Afghan is on the horizon again
A big mistake of the USSR was the introduction of troops into the DRA (Democratic Republic of Afghanistan) in 1979. But an even bigger mistake was the withdrawal of OKSVA (Limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan) in 1989! Yes, this happens in geostrategy, when any decision becomes not the right decision, but the lesser of evils.
In this publication, I will not delve into the Afghan war of the USSR, I will tell you about the future threat and trap carefully prepared by the United States for Russia.
The United States entered Afghanistan in the early 2000s. The main reason declared by the United States was the terrorist attack by the Taliban (banned in Russia) on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, during which more than 3000 Americans were killed. As time has shown, the attack by the twins turned out to be just a pretext, and the United States entered Afghanistan for geostrategic reasons, which is confirmed by numerous agreements with terrorists during the entire 20-year campaign, which could not have been if the true goal of the United States was precisely - retribution for the attack 11 September.
The very location of Afghanistan and the supervision of its territory open up opportunities to control and influence the whole region - Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, China. In the early 2000s, Putin was well-behaved, and Afghanistan was not viewed as a stick for the recalcitrant Russians. But since 2007 and Putin's Munich speech, the situation has changed dramatically, as it seemed to the Americans - the Russians challenged the hegemony of the United States.
As a result, the Pentagon began to look for opportunities in the expansion of the Taliban movement (banned in Russia) through Tajikistan and creating tensions on the border of Russia with Central Asia.
The goals were set quickly.
1. A possible split between Russia and Tajikistan in the field of security on the Tajik-Afghan border and Tajikistan's turn towards the United States and NATO as a new ally in the event that Russia leaves the Afghan threat.
2. In the event of the build-up of the contingent of the 201st base by Russia, not a bad option for the United States was Russia's interference in Afghan affairs, which was so dangerous for us economically and politically.
3. As an option: a weakened Russia will make political concessions to the United States in Central Asia because of the Afghan threat ...
And who are these same Taliban (banned in Russia)?
Needless to say, these terrorists are the product and terrible child of the Pentagon and the CIA, carefully nurtured, created, armed specifically by the United States in the 80s, as rebels, mujahideen against the forces of the OKSVA of the USSR in Afghanistan?
When the Union withdrew its troops from Afgan and collapsed, the Taliban suddenly became uninteresting to their patrons and were abandoned as unnecessary by the Americans without funding. The flow of NATO has also stopped: humanitarian aid and arms supplies. Another young organization and the people of Afgan were abandoned and left to themselves.
Afghanistan, abandoned by international players, plunged into chaos and darkness of a civil bloody feud and a banal division between warlords.
And in 2001, on September 11, the Taliban (banned in Russia) reminds of themselves with the attack of their former ally and creator, and not at all the shuravi, Russia, their former adversary. Whatever it was, story presents truly strange lessons, which, however, as time has shown, the United States has not taught anything ...
By the way, it must be said that the Mujahideen were actively used as mercenaries in both Chechen campaigns, but, rather, this was an operation of the Western special services, and not the desire of the Taliban (banned in Russia).
Having sent troops to Afghanistan, the Americans, to their surprise, found not the Taliban (banned in the Russian Federation) that they created in the 80s, but a very serious, wealthy, motivated and largest terrorist organization on the planet.
It took full-fledged military operations, carpet bombing and all the delights of establishing control over a large country with an absolutely hostile population. The terrorists used against the Americans exactly the same strategy of guerrilla warfare that American strategists taught them in the 80s. Tens and hundreds of coffins flew to Arkansas and Texas as an inevitable "hello" to the Americans from their strategies from the past.
Needless to say, the allied Pakistan from the 80s turned out to be for the United States the same Pakistan for the USSR, which supported and trained the Mujahideen on its territory, but now against the United States?
Neighboring Iran did not become a friend to the Americans right there. In fact, instead of a revenge operation, the Americans got stuck in Afghanistan from year to year, like in a swamp ...
