Afghanistan: Russia Steps in to Help NATO

Wed, 2010-10-27 15:03

#2

Fidel

This must be proof then that the NATO axis is leading Russia around the world by their nose-hairs like so many lap dogs in Ottawa are bought and paid-for? Not necessarily so says [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21273]Eric Walberg[/url]

Yes I think the old North Atlantic gang is surrounding Russia and China militarily. More great game nonsense.

Wed, 2010-10-27 23:45

#3

Frmrsldr

I think this is apropos:

Jason Ditz wrote:

And in this case, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen's talk of improving ties with Russia by cooperating in the war might be tempting enough to do what one would've assumed would be unthinkable. Whether Russia can really buy improved ties by helping NATO lose a war remains to be seen.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/26/nato-talks-could-be-prelude-to-russia...

Thu, 2010-10-28 00:05

#4

Cueball

Heh.

Thu, 2010-10-28 00:29

#5

Frmrsldr

And so the story continues:

Jason Ditz wrote:

In an interview with BBC today, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen slammed former Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev for calling the decade long NATO occupation of Afghanistan "unwinnable."

Rasmussen insisted the comments were a function of Gorbachev's "own negative view of things," adding that the victory will be facilitated by the addition of Russian training forces.

British Foreign Minister William Hague also slammed the comments, insisting that it was 'impossible' to compare the Soviet Union's failed 9+ year long occupation of Afghanistan to NATO's current, failing 9+ year long occupation of Afghanistan.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/27/nato-chief-slams-gorbachevs-negative-...

Thu, 2010-10-28 01:08

#6

Frmrsldr

Fidel wrote:

Yes I think the old North Atlantic gang is surrounding Russia and China militarily. More great game nonsense.

Yes, I think you are right, Fidel.

Here's more evidence:

Jason Ditz wrote:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is reportedly hammering out terms for his nation's entry into NATO's Afghan War, with major new demands centering around troop deployments by NATO in Eastern Europe.

Russia has long complained of NATO's eastern expansion, and former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact states that have joined the alliance have been seen as a threat, particularly if they are used to deploy massive numbers of NATO forces. Lavrov is said to be demanding significant limitations on those deployments ahead of next month's NATO summit.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/27/report-russian-aid-to-afghan-war-come...

M K Bhadrakumar wrote:

The Russian ingenuity aims at making cooperation with the NATO a lucrative business deal as much as a political embrace.

However, the timing is significant. NATO hopes to tango with Russia in Lisbon within a few hours of settling into a long-term partnership with Kabul under a status of forces agreement with the Afghan government that peers into the post-war era. In short, NATO is joining hands with Russia even as it consolidates military presence in Central Asia - an incredible turn to the great game.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LJ28Ag01.html

We've been here before. Remember the U.S. Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraq government? Look how well that's working out.

Thu, 2010-10-28 01:12

#7

Fidel

And, from Jason Ditz again, [url=http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/27/nato-chief-slams-gorbachevs-negative-... Chief Slams Gorbachev’s ‘Negative’ View of Afghan War[/url] British FM Insists Current Afghan Occupation Way Different From Soviet One

Jason Ditz wrote:
British Foreign Minister William Hague also slammed the comments, insisting that it was ‘impossible’ to compare the Soviet Union’s failed 9+ year long occupation of Afghanistan to NATO’s current, failing 9+ year long occupation of Afghanistan.

It sounds like they're squabbling over degrees of failure.

Thu, 2010-10-28 13:14

#8

Sean in Ottawa

There is the exit strategy. The west went in -- frigged it up -- now wants to hand it off to a more local set of powers.

Thu, 2010-10-28 13:42

#9

kropotkin1951

I seem to be missing something here since Russia no longer even borders Afghanistan. Would this deal lead to Russian troops in the other 'istan countries that abut Afghanistan? Just looking for the Russian advantage in such a deal.

Thu, 2010-10-28 19:11

#10

NDPP

like I said, all the gangsters are now in the game...if you can't beat'em join'em. Some preliminary horse-trading...

Russia Raises Its Price to Rescue NATO from Afghan Quagmire

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/russia-raises-its-price...

"Russia is setting out tougher terms for NATO, in return for its assistance in Afghanistan, with demands that the Alliance restricts the number of troops it bases in member countries which were former members of the Warsaw Pact..

Thu, 2010-10-28 19:24

#11

NDPP

Meanwhile back at the ranch...WHAT 'Afghan Quagmire'?

"Although the situation in Afghanistan remains complex and challenging and fluid, I believe we are beginning to see success taking form,' MacKay said.."

