For the first time, NATO troops from the US and three other NATO countries shared in this month's annual Victory Day military parade in Moscow, which no one had previously thought about, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. At the same time, Russia is helping NATO in Afghanistan by allowing US air forces to use the Russian airfields for logistical purposes. Recently, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev opened criticised the violation of human rights experienced in the Soviet Union and US President Barack Obama and the White House hailed his words a few hours later. The present Greece monetary crisis and the steps taken by the European Union (EU) Finance Ministers to accordingly safeguard the union added to Russian scores when dealing with the West in general. A few years ago, there was a debate in the EU political circles to choose between extending the union to the Eastern European countries giving them full partnership or accelerating partnership and neighbourhood policies with Southern Mediterranean countries. Germany chose to direct the union towards the first option and financed the process. France and other Southern European countries tried to create the stillborn Mediterranean Union that suffers from the Middle East problem. Germany was initially reluctant to save Greece in its current economic crisis and a German member of parliament even wanted Greece to sell some of its islands. However, the Germans eventually agreed to the EU financial plans not only to save the EU member, but also to pump about a billion euros into stabilising stocks markets in Europe. Any new financial crisis in big European countries like Spain or Italy may devastate risky plans and recovery in Europe, threatening the euro and the integrity of the union. Simply, this gives Russia as the main energy supplier more strength when dealing with the West and NATO and strengthens Moscow's relative power to form a future strategic triad with the EU and the US after its military and energy deals with Ukraine. The question is: Does the US-EU-Russia partnership or not boost the Middle East peace and nuclear disarmament process? Firstly, does their partnership need a prosperous Middle East or just frozen and calm Middle East? Russia needs more markets as it is still far from being an active competitor in the European markets. The traditional Russian sales of arms and machines need customers in the Middle East, Africa, South Asia and Latin America. Russian companies need projects in these areas. The Middle East, being the nearest zone geographically, Russia has a strategic interest in making peace in the Middle East Russian strategists see the Israeli nuclear arms as a direct threat to them. Moreover, war on Iran by Israel would expose Russia to more instability in its central Asian backyard. The Russian proposal to start negotiating a Middle East nuclear-free zone after reaching advancement in peace negotiations differs from the US stance that wants to open the Israeli military file after concluding peace that stubborn Israel dictates not negotiates. Russia does not want a new war in the Middle East, and recently it transferred an Israeli message to Syria that the Zionist state has no intention of waging a new war on its northern front. On the other hand, waiting for the peace negotiations to advance in order to start negotiating a nuclear-free zone is like asking the Arabs to wait to be given the benefit of the doubt. Russia has the means to deal directly and promptly with the Israeli nuclear arsenal, but it has withheld advanced air defence missiles from its allies Syria and Iran. At the same time, it has not provided them with a nuclear umbrella against nuclear threats as the US did with Israel. Russia, the US and Britain promised that they would do their best to create a Middle East zone free of nuclear arms in 1995, but it was just lip service. Moreover, Russia's position about sanctions against Iran became nearer and nearer to the Western stance. The US wants to focus on Iran's nuclear file, ignoring the Israeli one. Russia wants to use both files and play other cards to reach partnership with the US and the EU on an equal footing. Yet their partnership needs good relations with the Islamic world and, in particular, a calm Middle East to achieve its global targets. More pressure from Egypt as the incumbent head of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and from Islamic countries is needed to achieve a Middle East nuclear-free zone, which is a prerequisite for peace. The spread of nuclear arms is the inevitable alternative that nobody wants. It is encouraging that NAM has decided to put the Israeli nuclear capabilities on the agenda for its June conference, but this may be another manoeuvre paying lip service.
