Afghanistan: President Putin’s pragmatic approach
Recently, at a meeting with representatives of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin saidthat Russia will insist on the implementation by NATO countries of the task in Afghanistan.
He recalled that Russia, which has interests in Central Asia, is interested in stability in Afghanistan. At the same time, D. Rogozin noted, Russia went to difficult decisions related to the transit of NATO cargo through its territory. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister noted:
The conclusion is correct: the Taliban, who not so long ago declared their “victory” in the war with the Americans, could come to power in Afghanistan very quickly.
At the same time, Rogozin appears to be rushing things.
Back in mid-October, the well-known assumption that US troops would not be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and after 2014 of the year, as Barack Obama and the Pentagon generals stated, received a new confirmation. Analyst "Strategic Culture Foundation" A. Shustov notesreferring to anonymous sources of the Kommersant newspaper that the US Department of Defense insists on maintaining 2014 thousands of military personnel in Afghanistan after 25, the majority of which should be Special Forces units.
The plan was supported by the NATO defense ministers, who also offered to leave their military in Afghanistan after 2014 - on one condition: they will not participate in combat operations. The remaining contingent is supposed to train the Afghan military. The legal basis for cooperation between the United States and Afghanistan after 2014 will be the strategic partnership agreement signed in May in Kabul. In accordance with this document, Washington is committed to "supporting the social and economic development of Afghanistan." up to 2024 year.
Thus, the statement of D. Rogozin on the topic “If you entered there, then you bear all the responsibility ...” either lags somewhat behind the events, or is based on other information, according to which NATO coalition troops will be almost completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (for the purely symbolic American exception). In this case, the threat of Islamist danger really arises for Russia.
However, it seems that America will not dare to leave Afghanistan after the 11-year presence there.
Vietnamese veteran Senator McCain, who thinks even brighter than Mitt Romney in the categories of the Cold War, this year сказалthat America’s mistake was the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviet contingent:
America, although accustomed to step on the rake twice and three times, still has time to think about 2014. It is not politics that matters, but economics. If now on the Afghan "operation" Washington spends 110-120 billion dollars a year, then after 2014, the whole 2,7 billion dollars is going to be spent for the same purposes for the same purpose.
2001 to 2011 Pentagon budget was cut on 450 billion dollars. Still almost 500 billion dollars to it planned to cut in ten years, starting with the 2012 year. And if the United States strengthens its military power in the APR, it weakens in Afghanistan. Hiraet world "hegemon". However, the United States does not plan to completely withdraw from it. And there are good reasons for this.
Exactly a year ago, the head of the Federal Drug Control Service, Viktor Ivanov summed up American activity in Afghanistan: “I would name three main results. The first is a phenomenal increase in drug production, more than 40 times, the second is the militarization of the region ... And the third result is a humanitarian catastrophe, political instability and expanded reproduction of the militants. ”
In the Pakistani English-language newspaper "The News" opinion is expressedthat after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a “power vacuum” is formed there, and the United States seriously fears this - therefore, they will not withdraw the contingent completely. Washington, the columnist writes, is not interested in strengthening the Taliban.
In addition, let us add, the great democratic empire must confirm its high political status. Leaving Afghanistan after 11 years and giving Kabul to the Taliban means losing face in geopolitics.
October 29 Iranian channel "Press TV" interviewed Mohammed Daoud Abedi, Chairman of the Peace Council of the Afghan People, based in Los Angeles. Comrade Abedi fully agreed with the interviewer in assessing the failure of the "mission" of the United States in Afghanistan. In addition, the analyst agreed that the whole anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan is the essence of the practice of “double standards”.
Comrade Abedi believes that the failure of the United States in Afghanistan is an excellent illustration of how American policy is being implemented. It is one thing - coverage in the American media of military contingent activities in Afghanistan, another thing - the truth. Today, even US lawmakers who approve of financing an Afghan operation accuse the US government of double standards. This shows how deep the Afghan problem is. The analyst strongly advises American authorities to review their policies regarding Afghanistan.
Everywhere, where only the destructive American policy is being carried out, tragedies occur: civilians are dying. It got to the point that the general public in the United States realized this: more than 72% of people in the United States reject the war of their native country in Afghanistan. Now they call it "the forgotten war." And in the British House of Lords it is constantly said that the coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan, and therefore the UK is withdrawing 4500 soldiers from there.
There can be no endgame for the USA. America just lost in Afghanistan. The main purpose of the operation was declared deliverance from terrorism. But, as President Karzai said, terrorism is not at all in Afghan villages.