Afghan Situation Improving: MacKay

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/10/27/15857116.html

Thu, 2010-10-28 22:24

#12

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

"Although the situation in Afghanistan remains complex and challenging and fluid, I believe we are beginning to see success taking form,' MacKay said.."

This raises two possibilities:

1. Is MacKay & Co. saying this as a face saving means to cover Canada's military disengagement from Afghanistan (Stephen Harper "Canada does not cut and run.")?

2. Is MacKay saying this to psychologically prepare Canadians for a further military escalation in Afghanistan beyond 2011? Remember, there are 90 troops, half stationed in Kabul and half in Kandahar (City?), who will remain in country beyond 2011. Are the Cons prep'ing the Canadian public for more?

Fri, 2010-10-29 01:27

#13

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Meanwhile back at the ranch...WHAT 'Afghan Quagmire'?

"Although the situation in Afghanistan remains complex and challenging and fluid, I believe we are beginning to see success taking form,' MacKay said.."

Afghan Situation Improving: MacKay

Actually, there are mixed messages coming from officialdom:

Jason Ditz wrote:

Speaking before reporters today, Maj. Gen. Carter insisted that it was impossible to call the Kandahar offensive a success (or more realistically a dismal failure) until at least next June in effect claiming NATO's centerpiece offensive for 2010, the grounds on which the war was supposed to be [sic] judge[d], shouldn't even be considered in the year end reviews.

All summer, as the security situation got worse and worse[,] officials were forever admonishing war weary Americans that "progress" was just around the bend. Another year come and gone, and the situation worse than ever, "the bend" was never reached and people are still being urged to be patient.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/10/28/nato-dont-judge-kandahar-offensive-un...

Remember, after the last War Resolution passed in the House that escalated Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan, how the Liberals 'wrested' an agreement from the Cons that they would have quarterly Afghan "progress" (or more realistically regress) reports?

After about two dismal reports by Stockwell Day, the Cons stopped the reports because Canada's top general Walt Natynczyk declared that Canada would militarily disengage from Afghanistan in 2011.

Sat, 2010-10-30 01:43

#14

Frmrsldr

Was this meant to sweeten the U.S., NATO and Russia deal?

Was it also meant as a dress rehearsal for U.S., NATO and Russian cooperation and for Russian military (re)engagement(?) in Afghanistan?

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\10\30\story_30-10-2010_pg20_4

Sat, 2010-10-30 03:25

#15

autoworker autoworker's picture

Fidel wrote:

This must be proof then that the NATO axis is leading Russia around the world by their nose-hairs like so many lap dogs in Ottawa are bought and paid-for? Not necessarily so says [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21273]Eric Walberg[/url]

Yes I think the old North Atlantic gang is surrounding Russia and China militarily. More great game nonsense.

Actually, I think it's more like NATO, and its prospective auxillary member's attempt to contain China, itself. Great Game redux indeed-- but not without geopolitical sense (Russia needs to move it's natural gas South, and can't, in the long run, trust China's ally, and gas supplier: Iran).

Also, its interesting that the Independent article failed to mention Russia's experience with Islamic resistance movements in Chechnya, (and their ties to the Taliban) as another possible, Russian motive vis-a-vis that protracted conflict, and all that that has entailed to date.

Sat, 2010-10-30 03:44

#16

Fidel

Two things:

thing #1. There is no such thing as al-Qaeda

thing# 2. The Russians and Chinese know it

Sat, 2010-10-30 04:56

#17

autoworker autoworker's picture

Fidel wrote:

Two things:

thing #1. There is no such thing as al-Qaeda

thing# 2. The Russians and Chinese know it

Fidel:

If, by chance (because I'm not so arrogant as to assume anything), you're referring to my previous comments: I never mentioned al-Qaeda.

Sat, 2010-10-30 14:54

#18

Fidel

Okay, and just so long as we understand who has supported, funded and aided the anti-Russian, anti-Serb, and anti-Chinese jihads all along for the last 30 years and continuing today. The Muslim countries are supposed to be turning a blind eye to Chechnya because of Russian support of the Palestinians, Syria, Turkey, Iran etc. And on the other side, Pakistani elites controlling that country's ISI as well as the invisible army of unmentionables, that base of expendable anti-communist jihadi assets sometimes referred to as "al-Qaeda", are supposed to be on the outs with their cold war friends in the American CIA. Everything is just as it seems however and probably not all of the truth.

Sat, 2010-10-30 15:46

#19

NDPP

Pentagon Forges NATO Proxy Armies in Eastern Europe - by Rick Rozoff

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21694

"On November 19 and 20, the leaders of 28 North American and European nations, all the major Western military powers and their vassals will gather in the capital of Portugal for this yearly summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This year's summit will endorse the Alliance's first Strategic Concept for the 21st century, a draft of which was crafted by a so-called group of experts led by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.."

