US Invites Russia to the war in Afghanistan

Discussion in 'Europe and Russia' started by bhramos, Sep 21, 2009.

  1. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    6,607
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    Invite Russia to the war

    According to Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO general in Afghanistan, "The situation [there] is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort."

    Gen. McChrystal is telling Congress what that really means: To win the war - now in its eighth year - we will need 30,000 to 40,000 more troops on the ground and more cooperation from our friends and allies. Suggested here - and as part of the "revised implementation strategy" - NATO should be thinking of new ways to ask the Russians for help.

    Specifically, NATO should invite Russia to send a substantial number of regular and special-forces troops to Afghanistan to help bring the Taliban down once and for all. Perhaps surprisingly, and if presented properly, it could be an attractive idea to the Russians as well, both for reasons of national pride and to help in their own wars against radicals in the Russian provinces.

    Some history: In 1979, at perhaps the zenith of the Cold War, the old Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and carried on a bloody war there for 10 years. Because international politics were very different then and because the Russians were attempting to establish a communist regime, we aided the various forces from both inside and outside Afghanistan that opposed the Soviets. Many of them were the same forces and factions that now are arrayed against us, albeit a generation or two removed.

    As with many epic struggles, the ironies of past alliances are far less significant than the risks represented by present threats and political realities. The fact is that most radical Islamic factions are united in their hatred of the West, including the post-USSR governments in Russia and in most of Eastern Europe. Accordingly, the struggle in Afghanistan is every bit as significant a threat to the Russians as it is to us and to NATO Europe - and we should be aggressively pursuing their active partnership in the wars against it, especially in an important country that borders the former Soviet empire.

    The important thing is that the reasons for their more direct involvement make very good sense today. Furthermore, there are some new reports that they have approached NATO about getting a more prominent role in the Afghan war - they want to be involved in planning and intelligence activities, expanding their role from consenting to overflights and provide some logistic support. They have pointed out that the threat from the Taliban is much closer to them than it is to NATO. It's right.

    We should take them up on it; not only that, we should integrate Russian regular military and special forces into the fight. How many Russian troops? That would have to be determined by mutual discussions between NATO and the Russian Ministry of Defense - or other appropriate authorities - as determined by the parties.

    How many more total troops are needed in Afghanistan? The more the better at this stage in the war: So far, the United States has more than 60,000 troops there and our allies have 35,000. And, so far, the Russians have been cool to the idea of actually sending troops - however, that leaves a lot of wiggle room for NATO negotiators as they work toward a more significant Russian role in the war.

    As Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said recently, we only have a limited time to successfully resolve the situation in Afghanistan before we risk losing the support of the American people. Also, NATO's new secretary-general warned that a rush to withdraw from Afghanistan was "not an option" - this despite Western public opinion tiring of the war. This means that the new strategy envisioned has to be a winner. What better way to make it that than with a commitment from the Russians for a direct and more significant involvement in the war?

    Invite Russia to the war - Washington Times
     
  2.  
  3. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    6,607
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    i think we are already part of that war, but indirectly as we sent 3000 troops approximately to safegaurd our Border Roads Org. in afghan who developing infrastructure like building roads, schools ....
    i think we even have some medics too in Afghan,
     
  4. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,375
    Likes Received:
    6,343
  5. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    ???!!?? Invite Russia to the war??!

    Invite Russia to the war:s
    Well I've heard some absurde things in my life but this is,.... quite big one!
    That would be mistake of COSMIC proportions for Russia!
    If USA & NATO lose ( and I think they will )
    SCO intervention force will be strong enough to contain Jihad club out of Russia and central Asia !
    So why looking for trouble and making Muslims angry when Russia has VERY good relations with Muslim world!??:sporty55::Laie_42:

    Those Muslim people in majority cases want to be free and there is nothing wrong with that.:viannen_10:
     
  6. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
  7. bhramos

    bhramos Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    13,176
    Likes Received:
    6,607
    Location:
    Telangana/India/Bharat
    @jako777

    US never learns its lessons , still trying to contain Russia?
     