Yankee Adventures in Afghanistan
Despite all the unpopularity of the Afghan war in the Union, open injustice and ingratitude towards Afghan veterans in our country, it is fair to note one important fact - the 40th combined-arms army of the Turkestan Military District completed its combat missions in the DRA by 1984. Control was established over all provinces, a network of outposts was created, the KGB border troops exercised control over the border and was partially established by mobile groups of the USSR KGB border troops even on the Pakistani border. Special forces of the GRU and military intelligence successfully covered the caravans of the mujahideen.
Another thing is that OKSVA was also entrusted with political tasks - and this is an unusual task even for the heroic 40th Army.
Because the 40th Army successfully solved not only fighting tasks, but also incredible in complexity engineering (pipelines, tunnels, roads were cut), but also infrastructural, humanitarian - under the control of OKSVA, civil objects were built in Kabul and other cities: hospitals, schools, apartment buildings.
The Americans are another matter - for all 20 years of the campaign, they did not take control of all the provinces, they almost did not leave outposts and bases, they worked from the air on civilians, they did not build anything for the Afghan people. The bottom line: Afghans recalled shuravi with nostalgia.
In terms of combat missions, the Americans turned out to be lacking in initiative, they worked from the air and provided logistics as a full-fledged military operation, which (again in comparison with the shuravi) for the Mujahideen, the Americans were not at all warriors. I must say that in terms of logistics, the Americans analyzed our mistakes; they almost did not allow attacks on their columns. Namely, the main losses in the convoys on the logistics of the OKSVA were carried on the marches along the winding roads of Afgan ...
One way or another, the Americans controlled up to 70% of the territory of Afghanistan by other methods in different years of the campaign, having a total advantage over terrorists in all means of struggle. Still, the mujahideen in the 80s were supplied by half of the world; no one provided such support to the mujahideen in the fight against the United States.
As a result, the Americans did not manage to find any stable and long-term agreements with the locals for these years ...
So what's wrong with them leaving?
In the mid-10s, the geostrategic situation for the United States changed dramatically.
Has changed for the worse. The Georgian gambit failed, the Ukrainian card was played abominably by both sides. Russia's intervention in the Middle East and the complication of relations with China put the American contingent in Afghanistan in an awkward position. Now the Afghan contingent has turned from a center of influence and power into a target.
No logistics center emerged from Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistan has been playing its game all this time. Neighborhood with Iran has become a real threat since the Syrian gambit of the Russians. What can I say, even the Iraqi contingent has become a suitcase without a handle. The Taliban (banned in Russia) became intractable in the light of events. US-grown hydra - ISIS (banned in Russia) came to Afghanistan, and the Taliban felt a dangerous competitor. Their reaction was only a matter of time.
In this threat, Tajikistan stopped flirting with distant America and pressed itself against the belly of Russia. China, which supplied small arms and mortar weapons to the Mujahideen in the 80s, is now a dangerous neighbor for the US contingent in Afghanistan. In other words, the cow became unprofitable.
But there are other reasons for the American withdrawal.
Why stand in the middle of a growing storm when you can get out of there and lure other players there, and play the Afghan War of 1979-1989 again?
Even from defeat, the Americans derive bonuses and perspective. And all why? And all because, unlike us, they can afford to develop a long-term strategy, where tactical defeats are only planned stages.
The sad irony is that the presence of the United States in Afghanistan, all other things being equal, was more beneficial for all players in the region than their absence. And now that the US is leaving Afghanistan, big trouble awaits all the players.
We will not discuss the problems of China, Pakistan, Iran. Let's discuss the impending threat to Tajikistan and Russia, especially since the other day the Taliban came to the border of Tajikistan and already 50 km from it.
Now Russia is in a zugzwang situation: any solution to the Afghan problem will lead to a deterioration, and the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan is the best solution for the United States.
Again about the economy, be it wrong
This is the 201st base of Russian troops on the Tajik-Afghan border.
So what are the prospects for resolving the Afghan threat after reeling the American rod?
