Russia's ploy to virtue signal during the Middle East crisis is dripping with irony
Analysts have warned about how the Kremlin has leveraged chaos in the past for its own benefit. But Russia's elites played their same old tune as missiles flew over the Middle East this week.
In the span of just a few days, what began as tit-for-tat missile exchanges between Israel and Iran escalated into what alarmists dubbed 'WWIII'.
It was a solid gold opportunity for the Kremlin to divert global attention from its own misdeeds, while also posturing as a so-called peacemaker.
The United States, despite initial hesitations, was eventually drawn into the fray to assist in defending Israeli airspace and then de-escalate the situation 'diplomatically' with a devastating B-2 stealth bomber assault.
But in the background, Vladimir Putin quietly worked a different angle.
Russia jumped at the opportunity to pose as the adult in the room and appear 'above the fray' — all while exploiting the fog of war to reduce public focus on Ukraine and test the boundaries of US restraint.
This is the opinion of Dr Ivana Stradner, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who claims Russia 'never misses an opportunity to exploit a crisis'.
'Russia benefits from the situation in the Middle East to divert [the] West's attention from Ukraine,' Dr Stradner told news.com.au.
That strategy came into sharp focus as the Kremlin loudly condemned Israeli strikes, all while continuing its relentless three-and-a-half-year assault on sovereign Ukraine.
Moscow then boldly positioned itself as a mediator in the conflict, using the UN as its springboard.
'The Kremlin is trying to portray itself as a reasonable voice that wants to stop 'WWIII' and act as a pillar of stability in the Middle East,' Dr Stradner continued.
'Moscow is also using the UN to flex its diplomatic muscles, as Russia has a veto there.
'Ironically, Putin has also offered to mediate the conflict, but he is neither willing nor able to be an effective mediator. Putin wants to pander to President Trump to strengthen his position in negotiations on Ukraine and to portray himself as a reliable partner to Washington.'
While the deception might fall flat among those keenly aware of Russia's advanced misinformation tactics, the Kremlin's propaganda train chugs on, hoping to win the hearts of those undecided on who to trust in the twisted theatre of world politics.
But even more telling is what Russia didn't do.
Despite its longstanding security relationship with Iran, which includes the presence of Russian technicians at Iranian nuclear sites, Moscow made no military moves to support Tehran directly.
Instead, as Dr Stradner points out, 'Russia already abandoned its allies Armenia and Syria, and now Iran. The West should remind Putin's allies across the world that with friends like Putin, they do not need enemies.'
Trump fires up at 'N-word'
Whilecertain Russian assets were virtue signalling, others were jumping on the opportunity to put a fright up the West.
Former President and Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev ominously warned that Iran could just source their nuclear weapons from allies.
'A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads,' Medvedev wrote on X.
Those comments riled up Donald Trump, who accused Medvedev of playing with the 'N-word' a little too haphazardly.
'Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the 'N word' (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran?' Trump wrote on Truth Social.
'The 'N word' should not be treated so casually. I guess that's why Putin's 'THE BOSS.''
But Dr Stradner says it's all hot air.
'Medvedev's words are a textbook case of reflexive control,' she explained, referring to Russia's longstanding strategy of seeding confusion and fear to paralyse decision-making.
'For Putin, nuclear weapons are cognitive weapons.'
Dr Stradner stressed that the Trump administration and Western powerbrokers must avoid reacting to intentionally inflammatory tactics.
'Nobody should take Medvedev's words seriously,' she said. 'It is pure propaganda.'
Russia's nuclear chest-beating has become a predictable tool to distract, distort, and deter. It may not intend to launch missiles, but it absolutely intends to shape how others behave through the threat of escalation.
Alliances tested but not broken
While many view the Russia-Iran relationship as purely strategic, Dr Stradner sees a deeper ideological connection forming between the two nations.
'They are like friends with benefits,' she said. 'They have different interests in Central Asia, but they have a mutual enemy: the United States, and that's their bond.'
More than just co-operation on drones or ballistic missiles, the partnership reflects a shared desire to bypass Western-led institutions and promote a traditionalist, anti-liberal order.
'There is an ideological alliance defending traditionalist, religious, and anti-liberal values,' Dr Stradner noted.