Sat, 2010-10-30 16:04

#20

6079_Smith_W

Wow. I bet the Afghans are going to love that.

Maybe the coalition forces are just trying to improve their image by reminding them of the good old days, though I doubt it will work.

Sun, 2010-10-31 00:29

#21

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Wow. I bet the Afghans are going to love that.

Hamid Karzai feels Afghanistan's sovereignty was violated:

Hamid Shalizi (Reuters) wrote:

Russian involvement in Afghanistan is still a sensitive issue since the end of the Soviet occupation of the country. Soviet troops fought mujahideen insurgents for 10 years before pulling out of the country in 1989.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE69T02F.htm

Sun, 2010-10-31 01:15

#22

NDPP

sounds like things are going from bad to worse or bad to better depending on your POV...the Russians won't help this

Killing Reconciliation, Military Raids, Backing of Corrupt Government Undoing Stated US Goals in Afghanistan

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/29/killing_reconciliation_military_r...

"Just back from Afghanistan, unembedded investigative journalists Jeremy Scahill and Rick Rowley...

IEA: Afghan Resistance Statement - The Untold Story of the Kandahar Operation

http://shahamat.info/english/

"For recent information on the situation in the [Kandahar] district, Alemarah interviewed the Military Commander for this district...

Sun, 2010-10-31 02:45

#23

NDPP

NATO in Afghanistan: World War In One Country

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/nato-in-afghanistan-world-war...

"Afghanistan has, whether by convenience, design or some combination of the two, been transformed into a vast training ground for the consolidation of a 50 nation military structure that has already been extended into Central Asia, the Caucasus, Eastern Europe, the Horn of Africa, the Indian Ocean and the Middle East.."

Sun, 2010-10-31 03:45

#24

NDPP

Frmrsldr wrote:

Hamid Karzai feels Afghanistan's sovereignty was violated:

NDPP

I almost fell off my chair - what a howler..

the reason Hamid K is so pissed is that the joint Russian US operation targeted some of the lucrative opium-heroin trade, of which the Karzai family is allegedly deeply involved and from which serious money is made..

Fri, 2010-11-05 02:21

#25

Frmrsldr

Anders Fogh Rasmussen gives details of Russian involvement in Afghanistan before NATO summit later this month in Lisbon, Portugal:

Richard Galpin BBC News, Moscow wrote:

Speaking during a visit to Moscow on Wednesday, Mr Rasmussen told the BBC: "... Actually, we do have a far reaching co-operation with Russia when it comes to counter-narcotics and these operations take place within the mandate provided by the United Nations."

But Mr Rasmussen specifically ruled out any possibility of Russian troops getting involved in the war.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11690250

Fri, 2010-11-05 04:11

#26

Fidel

[url=http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article371809.ece]21% of world heroin supply is being dumped on Russia[/url] Russians say NATO responsible

Fri, 2010-11-05 23:11

#27

NDPP

Russia-led Bloc to NATO: Stop Pushing Afghan Militants North - by Jason Dix

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/04/russia-led-bloc-to-nato-stop-pushing-...

"Central Asian members of Bloc (CSTO) fear growing instability - Taliban has added to its northern sphere of influence..."

Thu, 2010-11-11 02:58

#28

Frmrsldr

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I seem to be missing something here since Russia no longer even borders Afghanistan. Would this deal lead to Russian troops in the other 'istan countries that abut Afghanistan?

It's never mentioned, but Russia has economic deals with these countries that allow, for example, Russian built pipelines to transmit oil and natural gas to and from these countries and eventually to Europe and the West. Russia also "rents" air and other military bases in these countries.

Keeping this in mind will provide background information to the following article:

BRUSSELS (AFP) wrote:

Russia has allowed a one-way transit of non-lethal NATO supplies by train to Afghanistan. The military alliance, which has faced security threats in its transit routes through Pakistan, wants Russia to allow equipment in and out of Afghanistan and expand the list of permitted goods. NATO hopes to "broaden the eligibility criteria for what actually can go on the trains in both directions to include, for example, armoured vehicles," Appathurai [NATO spokesman] said, stressing that it would still not include weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101110/wl_afp/natorussiadiplomacyafghanist...

Um, as you can see it's a slippery slope proposition. Armored vehicles aren't weapons unless they're armed. Would Russia accept transporting unarmed armored vehicles if they were later armed after they arrived in Afghanistan?

Would you?

Fri, 2010-11-12 14:18

#29

Cueball

I kind of think Russia helping out the USA here is akin to giving the USA enough rope so they can hang themselves.