And what do Americans see under terrorism? There are rebels. There are jihadists. There are, finally, freedom fighters. And yes, there are terrorists.
The real goals of the United States are known only to a narrow circle of people, the analyst believes. The bases in Afghanistan are needed by America to control nearby territory. In addition, there are economic goals in Central Asia, including Afghanistan itself. Anything that goes through the Caucasus can touch Afghanistan. But politically, all this is unattainable, says Abedi. Moreover, it overlaps with the interests of Russia.
And then there's the crisis in Europe. The European Community faces crisis every day. EU states do not have the means to feed their people, so how can they help a foreign country to build statehood?
Comrade Abedi also recalls that right now, right here in Los Angeles, the unemployment rate reached 10,2 percent. In the country of 25, millions of Americans are out of work. 7 millions, according to Mitt Romney, live on food stamps and use other types of government assistance. The West has so many problems at home ...
Well, how many Afghan problems can Russia have?
Gianandrea Guyani from the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore считаетthat after the Americans and NATO left Kabul, the Russians would be on the front lines. According to the analyst, Moscow (alone or with regional allies) is now preparing to confront jihadist movements that have intensified not only in Afghanistan, but also in the former Soviet republics. If, after the Allies leave Afghanistan, he is again in the hands of the Taliban, this threat will increase.
V. Putin, who met with Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev in Bishkek at the end of September, signed an agreement that guarantees Russian military control of the military airbase in Kant until 2032. The contract was extended in exchange for writing off debt in 380 million and providing a loan in 1,3 billion for the construction of two hydropower plants.
And that's what Vladimir Putin said:
The contract states that the Russians will oversee the training and equipment of the Kyrgyz army and control the telecommunications center, but their main task is to ensure national security. This article of the treaty, the journalist believes, turns Kyrgyzstan into a protectorate of Moscow.
Moscow has also concluded new military agreements with Tajikistan: the 201-I Russian Motorized Rifle Division has been guarding the Tajik-Afghan border for many years, blocking the traffic of weapons and opium and preventing the infiltration of terrorists. The contract relating to the three military bases, the author recalls, was signed in Dushanbe by Putin and Emomali Rahmon. The parties agreed on a Russian military presence before the 2042 year, with the possibility of extending it to the 2047 year. Moscow will duty-free supply the domestic Tajik market with Russian gas and, in addition, will allocate five million dollars to combat drug trafficking in Tajikistan, which goes from there to Russia. In addition, V. Putin promised that Tajik workers would be issued permits to work in Russia for three years, and their period of stay could be extended to 15 years, which will help the Dushanbe budget, which is highly dependent on remittances received from 1,3 million emigrants (only last year, the total amount of transfers amounted to 3 billion dollars).
The named republics are, in fact, the “front line” of the struggle against Islamist movements that have bases in Afghanistan. Therefore, the author of the article believes, the Russians are interested in supporting the Afghan government, to whom they promised military assistance after the withdrawal of NATO troops, which, by the way, coincides with the interests of the West.
However, Comrade Putin is not only not going to “release” the Americans from Afghanistan, but also sets conditions for them.
American journalist Gabriela Bachinska ("Reuters", Chicago Tribune), having studied the materials of the speech of the President of Russia 25 of October at the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, concluded that Moscow wanted to know more about the scale of the activities of the United States and the NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan - before deciding whether to continue cooperation with the Western alliance . Journalism believes that Russia is still leading a “cold war” with the West, likes to criticize NATO, and fears possible instability when withdrawing Western troops from Afghanistan in 2014. It is possible that the withdrawal will suffer and the security of Russia - on the "southern borders", writes Bachinsk.
The Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan in the 1979 year and brought them out at the beginning of the 1989 year, after the “disastrous war”. Later, Moscow supported the US invasion - after the attacks of Al-Qaida 11 in September 2001, Moscow also allowed transit supplies from the NATO security forces (ISAF), including through a new logistics center in Ulyanovsk.
However, Zamir Kabulov, Putin’s special envoy for Afghanistan, told Reuters that Russia wanted “full clarity” on ending the alliance’s mission in 2014 and reiterated the threat to stop cooperation if the alliance is approved by the UN Security Council, where Moscow has veto power.
Kabulov, the former Russian ambassador to Kabul, also said that Moscow wants to get more information about the foreign contingent in Afghanistan after 2014, since current information from Washington is highly controversial.
