NATO Secretary General calls for Russian help in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by bhramos, Oct 8, 2009.

  1. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    NATO Secretary General calls for Russian help in Afghanistan

    BRUSSELS, October 7 (RIA Novosti) - NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged Russia on Wednesday to provide assistance in training and equipping the Afghan Army.
    At his first news conference as NATO chief, Rasmussen, who took office on August 3, said he hoped for a "true strategic partnership" with Russia and called for active practical cooperation with Moscow on Afghanistan, international terrorism, piracy and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
    "Russia could provide equipment for the Afghan security forces. Russia could provide training. We could explore in a joint effort how we could further Russian engagement," Rasmussen said.
    Moscow and Washington signed a deal on military transit to Afghanistan via Russian territory, both overland and by air, on July 6 during President Barack Obama's visit to Russia.
    Russia already has bilateral transit deals with Germany, France and Spain, and also signed an agreement with NATO in 2008 on rail transit of non-lethal supplies to Afghanistan.
    NATO is set to add up 40,000 troops to the Afghan Army to increase its number to 134,000 by the end of 2010 as the fight against the Taliban, deposed by a U.S.-led invasion in 2001, goes on.
    The NATO chief also announced on Wednesday he would visit Russia in December for talks with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and other top Russian officials.
    Relations between Russia and NATO collapsed after the August 2008 war between Russia and Georgia, which provoked the alliance to suspend formal NATO-Russia Council meetings and cooperation in some areas.
    Rasmussen also told reporters that the findings of an international commission investigating the causes of the war would not affect the prospects for Georgia joining NATO.
    The report, compiled by the Swiss diplomat Heidi Tagliavini, along with 30 European military, legal and history specialists, puts the blame firmly on Tbilisi for starting the conflict, but says that subsequent Russian actions "went far beyond the reasonable limits of defense" and also were "in violation of international law."

    NATO Secretary General calls for Russian help in Afghanistan | Top Russian news and analysis online | 'RIA Novosti' newswire
     
  2.  
  3. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    How much help will the Russians want to give to a country that was responsible for their own loss in Afghanistan?
     
  4. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    may be they have lot of experience fighting mujahidin for more then 10 yrs.
     
  5. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    6,547
    Russians have told USA they see no chance of NATO winning in Afghanistan.

    http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insightb/articles/eav092409a.shtml




    AFGHANISTAN: RUSSIA GENUINELY CONCERNED THAT AMERICA IS LOSING IT

    A Eurasianet Commentary By Mark Katz 9/24/09

    Print this article Email this article



    Russia is allowing US military equipment destined for Afghanistan to pass through Russian airspace without charging a transit fee, thereby saving the Pentagon an estimated $133 million per year. Some in Washington and other Western capitals hope Moscow’s stance is a harbinger of broader US-Russian cooperation to come, especially on Iran. But others suspect the Kremlin has ulterior motives, wanting to trade cooperation on the Afghan re-supply effort for American acquiescence to a controlling role for Russia in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

    So what will Russian-American cooperation on Afghanistan actually lead to--greater Russian cooperation with America and the West, or greater Russian efforts to take advantage of American and Western geostrategic vulnerabilities? The answer, in my view, is: neither.

    Recent Russian press commentary about developments in Afghanistan indicates that Moscow is increasingly fearful that the US and NATO will withdraw from Afghanistan, thus leaving Moscow alone, as it tries to stop the spread of Islamic militants into Central Asia and even Russia itself. It also reveals that Russian cooperation on Afghanistan does not appear likely to result in Moscow’s support for American and Western policies in other areas, in particular on the issue of Iran’s nuclear program. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Far from seeing US/NATO problems in Afghanistan as an opportunity to increase Russian influence in Central Asia, Russian officials and commentators see the increasing difficulties that American and NATO troops are facing on the ground as a threat to Russian interests in Central Asia.

    A hasty American exit from Afghanistan could open the way for a doomsday scenario for Central Asia, warned Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, in a statement carried September 7 by the Itar-Tass news agency. Russia must consider the possibility that "NATO will quickly pack up and run from Afghanistan, and we will get a real problem -- the boorish Taliban that has grown both quantitatively and qualitatively," Rogozin cautioned.

    In a subsequent statement reported by Itar-Tass on September 18, Rogozin noted that while Russia won’t send soldiers to Afghanistan again, "if NATO fails and leaves Afghanistan, [its] neighbors and us will witness a catastrophe: The Taliban and other religious extremists will be inspired by their success and spread in every direction, including Central Asia and our [i.e. Russia’s] Caucasus."

    Far from expressing self-confidence about Russia being a great power intent on taking advantage of a quagmire in Afghanistan, statements such as these constitute a frank admission that the American and Western military presence in Afghanistan is protecting Russian security interests. Moscow’s support for the continued US/NATO presence in Afghanistan appears to be motivated more by fear than by hubris on the Kremlin’s part.

