Between Regionalization and Clashing Interests
A terse review:
U.S.-China competition and cooperation influence the globe, transcending continents and regions. The Near East and Eurasia are no exception. Both regions appear caught in the uncalculated costs of their policy choices. The gas superpower Russia seems to have overreached. Turkey has shifted away from its pro-Muslim Brotherhood stance. Iran seems more passive-aggressive than confidently active. From Libya to Karabakh, Kherson to Idlib, the regional and middle powers of the Near East and Eurasia are grappling with erosive costs. It is becoming increasingly difficult for them to avoid losing stakes while simultaneously gaining leverage. Although the strategic traps—both natural and engineered—function effectively, the hard moves of these actors appear increasingly difficult to block.
My take is simple:
The focus, for now and the foreseeable future, lies on the ‘consequences of the cost,’ not the consequences of the conflict. Conflict is broad; cost is concise.
Costs won’t just define the boundaries of behavior but will also push superpowers toward policy choices that escalate from hard to harder. While natural and regular power shifts may occur in human societies or ecosystems, states operate differently—they are crazy, uncertain, chaotic, yet oddly consistent. If you’re not ready to delve into the nuances of international relations, please don’t stress your brain cells here.
Real wisdom is stable: To know you never know.
Let me illustrate: Does cost define consequence?
Every cost is a consequence, but not every consequence is a cost.
Imagine a romantic bar scene: You kiss a girl. She slaps you. People stare. Shame follows. Complex emotions, the slap, and the public embarrassment are all consequences, but the real cost arises when her boyfriend steps onto the scene.
Who is the boyfriend here?
In my view, The Boyfriend represents a total complex of military, economic, political, and ideological costs.
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı, May 14, 2022, Istanbul