NATO has not yet provided Russia with detailed information on how many troops it wants to deploy in Afghanistan after the 2014 year. Kabulov casts doubt on the ability of limited forces to ensure stability: after all, even tens of thousands of ISAF troops have failed to do so.
And added:
Kabulov also noted that the overall situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, and said that NATO failed to achieve its goal, but acknowledged that something had become better than it was before the appearance of the ISAF here.
When withdrawing coalition troops from Afghanistan, comrade Kabulov said, Russia would have to redirect resources from the needs of domestic development to the protection of national interests and security.
The Russian president, who provided 5 for October with a new 30-year-old lease agreement for a military base in Tajikistan (Russia's main line of defense against radical Islamists and drug trafficking from Afghanistan) made it clear that Russia is ready to cooperate with NATO on Afghanistan not because Russia likes NATO, but because it corresponds to Russian interests.
Thus, in order to counter the possible narco-weapons and arms flow from Afghanistan, which would have intensified with the withdrawal of most of the NATO forces, Russia made strategic efforts in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, Moscow is putting pressure on Washington, since the ISAF contingent, despite all the failures and “double standards” of the coalition forces, is solving some of the tasks of ensuring security and stability, including in the interests of Russia. It remains only to wait for the clarity that the Pentagon should bring to the issue of the number of troops in Afghanistan after the 2014 year. However, this issue is unlikely to be discussed before the inauguration of the new president (January 20 2013). In any case, when studying the defense budget by the Congress in 2013, it becomes clear how much military Washington plans to keep in Afghanistan. It will also be clear how much ISAF power will remain there - if only they remain.
"If you entered there, then you bear all the responsibility for what happens there and will happen after you leave ... We will insist that you fulfill your task in Afghanistan to the end," Rogozin addressed these Western parliamentarians.
He recalled that Russia, which has interests in Central Asia, is interested in stability in Afghanistan. At the same time, D. Rogozin noted, Russia went to difficult decisions related to the transit of NATO cargo through its territory. In addition, the Deputy Prime Minister noted:
“By purely military methods, creating stability in Afghanistan is almost impossible. If now the Afghan operation is not focused on laying the foundations of civilian life, then I think that the protege left behind in Kabul after the withdrawal or significant reduction of the western grouping in Afghanistan, he, of course, will hold out much less than the Soviet protege Najibula. ”
The conclusion is correct: the Taliban, who not so long ago declared their “victory” in the war with the Americans, could come to power in Afghanistan very quickly.
At the same time, Rogozin appears to be rushing things.
Back in mid-October, the well-known assumption that US troops would not be withdrawn from Afghanistan, and after 2014 of the year, as Barack Obama and the Pentagon generals stated, received a new confirmation. Analyst "Strategic Culture Foundation" A. Shustov notesreferring to anonymous sources of the Kommersant newspaper that the US Department of Defense insists on maintaining 2014 thousands of military personnel in Afghanistan after 25, the majority of which should be Special Forces units.
The plan was supported by the NATO defense ministers, who also offered to leave their military in Afghanistan after 2014 - on one condition: they will not participate in combat operations. The remaining contingent is supposed to train the Afghan military. The legal basis for cooperation between the United States and Afghanistan after 2014 will be the strategic partnership agreement signed in May in Kabul. In accordance with this document, Washington is committed to "supporting the social and economic development of Afghanistan." up to 2024 year.
Thus, the statement of D. Rogozin on the topic “If you entered there, then you bear all the responsibility ...” either lags somewhat behind the events, or is based on other information, according to which NATO coalition troops will be almost completely withdrawn from Afghanistan (for the purely symbolic American exception). In this case, the threat of Islamist danger really arises for Russia.
However, it seems that America will not dare to leave Afghanistan after the 11-year presence there.
Vietnamese veteran Senator McCain, who thinks even brighter than Mitt Romney in the categories of the Cold War, this year сказалthat America’s mistake was the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviet contingent:
"Broadcast weapons Resistance to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan was not a mistake. The mistake was to give the Afghans their own fate after the Russians left. ”
America, although accustomed to step on the rake twice and three times, still has time to think about 2014. It is not politics that matters, but economics. If now on the Afghan "operation" Washington spends 110-120 billion dollars a year, then after 2014, the whole 2,7 billion dollars is going to be spent for the same purposes for the same purpose.