While put under heavy strain this week, Russia's alliances with anti-West nations are growing.
Russian nationalists have advocated for an 'Axis of Aggressors' that includes Iran, China, and North Korea, connected through projects like the International North-South Transport Corridor, an initiative that would provide a logistics lifeline to sidestep Western trade routes.
Then there's the BRICS alliance, consisting of major superpowers like China, India and Russia.
Mr Putin riled up the Mr Trump camp late last year at a BRICS summit in Moscow, calling for a 'multipolar world order' in front of 20 leaders from powerful allied nations.
They had gathered in the Russian capital to discuss sweeping plans, including the development of a BRICS-led international payment system.
Russia has touted the platform as an attractive alternative to Western-led international organisations like the G7.
'The process of forming a multipolar world order is underway, a dynamic and irreversible process,' Mr Putin said at the official opening of the summit.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Peter Greste on Israel's strike on journalists
Sam Hawley: Earlier this week, five Al Jazeera journalists were killed in an Israeli strike in Gaza. Israel confirmed it had targeted one of the men it says was the head of a Hamas terrorist cell. His employer denies that. So who's telling the truth? Today, former Al Jazeera journalist and executive director of the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom, Peter Greste, on the problems that arise when foreign reporters are blocked from covering a war. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: This is Al Jazeera breaking news just coming out. Sad breaking news out of Gaza where Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif has just been killed in what appears to be a targeted Israeli strike. Anas was killed after a tent for journalists was hit outside the main gate of the hospital. The 28-year-old was a key source of news from Gaza City and the north for international audiences since Israel's war on the strip began some 22 months ago. Sam Hawley: Peter, in Gaza on Monday, there was a funeral procession for five of them was Anas al-Sharif. Just tell me about him. Who was he? Peter Greste: Anas was one of the most prominent, most recognisable Palestinian journalists and videographers. He was working for Al Jazeera Arabic. He was a 28-year-old journalist, married, he had two kids. He was part of a Reuters team that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography. Clearly someone who had a very high profile, but he was also accused by the Israelis of being associated with Hamas. News report: Israel says it deliberately targeted their tent and have accused one of the correspondents, Anas al-Sharif, of belonging to Hamas. The UN, the Al Jazeera network and the Committee to Protect Journalists have condemned the attack and rejected the accusation, saying there is no credible evidence of this. Sam Hawley: Yeah, the Israeli military says that Anas al-Sharif was a Hamas operative who'd previously actually launched rockets at Israel. That's their claim. Peter Greste: That is their claim. We haven't seen any evidence to substantiate that. The Israelis have shown documents that claim to show some kind of connection between Anas and Hamas. Those documents certainly don't support the claim that he was an active member of Hamas. But there are a couple of points I think I really need to make. The first is that any journalist working in a place like Gaza is going to have a relationship with the power that controls a region like that. You can't avoid it. I mean, you're going to have their numbers in your contacts books, you're going to have a record of phone calls to them, of communications with them, you're going to have meetings with them. And particularly when they are the power that controls movement in a place like Gaza. So you're inevitably going to have to have a close working relationship with them. That doesn't make you an active member. And we haven't seen any evidence from the Israelis that he was actively involved in terrorist operations. It seems highly circumstantial at best. And even if he was in some way involved with Hamas, that is not the justification for a bombing, a targeted killing like this. Sam Hawley: He'd even written Anas his own obituary, his own will, I suppose, if you like, fearing that he would be killed, didn't he? Peter Greste: Yes, he did. And that was after the Israeli authorities had already accused him of being associated with Hamas. He knew that there was a very good chance that he would be targeted. It seems that he was right in that regard. I guess the thing is that whatever the Israelis say about Anas in particular, there is a really disturbing pattern of attacks, of strikes against working journalists. There have been bomb attacks on the homes of journalists. There've been attacks on journalists who've been working with clearly marked body armour and in clearly marked vehicles. The Israelis have always accused them of being involved in terrorism in some form. And we don't have any specific evidence, the Israelis have never produced any clear-cut evidence to substantiate those allegations. The Israelis, of course, always deny that they target journalists, always deny that they target civilians. But what we have is a clear pattern of circumstantial evidence that, at the very least, demands independent investigation and independent inquiry to get to the bottom