  8. jakojako777

    jakojako777 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,957
    Likes Received:
    40
    Yeah, the same old double talk.
    But I have impression that Russia have never fallen for Obama's sweet talk.
    At least Putin didn't. The facts are that USA & NATO closing in with new military bases in Romania and Bulgaria and perhaps moving USA planes from Italy-Aviano closer to....Russia.Also introducing - mobile anti - ballistic missiles
    in eastern Europe.
    Underneath nothing has really change. USA will try(if they can) to squeeze out
    Russia from oil rich central Asian Caspian region and by doing that completely
    encircle Russia (and Iran) and block influence and any contact in the region of Russia Iran and China which is crucial strategic move before attack on one of the countries as the last stage.

    Russia is rearming very fast like it is not just regular upgrade of Russian military.
    (32 billion dollars was invested in 2009 in Russian defense(Putin said few days ago)) That is plenty of money for country with current economic problems......
     
  9. ajtr

    ajtr Veteran Member Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2009
    Messages:
    12,038
    Likes Received:
    715
    The Russians Return

    [​IMG]

    Russia's back in Afghanistan, this time in cooperation with the West -- but do objectives really align?

    At the annual NATO summit in Lisbon later this month, Russia plans to make a surprising announcement: It will assist the Western military alliance's war effort in Afghanistan, the land from which it was forced to make a humiliating withdrawal two decades ago after failing to defeat a U.S.-backed insurgency that dealt a decisive blow to an already crumbling Soviet Union.

    NATO is portraying the announced cooperation with its International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) as the fruit of a broader rapprochement between Russia and the West, which both Washington and its European allies are eager to cultivate. "The meeting in Lisbon is a real opportunity to turn a new page, to bury the ghosts of the past," Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary-general, said last week during a pre-summit visit to Moscow. (Rasmussen presented a similar request last year, which the Russians spurned.)

    NATO could certainly use more help in Afghanistan (though it would be preferable if its own members, some of which have been hesitant to send more forces and have bound those already in the field under overly stringent rules of engagement, picked up the slack). But it should be clear-eyed about Moscow's motives. The initial appeal of Russia's assistance -- that the country has knowledge of Afghanistan thanks to its own, decade-long engagement -- is belied by its brutal record. Afghans do not have fond memories of their former invaders, and it's not hard to understand why. Possibly 1 million Afghan civilians died in the Soviet war, which was waged with typical Russian carelessness and a complete lack of regard for winning hearts and minds. Russia carpet-bombed huge swaths of territory, laid mines that still maim and kill Afghan civilians, and wiped out entire villages suspected of sheltering mujahideen militants. By contrast, ISAF, though it has been criticized for civilian casualties incurred via drone strikes, is at least cognizant of how such deaths negatively affect its mission and has invested billions of dollars in reconstruction projects. The United Nations estimates that civilian casualties in the latest war, which has lasted nearly as long as the Soviet one, number somewhere between 12,000 and 30,000.

    Moreover, the actual Russian commitment is small. Russia will not be contributing troops, the most badly needed resource in a counterinsurgency effort where success depends on dispersing soldiers throughout remote areas. Initial reports peg the promised assistance at a few helicopters and military trainers. The newfound Russian support for the NATO mission in Afghanistan (supposedly predicated on opposition to Islamist militants gaining a foothold in its neighborhood and distress at rising heroin addiction fueled by Afghan opium) does not exactly square with the attempts it has made to undermine the war. When, shortly after 9/11, the United States asked Tajikistan whether it could use the former Soviet republic's territory as a staging ground for the initial attack into Afghanistan (with which Tajikistan shares a 700-mile-long border), the Tajiks resisted due to vigorous Russian arm-twisting. When the United States convinced Kyrgyzstan, another poor, landlocked, former Soviet Central Asian republic, to allow the erection of a transit center that has proved crucial in transporting soldiers and equipment to Afghanistan, Russia immediately complained and began pressuring its government to evict the base. Last year, Russia persuaded Kyrgyzstan's then president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, to expel the Americans in exchange for a $2 billion loan package. Only when the United States offered to triple the rent it was paying to the Kyrgyz government did Bakiyev back down. This year, Bakiyev was violently ousted in an uprising that Moscow helped instigate, and Russia has been quietly pressuring the new Kyrgyz government to evict the Americans yet again.

