According to the Washington Post, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates sees opportunities for the United States to cooperate with Russia on Afghanistan. The newspaper says Gates, a longtime Russia analyst during his years with the CIA, sees Moscow as less of a threat than do many inside and outside the U.S. military establishment. ”Russia is very worried about the drugs coming out of Afghanistan and has been supportive in terms of providing alternative routes for Europeans in particular to get equipment and supplies into Afghanistan,” it quoted him as saying.
The story is interesting in the context of the United States searching for new supply lines through Central Asia into Afghanistan as an alternative to Pakistan before it sends in thousands more troops. “The plan to open new paths through Central Asia reflects an American-led effort to seek out a more reliable alternative to the route from Pakistan through the strategic Khyber Pass,” the New York Times said.
It quoted U.S. officials as saying that delicate negotiations were under way not only with the Central Asian states bordering Afghanistan but also with Russia, to work out the details of new supply routes. “The talks show the continued importance of American and NATO cooperation with the Kremlin, despite lingering tension over the war between Russia and Georgia in August.”
In an editorial, the International Herald Tribune picked up the same theme, saying that the passage from Pakistan, through the Khyber Pass, had become too dangerous. “Despite the tension in U.S.-Russian relations since the war in Georgia last August, Russian officials are saying openly that they share with NATO a strategic interest in helping protect Afghanistan from the Taliban. Toward that end, Russian and NATO representatives have been discussing the transport of NATO supplies to Afghanistan through Russia’s airspace.”
The question of how far Russia and the United States will cooperate on Afghanistan could have a major influence on both Pakistan and India. Going back to the days of the Soviet occupation, Pakistan’s relationship with the United States has been driven by its status as a frontline state in wars in Afghanistan. India in turn resents Pakistan’s pivotal role in the Afghan campaign, fearing this might undermine its efforts to convince the United States to lean on Islamabad to crack down on militants it blames for the Mumbai attacks.
So how far will the United States be willing to modulate its approach to Russia to win its cooperation on Afghanistan and reduce its dependence on Pakistan? The Washington Post quoted Gates as saying that, “One of the challenges facing the new administration is figuring out kind of where you push back on the Russians and where . . . there are opportunities to build a closer relationship.” But Gates also said in an article in Foreign Affairs that the United States must not fail in Afghanistan. ”To be blunt, to fail — or to be seen to fail — in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to U.S. credibility, both among friends and allies and among potential adversaries.”
With President-elect Barack Obama avoiding making comments on foreign policy until he takes office on Jan. 20, it’s hard to judge how he will juggle all the competing foreign policy demands on him, from the Middle East to South Asia to relations with Russia and elsewhere. But will a man who has declared Afghanistan to be a priority be willing to make compromises on other issues affecting Russia, including U.S. plans to set up a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of intense opposition from Moscow? (This website has a good round-up of stories about the missile shield, including, if you scroll down to the bottom, links to editorials for and against the idea.)
A rhetorical question, obviously, until Obama takes office. But surely an intriguing one, particularly in South Asia where every nuance of U.S. policy is studied closely. Russian support in Afghanistan might — or might not — influence the U.S. attitude to India and Pakistan. It might — or might not — be affected by issues as apparently different as the missile shield. But did any of us ever think, before now, that the balance of power in South Asia could be affected by events in Poland and the Czech Republic?
This is one I’m going to watch closely and I would appreciate comments and links to stories that illuminate the subject both before and after Jan .20.
(Photos: Reuters file photo of Russian tanks during crisis with Georgia; Pakistani soldier on guard at the Khyber Pass; President-elect Barack Obama)




Trackback









































31 comments so far
Previous | 2 | 1 | Next
Islamic Terror is a clear & present danger, which would aggravate further if US stands defeated in Afganistan. Thus key players in the region - Russia, India, Iran , Pakistan and possible China should get involved. Each has varied interest in Afganistan, but Pakistan stands to loose the most if Afganistan ever becomes peaceful. ISI-jehadi nexus has been sucessfully deployed in low intensity war against India, it keeps Central Asia under stress and is rewarded by China to keep jihad away from Uyghyr Muslims. Pakistan Govt has no administrative control over autonomous Tribal Pathan belts in Baloch & NW Frontier, thus it has become defacto Taliban Land, where it gets its shelter,arms supplies, and finance the war by selling poppies. Pakistan is unstable and would breaking up- if war on terror continues. Russia has agreed to open its skys for US supplies, it may reduce dependence on Pakistan, and enable US to infiltrate inside Pakistan’s Tribal Areas. Another alternative is if US limits economic sanctions on Iran, without compromising on nuclear issue, Russia,China & India can urge Iran to give access through Chabahar Port. Then India can join the war efforts directly. Indian army has 35 years of counter insurgency and mountain warfare experiance, and providing 60000 to 100000 troops on the ground should’nt be an issue. The war would be economically sustainable and politically acceptable to western capitals if the body counts comes down. Otherwise this war is good as over and Taliban knows that ” Americans have the watch, but we have the time”.