of the matter, because it is very difficult from the outside to look at that circumstantial evidence and to agree that the Israelis are, in fact, simply operating to attack and kill terrorists. Sam Hawley: Well, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, in the 22 months of the war, more than 180 Palestinian journalists have actually been killed. Peter Greste: That's a huge number. And again, to be clear, the CPJ's numbers are very, very conservative. Other press freedom organisations put the number at far higher. But regardless of how you do the maths, again, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the Israelis are targeting journalists. Sam Hawley: Mm. Alright, well, Peter, of course, you worked for Al Jazeera leading up to your imprisonment in Egypt. It does so much good journalism, we know that, right around the world, but Israel accuses it of being the mouthpiece of Hamas and it actually banned the network operating in Israel last year. What do we know about the network's perspective, particularly within the Middle East? Peter Greste: Look, I've never seen anything to suggest that Al Jazeera... Certainly, while I was working with them, never saw anything to suggest that the network has a policy of supporting Hamas or Islamist organisations. But having said that, you've got to remember that any news organisation tends to view the world through the lens of the place where its headquarters is. The ABC sees and understands and interprets the world, through an Australian-centric view. The same with the BBC, the same with CNN and The New York Times. They all see the world from the perspective of the country that they're anchored in, and that is the case with Al Jazeera, which understands and interprets the world from Qatar. Now, Al Jazeera also has a really extensive network of correspondents across the Middle East, in particular. They've got very strong relationships with groups all over Gaza. And so, inevitably, it is going to be taking a view from inside Gaza. And remember, too, that if you're sitting... If you're a Palestinian, you're sitting at the sharp end of the Israeli attacks over the past couple of years, you're also going to see and report on the effects of those attacks from a position that's incredibly sympathetic to the people that you're working with. That's just a function of perspective. It does not invalidate the truth of what they're reporting. It does not make them propagandists for Hamas. It simply makes them reporters who are covering the story on the ground as they see and experience it. There are going to be critics, and Israel and a lot of Israeli supporters will accuse them of being involved in promoting Hamas propaganda. But I think that's a pretty long bow to draw, particularly when it seems as though anybody who is creating a narrative that runs counter to the Israeli view of things has been accused of being propagandists or supporters of Hamas in some way. Sam Hawley: Mm. Well, Peter, as we know, the only journalists who are able to cover the war on the ground in Gaza are Palestinian, that is, the people that are actually living there, because Israel has barred foreign journalists from entering Gaza. That helps Israel, does it, control the narrative? Is that why it does it? Peter Greste: Well, yeah. It's certainly hard to come to any other conclusion. The Israelis, as you said, have repeatedly refused to let foreign journalists in. And just to be clear, I'm one of the earliest signatories on a petition by almost 1,000 international journalists demanding access for foreign correspondents into Gaza. That's not because we want to diminish the work of the Palestinians or somehow claim that they are inherently biased. But the only way we're going to get information that people will be able to trust, that we'll be able to see as independent of either the Palestinians or Hamas or the Israelis, is if we are able to get foreign correspondents into Gaza, working independently as witnesses and reporters. Now, the Israelis, as you said, have repeatedly refused that. They say it's because they can't give security guarantees to the foreign correspondents. But it also does seem very much to be about controlling the flow of information and the reporting that comes out of there. Sam Hawley: So, without international journalists on the ground, as you say, it does allow doubts to be raised about the legitimacy of the images and the reporting that emerges from there. Peter, we saw that most recently, I guess, with this case with The New York Times, where it published a photo of an emaciated child with its mother, which Israel then claimed was fake. Just tell me about that. The New York Times did have to clarify that image. Peter Greste: That's right. They said that the image was, in fact, of a child with a pre-existing condition that was exacerbated by hunger, by starvation. And I think that underlines the central point, that it's incredibly difficult for news organisations like Al Jazeera, and The New York Times, the BBC, or even the ABC, to report accurately on what's going on there without having people on the ground who are capable of verifying and following up those sorts of images and those sorts of details. Sam Hawley: Benjamin Netanyahu this week accused the international press of having bought Hamas's propaganda hook, line and sinker. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: Everything that I told you could be verified easily, but it hasn't. And the international press has bought hook, line and sinker. Hamas statistics, Hamas claims, Hamas forgeries and Hamas photographs. Sam Hawley: I mean, he's threatening to sue The New York Times, although the paper does stick by its reporting. It does defend its reporting. Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister: I'm looking right now into the possibility of a governmental suit against The New York Times, because this is outrageous. It's the kind of malignant lies that were levelled at the Jewish people in the Middle Ages, we won't suffer. We won't allow it to go unchallenged. And this is the purpose of this press conference. Peter Greste: Yeah, and again, the answer would be simply just for the Israelis to allow foreign journalists into Gaza to work alongside the Palestinians to be able to report freely and unhindered. And that's the easiest way of resolving this crisis. Sam Hawley: Just tell me how it works now, though. How do media outlets like The New York Times or the ABC, for that matter, verify the images that are actually coming out from the journalists on the ground in Gaza? How can they be certain of the veracity of the information or the images that are being provided? Peter Greste: There's a whole host of tools that news organisations will use. They'll use the metadata associated with the images to confirm locations and times of particular shots. They'll also use other clues in the photographs that can confirm the time and location of the shots, position of the sun, shadows, and other details in the background of the photographs and so on. And they can generally do a pretty good job. But that kind of verification, as I said, is never going to be a substitute for being there on the ground and being able to take the photographs yourself. Sam Hawley: Well, Peter, as an international correspondent or a former correspondent, yourself, you have covered a number of conflicts. The work is vital, though, as you found, of course, when you were jailed in Egypt and at other times, it can be incredibly dangerous, can't it? Peter Greste: Yes, and I've not only been in prison myself, but I've also lost friends and colleagues in covering these kinds of conflicts. Journalists who go there know and understand the risks that they're taking. The journalists that are covering these places are highly trained, often highly experienced, and they know full well what is at stake. You've got to let the journalists themselves make informed choices about whether or not they're willing to go. And if they are willing to go, then they need to be given the freedom to do it. Sam Hawley: And history shows us how important that is, right? From Vietnam to Iraq and beyond. Peter Greste: Yeah, absolutely. And we've seen reporting change the way that governments respond to conflicts. We saw the way that the public turned against the Vietnam War over time because of the reporting. We've seen the way that the public has turned against the wars in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. That only comes from good reporting. Sometimes the governments don't always like it, but that's a part of the way that democracy works. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, Peter, as you mentioned, news organisations and journalists across the world, including the ABC, are calling on Israel to allow journalists to move in and out of Gaza to report from there. How important is that at this particular point now? Peter Greste: Look, I think it's increasingly vital. We've got claims and counterclaims about the levels of starvation and malnutrition that are taking place inside Gaza. As you've mentioned earlier, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has repeatedly accused the foreign press of swallowing Hamas propaganda hook, line and sinker. The only way we can get to the truth of the matter is by having independent eyes and ears on the ground in Gaza reporting what they see is taking place. Palestinian journalists are doing incredible work, but they will always be seen as vulnerable to allegations that they are working as Hamas propagandists and not independent eyewitnesses. It's unfortunate, but foreign correspondents are the only ones capable of doing that. Sam Hawley: Peter Greste is the Executive Director of the Alliance for Journalists' Freedom and a Professor of Journalism at Macquarie University. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

ABC News
2 hours ago
- ABC News
How Middle East peace plans were hatched in the Norwegian woods
Even the most seasoned negotiators can't agree on how to bring peace to the Middle East. Everyone agrees that - on a personal level - it's a problem too big, too old and too entrenched for them to even have an impact on. Except Mona and Terje. Norwegians Mona Juul and Terje Rød-Larsen looked at this extremely complicated conflict and said 'we can fix this'. Follow If You're Listening on the ABC Listen app. Check out our series on YouTube:

Sky News AU
4 hours ago
- Sky News AU
‘Right down to business': Megyn Kelly examines Trump's strategy with Putin peace talks
'The Megyn Kelly Show' host Megyn Kelly discusses the possibility of Trump finding a 'resolution' to the Ukraine-Russia conflict. Donald Trump is adamant land swapping will be key to any peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. 'Trump doesn't have a lot of time on his hands for the normal, diplomatic, glad handing, banal talk that might precede actual comments,' Ms Kelly told Sky News host Paul Murray. 'Trump is going to get right down to business – I guarantee you.'