It seems that Russia is again facing a historical challenge - Russia is crucified. In the east, there are Japanese and Chinese issues. In the north - the Northern Sea Route and the Arctic, in the west - Ukraine with NATO, in the south - a whole tangle of problems, traditional for Russia - the Caucasus and Central Asia.
And our navel will not come loose? Let's not forget about the Middle East, where it is easy to come and it is so difficult to get out ...
A machine-gun battalion in the Kuril Islands is clearly not enough for such a scale. We need a powerful economy, political stability, protectionism in the light of the political and economic blockade, and I’m already silent about ideology.
Young people have a question - why is it all and why do we need it - everywhere?
The Americans showed a good formula - military expansion from a strong economy or к resources in a country that clearly needs the export of American democracy, of course, exclusively on the bayonets of the Marine Corps and the US Navy. We would use such a formula.
But if with the Arctic the formula is visible to the naked eye, then in the east, west and south only heroic costs await us with a dubious future in terms of civil unrest, so to speak, reaction the population to tighten the belt. No matter how it happened, as with France at the end of the 10th century - for XNUMX years, the enlightened empire fought in the agony of a bloody revolution (after making a bourgeois revolution) and, completely exhausted, like a market girl who surrendered herself to the rapist Bonaparte ...
Everywhere you look, there are continuous challenges. And again Russia, by virtue of its experience, fidgets along the cross, being stretched in four directions. Yes, we should get off it, but only where there - if so many centuries stubbornly ascended to this cross? In fairness - this is our destiny, vocation, we do this not because of masochism, but because of the objective historical circumstances proposed, because of our size, location on the globe and, if you will, our kings alone known mission and destiny.
In other words, the Afghan issue needs to be resolved. But how to manage, with what benefit and with what margin to get out of this story? And whether to leave at all?
What are the options?
In the realities of a weak economy and passionate thinking, a strong Putin, tightening the ring around our interests, lack of ideology - we will not talk about the likely consequences for our country of such a major operation as Afghanistan.
Russia is again not ready for all the challenges, but, in fact, when were we ready?
If you postpone the Afghan problem for later?
In this situation, the time and consequences are similar to a quick return of the bolt carrier, which fired off the previous cartridge, and then the return of the frame under the force of the exhaust gases will capture the next cartridge for a shot ... in the head to ourselves?
Tajikistan, in the case of our lack of initiative, does not have many options. Tajikistan will not stand alone with Afghanistan, the Taliban (banned in Russia) have long proved their determination, fighting efficiency and amazing skill of quickly capturing the minds and hearts of the Muslim population in the controlled territories. In such conditions, Moscow's sluggishness in matters of common security can push the Tajiks away from us in the direction of NATO. And the United States, of course, will offer the very security that they did not expect from us.
The reversal of Tajikistan will still be the return of the bolt carrier for us, since the United States does not harbor any feelings for third countries, as practice has shown, and only uses them in its own interests, easily and naturally without keeping its promises. In this case, the Taliban (banned in Russia) will receive US support to establish control over Tajikistan in exchange for an agreement not to touch the US bases.
And all for what?
And everything for shaking Russia at a new point of destabilization - already on our border with Tajikistan.
Does an agreement with the Taliban (banned in Russia) look like a gamble in the United States?
Only partly. Even if they have to leave Taliban Tajikistan, a destabilization mechanism for Russia will be launched. However, all possible negative scenarios for Central Asia and Russia already launched by the very withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan and the reaction of the Taliban (banned in Russia) to this withdrawal.
Needless to say, with the rapprochement of Tajikistan and NATO and in the face of the Afghan threat, the 201st base will have to be withdrawn from the Tajik-Afghan border, as happened with our Transcaucasian group of forces in Georgia? This means that with such a passive variant - a loss.
- Shaikhutdinov Vasil Ufa
- Фейсбук/Армия США, https://yandex.ru/images/search?from=tabbar&text=%D1%81%D1%88%D0%B0%20%D0%B2%20%D0%B0%D1%84%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5&pos=3&img_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.geopolitica.ru%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F1551867601_original.jpg&rpt=simage?
Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.