- Posted by SamJUST TO OPEN YOUR EYES:Former British Foreign Secretary: Al Qaeda is Not a Real Group, Just a U.S. Propaganda Campaign.
- Posted by PeaceFormer British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook says:The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the ‘devil’ only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US. Cook has previously written:Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Cook is merely confirming what others have said. Former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told the Senate that the war on terror is “a mythical historical narrative”.
Myra-‘And one final question. Why did India offer …’
—Simple, At that point in time it was politically correct to do so & Vajpayee knew that America cannot accept it’s genorosity… because Pakistan was the only immediate route with no alternative, but the gesture worked wonders for Indo-American relationship much to the chagrin of both Pakistan & China, & it’s still bearing fruits…
- Posted by anupWhy doesn’t any analysts / strategists suggest China as a conduit route to Afghanistan? that would be fun, don’t you think???
Myra, The officially appointed connivers by Nations are in no way on the same wavelength as of individual analysts or intellectuals, The article by Mr. Nalpat is a standard ‘Indian understanding’ of Global matters, customary adversary is the Pakistan Army & it gyrates around it, the truth is far away from their assumptions as frankly India is of no real significance to the Big Powers & they are in need of Pakistan, for the time being… Nalpat makes it sound as if the US Intelligence Agencies are a bunch of rookies,
- Posted by AnupMyra
- Posted by AnupThe Russian would want their pound of flesh, insisting that they be incorporated along with NATO in Afghanistan,- some NATO Nations may consent, America shall however not agree at any cost, thus the subject is status quo, (whilst strategists shall live up to their job…hoping as always.)
Putin should crush the Russian Mafia (former KGB) if he’s really interested in ending the drug menace…
India was among the first to offer to co-operate with the US in combating terrorism post 9/11. As far as I know there were no specifics mentioned or discussed. Berthing facilities to US ships for R&R, re-fuelling, servicing etc were eventually provided. It was a spontaneous gesture offered by a country which was facing problems of cross border terrorism to another which had been subjected to brutal terror attacks. That co-operation with the US in combatting terror would also benefit India was obviously also a factor in making the offer. I don’t think the Indian offer was Pakistan specific or made to counter Pakistan’s role.
- Posted by Daramyra, having problem on blog posting reply…
- Posted by anupToo much of wishful thinking to view that Russia will allow passage of supplies for US troops in Afghanistan. Why the Russians would axe their own feet? 2)Central Asian Republics presently have a sort of detente with Islamic movements operating in Afghanistan, but the moment the supplies if at all will start moving through Central Asian republics the so called religious fighters who are presently in Afghanistan will destablise the whole region and the fragile regimes which are unpopular would never want that to happen to pay the cost for the US regional wars. And what will they get in return even if risk is assumed. Quite a presumptive move!
- Posted by Ali((Myra))
Yes your are right, India was the first country offering its bases to be used by US campaign against the terrorist group of Taliban.
Until then Pakistan was still supporting Taliban government and to get US support and make Pakistan a debt free nation Pakistan announced its support of war against Taliban and will let US use its bases that created a lot of tension among Pakistani politicians.
India has always been a very close friend of Northern Alliance of Afghanistan that was fighting Taliban for years. Offering US to use its base was another example of two country’s friendship.
- Posted by Afghanlets not forget that Pakistani Taliban hijacked Air India and demanded release of one of the most wanted terrorist jailed in India in return of Indian passengers who is still living in Pakistan as a free man.
Myra,
Which bases are offered by India for the Afgan campaign ?? As far as my knowledge India has only accepted for allowing refulling in its naval area.
- Posted by OmAnup,
You write that “The Russians will never let the Americans win the Afghan war, they surely haven’t forgotten their wounds & are gleefully waiting for the Americans to meet the same fate…”
Did you read this article by Monu Nalapat: http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009 /01/07/The_road_to_terror_leads_through _Pakistan/UPI-86601231346346/
in which he says the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan was an own goal for the west.
I’m not a Russia expert, but wouldn’t the Russians know that? In other words, doesn’t the risk of instability in Afghanistan, combined with Putin’s fierce opposition to the heroin trade, make it more in Russia’s interest to help on supply lines rather than see the United States and NATO defeated?
Also here’s a story I just noticed on AP on supply lines:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti cle/ALeqM5imflKllK5uBbqeWPMbBaLqXqGpZQD9 5J4MH00
And one final question. Why did India offer the use of its bases immediately after 9/11 for the campaign in Afghanistan? Does that not suggest that India at the time believed Pakistan was not essential as a transit route? And has that changed?
Myra
- Posted by Myra MacDonald