2001 to 2011 Pentagon budget was cut on 450 billion dollars. Still almost 500 billion dollars to it planned to cut in ten years, starting with the 2012 year. And if the United States strengthens its military power in the APR, it weakens in Afghanistan. Hiraet world "hegemon". However, the United States does not plan to completely withdraw from it. And there are good reasons for this.
Exactly a year ago, the head of the Federal Drug Control Service, Viktor Ivanov summed up American activity in Afghanistan: “I would name three main results. The first is a phenomenal increase in drug production, more than 40 times, the second is the militarization of the region ... And the third result is a humanitarian catastrophe, political instability and expanded reproduction of the militants. ”
In the Pakistani English-language newspaper "The News" opinion is expressedthat after the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, a “power vacuum” is formed there, and the United States seriously fears this - therefore, they will not withdraw the contingent completely. Washington, the columnist writes, is not interested in strengthening the Taliban.
In addition, let us add, the great democratic empire must confirm its high political status. Leaving Afghanistan after 11 years and giving Kabul to the Taliban means losing face in geopolitics.
October 29 Iranian channel "Press TV" interviewed Mohammed Daoud Abedi, Chairman of the Peace Council of the Afghan People, based in Los Angeles. Comrade Abedi fully agreed with the interviewer in assessing the failure of the "mission" of the United States in Afghanistan. In addition, the analyst agreed that the whole anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan is the essence of the practice of “double standards”.
Comrade Abedi believes that the failure of the United States in Afghanistan is an excellent illustration of how American policy is being implemented. It is one thing - coverage in the American media of military contingent activities in Afghanistan, another thing - the truth. Today, even US lawmakers who approve of financing an Afghan operation accuse the US government of double standards. This shows how deep the Afghan problem is. The analyst strongly advises American authorities to review their policies regarding Afghanistan.
Everywhere, where only the destructive American policy is being carried out, tragedies occur: civilians are dying. It got to the point that the general public in the United States realized this: more than 72% of people in the United States reject the war of their native country in Afghanistan. Now they call it "the forgotten war." And in the British House of Lords it is constantly said that the coalition cannot succeed in Afghanistan, and therefore the UK is withdrawing 4500 soldiers from there.
There can be no endgame for the USA. America just lost in Afghanistan. The main purpose of the operation was declared deliverance from terrorism. But, as President Karzai said, terrorism is not at all in Afghan villages.
And what do Americans see under terrorism? There are rebels. There are jihadists. There are, finally, freedom fighters. And yes, there are terrorists.
The real goals of the United States are known only to a narrow circle of people, the analyst believes. The bases in Afghanistan are needed by America to control nearby territory. In addition, there are economic goals in Central Asia, including Afghanistan itself. Anything that goes through the Caucasus can touch Afghanistan. But politically, all this is unattainable, says Abedi. Moreover, it overlaps with the interests of Russia.
And then there's the crisis in Europe. The European Community faces crisis every day. EU states do not have the means to feed their people, so how can they help a foreign country to build statehood?
Comrade Abedi also recalls that right now, right here in Los Angeles, the unemployment rate reached 10,2 percent. In the country of 25, millions of Americans are out of work. 7 millions, according to Mitt Romney, live on food stamps and use other types of government assistance. The West has so many problems at home ...
Well, how many Afghan problems can Russia have?
Gianandrea Guyani from the Italian newspaper Il Sole 24 Ore считаетthat after the Americans and NATO left Kabul, the Russians would be on the front lines. According to the analyst, Moscow (alone or with regional allies) is now preparing to confront jihadist movements that have intensified not only in Afghanistan, but also in the former Soviet republics. If, after the Allies leave Afghanistan, he is again in the hands of the Taliban, this threat will increase.
V. Putin, who met with Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev in Bishkek at the end of September, signed an agreement that guarantees Russian military control of the military airbase in Kant until 2032. The contract was extended in exchange for writing off debt in 380 million and providing a loan in 1,3 billion for the construction of two hydropower plants.
And that's what Vladimir Putin said:
"We imagine the situation in Afghanistan, and the presence of the Russian military in both Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan is a stabilizing factor in the face of a terrorist threat."
The contract states that the Russians will oversee the training and equipment of the Kyrgyz army and control the telecommunications center, but their main task is to ensure national security. This article of the treaty, the journalist believes, turns Kyrgyzstan into a protectorate of Moscow.