    The Russians Return - By James Kirchick | Foreign Policy
     
  10. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    4,130
    So, US wants to move out and let Russia handle Afghanistan for them?

    Where does US gets all these new formulas?
     
  11. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,375
    Likes Received:
    6,343
    USA will do everything to keep the Chinese out of Central Asia and who better than Russia to do this??
     
  12. maomao

    maomao Veteran Hunter of Maleecha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Messages:
    4,491
    Likes Received:
    4,130
    Then, Tajikistan and CIS oil reserves are in Russian hands, US will get a begging Bowl just as their beloved pakistan.:happy_2:
     
  13. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India
    They have more than enough of oil to use. They are not in Afghanistan for Oil . Right now they need all help they can get to counter Taliban and China.
     
  14. Ray

    Ray The Chairman Defence Professionals Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    43,118
    Likes Received:
    23,521
    Location:
    Somewhere
    The US is not there in Afghanistan to lose.

    The US aim is clear. It requires having permanent bases in areas of conflict and possible conflict and having forces nearby to react to ensure that US interests are not compromised.

    This is the stated aim in the Defence Policy Guidelines enunciated at the end of the Cold War by none other than the then Secretary of Defence, **** Cheney.

    Middle East is one area of US interest since it has the largest deposit of oil, and Afghanistan because it is has untapped oil reserves, is the conduit for Caspian Sea oil and gas to Asia (in particular, India and China) through Pakistan port of Gwadar and because Afghanistan lies at the intersection of the Indian Sub-Continent (Pakistan), the Middle East (Iran), Central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) and China (The Wakhan Corridor), all of which is important to US strategic interest.

    It matters not to the US as to who runs the government of Afghanistan. Karzai, a high official of UNOCAL was the first choice since he was a protégé of the US, UNOCAL being a US Oil company. However, since the situation has not panned out to US requirements, they are in consultation with the ‘good Taliban’ (as if terrorists could be demarcated as ‘good’ and ‘bad’). The US has readily been blackmailed by Pakistan because Pakistan controls the route of supply and because the ISI has control over the Taliban and so the damage can be kept under control.

    In the final analysis, the US wants an Afghanistan that permits unhindered US presence even after the major part of the US forces leave as is the case in Iraq where they have the largest US base outside the US.

    The SCO comprises of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan with others as Observers (India, Iran, Mongolia and Pakistan) Dialogue Partners (Belarus and Sri Lanka) and Guest Attendance (Afghanistan, ASEAN, CIS and Turkmenistan). Under no circumstances would the US or Russia like the SCO in the loop since neither the US nor Russia is comfortable with the growing military and expansionist ambitions of China or it joining in to project a confrontationist front.

    Since the US is finding that the situation is getting a trifle bothersome, especially with the much touted drawdown in the offing to appease US domestic audience, the only option the US has is to open the door to Russia and for very good reasons too. The extent of Russian presence in Afghanistan is an issue that can be resolved, ideally confined only to materiel assistance, route into Afghanistan and expertise since Russia backed the Northern Alliance and the latter being favourable to Russia. This would ensure that the areas held by the erstwhile Northern Alliance is somewhat neutralised.

