Headline: Russian Response to Hamas Attack Reflects Complex Foreign Policy Dynamics
Subtitle: Russia’s delicate balance between supporting Israel and courting Palestinian groups
Date: [Insert Date]
In a surprising move, Russia refrained from condemning Hamas, the Palestinian militant group responsible for a brutal surprise attack on Israel that resulted in the deaths and kidnappings of hundreds of Israeli civilians. While Russia has labeled opposition figures like Alexei Navalny as “terrorists,” and routinely denounces defensive Ukrainian strikes as “terrorist attacks,” its reaction to the Hamas attack was carefully worded and reflected the Kremlin’s nuanced diplomacy.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov expressed “extreme concern” over the situation and called for a peaceful resolution. The Russian Foreign Ministry also expressed grave concern over the escalation of the conflict. Russia’s response, however, differed from its usual rhetoric, possibly due to its complex foreign policy dynamics.
For decades, Russia has sought strong ties with Israel while also supporting the Palestinian cause and courting groups like Hamas that are committed to Israel’s destruction. The recent statements reflect the overshadowing influence of President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine on Russia’s foreign policy, even in situations far from the Ukrainian battlefield.
Notably, Moscow’s relationship with Iran, a longtime patron of Hamas, has become highly dependent, with Iran supplying drones used in attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure. Despite denying involvement in the coordinated attack, the Iranian mission to the United Nations emphasized that it was aligned with the legitimate interests of the Palestinian people.
Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev alleged without evidence that Ukraine had supplied Western weapons to Hamas for the attack on Israel. This allegation came shortly after Ukraine’s military intelligence warned about Russia planning a disinformation operation. The reaction in Moscow was a mix of high-minded calls for diplomacy and applause for the attack, which was seen as beneficial for Russia in distracting Ukraine’s Western backers.
While some Russian politicians and pundits focused on the significance of Russia’s relationship with Iran, others highlighted the broader struggle between Russia and the United States. They pointed out that Israel is an ally of the United States, while Iran and its surrounding Muslim world are Russia’s allies. This perspective presents the conflict in Israel as a useful development for Russia in its broader strategic goals.
Russia’s relationship with Hamas has been steadily developing for over a decade, with Hamas leadership having visited Moscow multiple times in recent years. Russia recognizes Hamas as a legitimate political player and has openly met with its leadership, while many other countries classify the group as a terrorist organization but prefer not to discuss their interactions.
In recent years, Russia’s contact with Hamas has increased, with senior Hamas figures visiting Moscow multiple times. Meanwhile, Russia’s relationship with Israel has deteriorated, partly due to Israel’s greater support for Ukraine, under pressure from the United States.
Overall, Russia’s response to the Hamas attack reflects the delicate balance it maintains in its foreign policy. While it seeks strong ties with Israel, it remains committed to supporting the Palestinian cause and courting groups like Hamas. The influence of the war in Ukraine and its dependence on Iran further complicate the dynamics of Russia’s reactions and alliances in the Middle East.