Afghanistan: Russia Steps in to Help NATO

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...

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-...

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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