    It is in Russia’s interest to have a presence in Afghanistan. Apart from easing out the embarrassment of a humiliating defeat in Afghanistan, it would be able to have a ‘hands on’ in Afghanistan to prevent export of Taliban Islamic terrorism into the Islamic Nations south of Russia underbelly and in that continuum to Muslim majority areas of Russia. It might be added that the CAR (Central Asian Republics) nations, being modelled on the autocratic Russian model are very chary of religious fundamentalism that can destabilise their regimes. Hence, Russia and CAR nations have a congruous view!

    For the US, since they cannot ask India for military assistance lest it upsets Pakistan or Iran since it is still an ‘axis of evil’ nation, Russia is the best bet. Pakistan would also not be able to whine or whimper since Pakistan is attempting to woo Russia and even otherwise would not be able to muster the gumption to oppose the entry of Russia, more so, since the US sensibilities cannot be used as a smoke screen of cover.

    If Russia enters Afghanistan with US support in whatever form, it will be a counterbalance and hence will be a region of relative calm. With the assets of the US and Russia working in tandem, the Taliban would be under control, if not sent packing from Afghanistan.

    Further, Russia has great influence with Iran and some sort of an arrangement could be organised to ensure logistical easing of the operations from that end in addition to that from the Russian end whereby reducing the blackmailing power of Pakistan.

    The major factor would be China. She would naturally not be enamoured and so her reaction would be interesting to observe.
     
  15. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,256
    Likes Received:
    16,728
    Location:
    EST, USA
    The USSR never invaded Afghanistan. There was already enough insurgency from the Mujahideen against the Communist Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) supported by Pakistan and CIA. The DRA government repeatedly requested the USSR to send in troops to support their fight against the Mujahideen. Leonid Brezhnev repeatedly turned down requests from DRA for sending troops into Afghanistan to aid the DRA forces, until 1979, when the Supreme soviet of the USSR decided to send in troops to aid the DRA against the Mujahideen.

    Western sources gave this the misnomer of 'Soviet-Afghan War'; where, in reality, it was a war between USSR-DRA on one side and the Mujahideen-Pakistan-US on the other.

    The Mujahideen could not care less about Eastern Europe, except for the insurgency by the Kosovo Liberation Army when they went there in hordes from all over the Islamic World to carry out terrorism and insurgency against the Serbs, in complete support of US led NATO forces. One of the objectives of these volunteer Mujahideen was that they were promised citizenship and a new life in Europe as citizens of an independent Kosovo, a promise that was never completely fulfilled.

    Should Russia join the war and decide to send in its troops on the ground, they will do it their style, with complete support of ground attack aircraft, helicopter gunships, armour, artillery etc., that will be enough to smoke the Taliban out of their rat-holes and bulldoze them into oblivion.

    They showed the world what they could do in their final campaign against the Mujahideen just before their withdrawal. In this campaign, the joint USSR-DRA forces assertively captured Khost and broke the backbone of the Mujahideen forces. It took the Mujahideen a long time to regroup and get their confidence back up. That was one reason why Najibullah managed to stay in power for so long after the Soviet withdrawal and the collapse of the USSR.

    The Russians do not give a simians posterior about Western standards of 'human rights'. If they will fight, they will do it Russian style and for victory, not for the moral high horse.
     
  16. tarunraju

    tarunraju Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2009
    Messages:
    5,203
    Likes Received:
    3,405
    Location:
    Hyderabad
    US won't move out abandoning $1 trillion worth natural resources. It just wants to share that pie, because it's not able to pool up enough investments (its own war-efforts) to achieve certain objectives. It's simply telling Russia "hey, come and fight on our side, we'll let you in on the Afghan natural resources pie".
     