Moscow has also concluded new military agreements with Tajikistan: the 201-I Russian Motorized Rifle Division has been guarding the Tajik-Afghan border for many years, blocking the traffic of weapons and opium and preventing the infiltration of terrorists. The contract relating to the three military bases, the author recalls, was signed in Dushanbe by Putin and Emomali Rahmon. The parties agreed on a Russian military presence before the 2042 year, with the possibility of extending it to the 2047 year. Moscow will duty-free supply the domestic Tajik market with Russian gas and, in addition, will allocate five million dollars to combat drug trafficking in Tajikistan, which goes from there to Russia. In addition, V. Putin promised that Tajik workers would be issued permits to work in Russia for three years, and their period of stay could be extended to 15 years, which will help the Dushanbe budget, which is highly dependent on remittances received from 1,3 million emigrants (only last year, the total amount of transfers amounted to 3 billion dollars).
The named republics are, in fact, the “front line” of the struggle against Islamist movements that have bases in Afghanistan. Therefore, the author of the article believes, the Russians are interested in supporting the Afghan government, to whom they promised military assistance after the withdrawal of NATO troops, which, by the way, coincides with the interests of the West.
However, Comrade Putin is not only not going to “release” the Americans from Afghanistan, but also sets conditions for them.
American journalist Gabriela Bachinska ("Reuters", Chicago Tribune), having studied the materials of the speech of the President of Russia 25 of October at the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, concluded that Moscow wanted to know more about the scale of the activities of the United States and the NATO coalition forces in Afghanistan - before deciding whether to continue cooperation with the Western alliance . Journalism believes that Russia is still leading a “cold war” with the West, likes to criticize NATO, and fears possible instability when withdrawing Western troops from Afghanistan in 2014. It is possible that the withdrawal will suffer and the security of Russia - on the "southern borders", writes Bachinsk.
The Soviet Union sent troops to Afghanistan in the 1979 year and brought them out at the beginning of the 1989 year, after the “disastrous war”. Later, Moscow supported the US invasion - after the attacks of Al-Qaida 11 in September 2001, Moscow also allowed transit supplies from the NATO security forces (ISAF), including through a new logistics center in Ulyanovsk.
However, Zamir Kabulov, Putin’s special envoy for Afghanistan, told Reuters that Russia wanted “full clarity” on ending the alliance’s mission in 2014 and reiterated the threat to stop cooperation if the alliance is approved by the UN Security Council, where Moscow has veto power.
Kabulov, the former Russian ambassador to Kabul, also said that Moscow wants to get more information about the foreign contingent in Afghanistan after 2014, since current information from Washington is highly controversial.
NATO has not yet provided Russia with detailed information on how many troops it wants to deploy in Afghanistan after the 2014 year. Kabulov casts doubt on the ability of limited forces to ensure stability: after all, even tens of thousands of ISAF troops have failed to do so.
“But if they are not placed there for this purpose, then for what? This is our question, and we ask for a clear answer, ”he said.
And added:
“Imagine several thousand instructors sitting at the base who were suddenly attacked by the Taliban. And what, they will say: "Do not shoot, we are instructors"? "
Kabulov also noted that the overall situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating, and said that NATO failed to achieve its goal, but acknowledged that something had become better than it was before the appearance of the ISAF here.
When withdrawing coalition troops from Afghanistan, comrade Kabulov said, Russia would have to redirect resources from the needs of domestic development to the protection of national interests and security.
The Russian president, who provided 5 for October with a new 30-year-old lease agreement for a military base in Tajikistan (Russia's main line of defense against radical Islamists and drug trafficking from Afghanistan) made it clear that Russia is ready to cooperate with NATO on Afghanistan not because Russia likes NATO, but because it corresponds to Russian interests.
“This is a very pragmatic approach, nothing personal,” said Comrade Putin.
Thus, in order to counter the possible narco-weapons and arms flow from Afghanistan, which would have intensified with the withdrawal of most of the NATO forces, Russia made strategic efforts in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. At the same time, Moscow is putting pressure on Washington, since the ISAF contingent, despite all the failures and “double standards” of the coalition forces, is solving some of the tasks of ensuring security and stability, including in the interests of Russia. It remains only to wait for the clarity that the Pentagon should bring to the issue of the number of troops in Afghanistan after the 2014 year. However, this issue is unlikely to be discussed before the inauguration of the new president (January 20 2013). In any case, when studying the defense budget by the Congress in 2013, it becomes clear how much military Washington plans to keep in Afghanistan. It will also be clear how much ISAF power will remain there - if only they remain.
Observed and translated by Oleg Chuvakin
- especially for topwar.ru
- especially for topwar.ru
Information