    Any policymaker in Washington and other Western capitals who hopes that US-Russian cooperation against the Taliban will foster a similar joint commitment to contain the millennial-minded regime in Iran is fooling themselves. Russia shows little inclination of going along with Washington’s toughening line toward Tehran.

    It appears to boil down to a difference of perceptions. Many in the Obama Administration see preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons as being both in Russia’s and the West’s interests. But Moscow doesn’t share that opinion. First, the Kremlin thinks Iran is less of a global threat than Washington does. Second, Moscow has benefited from the status quo, selling arms, nuclear reactors, and other goods to Iran amid the escalation of tension between Tehran and the West. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Moscow fears that any change in current geopolitical conditions -- such as the sudden fall of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s administration, or a rapprochement between the United States and Iran -- would be damaging to Russia’s financial interests in Iran.

    Finally, Russian leaders seem to be calculating that if Iran is going to acquire nuclear weapons anyway, the Kremlin has little to gain, and a lot to lose, by joining in a futile Western attempt to prevent Tehran from achieving its goal.

    In Moscow, there is optimistic talk about how Afghan cooperation might cause the Obama administration to show greater appreciation for the Kremlin’s priorities, in particular on the matter of Georgian and Ukrainian membership in NATO, as well as on the issue of anti-missile systems in Central Europe. Such thinking may have even increased following the Obama administration’s decision to cancel the Bush-era anti-missile shield that was to be deployed in the Czech Republic and Poland. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In reality, however, Russia’s opinion was not really a factor in Obama’s decision. The Obama administration’s growing concern about the Iranian threat dictated the change.

    In his September 20 Washington Post column, Jim Hoagland described how Russia’s strongman, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, has a transactional approach to foreign policy (and to life in general): "Obama and his team must recognize that a transactional relationship, with issue-by-issue bargaining, is what they will get from a Putin-led Russia," Hoagland wrote.

    Since neither Moscow nor Washington is going to adopt the other’s broader foreign policy perspective, this is probably the most that each can expect from the other. Cooperating on Afghanistan, where we have joint interests, will not result in us resolving our many differences elsewhere. But our many differences elsewhere need not prevent us from cooperating on Afghanistan.
     
  6. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    cant these people help them giving AK's or old hello's like Mi-8 or Mi-24's.
    and even training the army.
     
  7. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    The powers that are currently fighting the Taliban are the same forces we propped up during our occupation, ie the Northern Alliance. Not only were they the ones doing alot of the fighting, and dying, but they were solid allies. We supported them during the jihadi civil war even after our financial collapse. It wasn't us that lost the war, but the powers we left behind.
     
  8. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    From a program (i.e. Wings of the Red Star or something similar) that I watched on the History Channel, the Russians were winning in their Afghan war. It was the introduction of the American Stinger that removed the devastating Russian airpower (i.e. attack helicopters and low-flying jets). This time, the Taliban don't have any MANPADS. It is a mystery to me that NATO isn't winning in Afghanistan.
     
  9. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    after stingers were introduced in Afghan-Soviet war noting changed.
    but the western media hype was their thats all.
    these media created news that Soviets were losing , but stingers mainly destroyed Transport planes more then fighters,
    after stingers came to scene, the Soviets changed tactics by using Mi-24 to escort its planes while landing and takeoff.

    Talibans dont have MANPADS, even if u have it, it does not attack on any NATO or US made planes,
    this happened Israeli-Hizbullah war, when they smugled Stingers via Egypt, then they fired on Israeli Apaches , these Stingers returned back and fell near by and blasted, so from them no terrorist org's are not using stingers, only RPG is their favourate rocket.
     
  10. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    The Stinger's effectiveness were hyped. We suffered far more losses to the Chinese Dashikas than any US missiles. The poor Afghans with their low alititude craft were the real victims.
     
  11. indian_blues

    indian_blues Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2009
    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    16
    What is Chinese Dashikas? :)>
     
  12. Vladimir79

    Vladimir79 Defence Professionals Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,404
    Likes Received:
    65
    12.7mm AA guns...
     
  13. Martian

    Martian Respected Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    262
    Location:
    Boston
    NATO is dreaming. Russia spent 10 years in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Russia left Afghanistan because it was a quagmire. It's like asking Americans to go back to Vietnam. I don't see it happening.

    "We could explore in a joint effort how we could further Russian engagement"

    Everyone knows that NATO needs more troops on the ground. NATO has been floating the idea of troops from India, Pakistan, or China. Now they're soliciting troops from Russia. The reality is that no one wants to join a quagmire. NATO has been stuck in Afghanistan for 8 years and no one can think of a plausible way to win. Why would anybody want to join this war?

    NATO should follow the earlier Russian example in 1989. Just declare victory and then go home.
     
  14. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,206
    Likes Received:
    6,638
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    as u said NATO should the country,
    then Taliban will come back and hold the government, and prepare for Big attacks on US and West.
    one way NATO and US is trying to leave Afghan, but making Afghan powerful army, so that the Taliban should not return to power again,
    they are trying to get Help and Aid from countries to train and equip the Afghan Forces.
     

Share This Page