  17. ALBY

    ALBY Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1,489
    Location:
    KOTTAYAM,KERALA
    If Russia sent its troops, then it would be a big blunder once again.....coz there is nothing much there to gain for russia other than digging graves for some
    soldiers for no cause...Its purely a war of united states...Entering Afghanistan would only deteriorate the struggling russian economy...Russia should instead concentrate on its internal security and should play a cruicial role on eastern europe...There is no glory in getting own hands burned for no cause....
    For improving the situation in afghan US should stop supporting the private militias and ANA and police should be commanded by trusted men who could win the hearts of civilians...There should be also steps to check the high corruption among ruling elite...
    Infiltration of ISI should also be checked....
     
  18. JBH22

    JBH22 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    3,620
    Likes Received:
    2,388
    Russia should show the middle finger to the USA the great freedom fighters US funded in the 1980s did much harm well beyond the 1990s in central asia.
     
  19. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,774
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    As much as Russians would like to mock the US and laugh at their faces, the threat coming from Afghanistan is also serious for Russia via CAR. The problems of illegal drugs destroying Russian youth is a problem that comes from Afghanistan and Russians are already taking this seriously. They already conducted an anti-drug raid with US forces in Afghanistan, which is only an indication of the Bear's return to the "Graveyard of Empires".

    Russia during USSR era was unfamiliar with mountain warfare as they had trained only to fight NATO and Chinese on the plains of Europe and Manchuria; hence Afghanistan became their Vietnam. On the other hand, today's Russia has rectified those mistakes and thanks partly due to Chechen Jihad against Russians, the SPETSNAZ will be more than a match for Taliban and boy do they know how to use force without giving a jack to "rights" of terrorists!

    Jihadic nonsense is spreading a lot from Afghanistan and has already claimed a victim in the form of Uzbekistan all while Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and other CAR countries are only inches away from it before they also come in grips of it. The recent "bonhomie" between Russia and Pakistan was simply a strategy for Kremlin to enter into Pakistani good books and not draw too much suspicion into Russian activities in AfPak since US has already kept them paranoid of a "Kuffar invasion of the Land of Pure". All know that Russians don't give stuff for free and certainly not when they have $ 50 billion+ worth of agreements with us.

    Afghanistan is a problem for Russia as much as is it for us, Americans, Europeans and other nations involved. Pakistan as a fragile state on the verge of collapse is desperate to retain Afghanistan as its surviving ground since it is the source of its military's "outsource war" strategy. Giving that up won't be easy even if Pakistan collapses.
     
  20. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,774
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    As much as I enjoyed reading your comment and getting a couple of chuckles, the "Muslim World" (imaginary one) has nothing to do with Afghanistan. That country has been a source of problems for everyone in the region courtesy (I am assuming this) your leaders. Russia has its CAR exposed to the full fury of Jihadi terrorism and it would be crazy not to take action.

    And BTW they have already had enough trouble from "majority cases" when Chechen Jihadists tried to tear their province away from Russian nation. So this time, Bear is not as unprepared as it was during USSR era.

    PS: Can you have a display flag dude? It will make comments easier and much more comfortable to write.
     
  21. SHASH2K2

    SHASH2K2 New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    723
    Location:
    Bihar, BanGalore , India

    President Dmitry Medvedev has signed a law on the ratification of a Russian-French intergovernmental agreement on the transit of military equipment and personnel from Afghanistan via Russia, the Kremlin said on Monday.

    Under the agreement, aircraft with French weapons and military equipment on board flying through Russian airspace are to make a mandatory stopover landing on Russian territory. Personnel transit through Russian airspace may proceed without a landing.

    In mid-November, the Russian government approved an agreement with NATO allowing the alliance to carry supplies to and from Afghanistan via Russian territory.

    The new deal on the so-called reverse transit allows NATO to ship armored vehicles and other equipment from Afghanistan back to Europe by the same route through Central Asia and Russia.

    The bloc already uses routes through Russia and neighboring Central Asian states but current arrangements allow only for the transport of non-lethal supplies such as food and fuel.

    NATO has pledged to hand over responsibility for security in Afghanistan to Afghans by the end of 2014, but also vowed not to leave the country to face the Taliban threat alone.
     

Share This Page