex, involving a tangled web of military limitations, geopolitical risks, and the need for plausible deniability.