Turkey got the military bases in Moscow´s Soft underbelly , Great News !!

[Litwin]

Omsk is nearly 2,000km from Afghanistan.

very close to the muslim , fragile Kazakhstan

 

[Fledermaus]

very close to the muslim , fragile Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is not RUSSIA.

The distance between Afghanistan and Kazakhstan is 1499 km.

1499 km is "very close"?

LITWIN, GEOGRAPHY....

 

[Litwin]

Omsk isn’t a country and the Taliban doesn’t have any offensive power outside of Afghanistan.

just wait and you will see )))

Fragile Central Asia

The assistance of great powers is a major resource in the struggle against the growing threat of radical Islamism in Central Asia. In this context…

eng.globalaffairs.ru

 

[Fledermaus]

just wait and you will see )))

Fragile Central Asia

The assistance of great powers is a major resource in the struggle against the growing threat of radical Islamism in Central Asia. In this context…

eng.globalaffairs.ru

Spamming articles you don't read and cant understand doesn't help your position.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Very informative.

Maybe there's some hope that the Taliban will NOT take over.

I assume the present government will be kicked out, but maybe one of those non-Taliban groups you mentioned will take over.

In other words, maybe the least of the bad will take over.

The Taliban destroyed or absorbed all of the other ones during and after the civil war. They are the largest player now other than the government.

But I do not have much hope for Afghanistan or Iraq, to be honest. Neither country is even remotely stable, and Afghanistan will likely return to what it was 2 decades ago. A nation dotted with terrorist training camps, and exporting their terror everywhere.

Both Santayna and Einstein both said something about that decades ago, as did "Good Time Charlie". Yet some insist that they world will do exactly what they want, then blame others when it does not turn out that way.

 

[Litwin]

The Taliban destroyed or absorbed all of the other ones during and after the civil war. They are the largest player now other than the government.

But I do not have much hope for Afghanistan or Iraq, to be honest. Neither country is even remotely stable, and Afghanistan will likely return to what it was 2 decades ago. A nation dotted with terrorist training camps, and exporting their terror everywhere.

Both Santayna and Einstein both said something about that decades ago, as did "Good Time Charlie". Yet some insist that they world will do exactly what they want, then blame others when it does not turn out that way.

what do you think about Taliban vs IS? can we play them against each other?

 

[Questerr]

very close to the muslim , fragile Kazakhstan

There are at least two countries between Afghanistan and Kazakhstan by any border.

But none of that matters because the Taliban has no offensive capability outside of Afghanistan. They are a light infantry militia.

 

[Questerr]

what do you think about Taliban vs IS? can we play them against each other?

ISIS in Afghanistan is almost non-existent.

 

[Fledermaus]

what do you think about Taliban vs IS? can we play them against each other?

Do you think before you post?

Oh, the maps.

The distance between Afghanistan and Kazakhstan is 1499 km.

1499 km is "very close"?

Have you Geography yet?

 

[beerftw]

Turkey got the military bases in Moscow´s Soft underbelly (Afghanistan) , Great News !!

Russia's Recent Military Buildup in Central Asia | Center for ...​

https://www.csis.org › blogs › post-soviet-post › russias...



25 Sep 2020 — Russia has long viewed Central Asia as part of its privileged sphere of ... “Moscow's Soft Underbelly”:

I can say , the great move Mr Biden ))) lets keep Moscow barbaric empire busy in Central Asia )))

Afghanistan does not border russia, russia has interests there due to it being a former neighbor while the soviet union existed, and even now russia has issues with islamic extremists in chechnya and is also allied or friendly with the nations between afghanistan and russia.

This is not the underbelly of russia, russia is not stupid enough to invade again but does have concerns, likely russia will team up with china iran america and the inbetween nations like they did with the northern alliance, the northern alliance had polar opposites backing it, with even russia china america and iran all agreeing to back the northern alliance and oppose the taliban.

 

[beerftw]

ISIS in Afghanistan is almost non-existent.

That is not true at all, isis has been very existent there, just not running the show, the taliban is directly opposed to isis and has kept them underground. The issue comes from russian and other intel pointing out for years that isis has been using the mountain regions of afghanistan to regroup and launch offensives elsewhere, they tried against the taliban and lost, but afghanistan and it's cave network is the perfect place for extremists to hide and regroup.

 

[Oozlefinch]

what do you think about Taliban vs IS? can we play them against each other?

Yea, to bad you have Iran in the middle of the two.

Oh, and they both have more in common than they have different. They do oppose each other in certain areas, as ISIL does not really like anybody but themselves. And not many others like them. Kind of a Fundamentalist Islamic version of the Khmer Rouge.

You really do not know anything about geography or anything else, do you? You just spout out whatever is on your head with almost no thought into it at all.

However, ultimately they would fight, because each has very different goals. Think of it as the difference between Fascist Italy, and Communist Soviet Union. One movement wants to export their idea of a "Perfect World" onto the entire world, the other is more interested in just having their own little nation to control. Italy wanted to expand its borders, but really had no interest in creating "World Fascism". Il Lamp Ornament was smart enough to know that would never happen, so he never really pushed for it. Very unlike the Soviets, who thought that ultimately they would lead a World Government where everybody followed their lead.

And yeah, that pesky Iran, sitting right in between the two of them, and supporting both of them to one degree or another.

 

[Oozlefinch]

That is not true at all, isis has been very existent there, just not running the show, the taliban is directly opposed to isis and has kept them underground. The issue comes from russian and other intel pointing out for years that isis has been using the mountain regions of afghanistan to regroup and launch offensives elsewhere, they tried against the taliban and lost, but afghanistan and it's cave network is the perfect place for extremists to hide and regroup.

Because much of the leadership remembers that the groups that formed ISIL like AQ and Taliban ran many of their camps in Afghanistan during their Civil War .It was the perfect place to do it, no more central government to oppose them, and they largely left each other alone. Not unlike Lebanon 3 decades ago. But different than Libya and Iraq at that time, which had strong governments, but simply let it happen for their own purposes.

One thing about the Taliban and ISIL, both are very expansionist, and want no opposition in areas they control. But the Taliban was able to get the cooperation of some groups, like al-Qaeda. Because AQ had no interest in governing, and easily fell into line of essentially being their "Intelligence and Special Operations" department. Essentially, AQ largely became the Taliban's KGB and Stasi. And much of their animosity is because Osama Bin Laden himself hated ISIL. His hatred of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his self-named "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" and all other groups that called themselves AQ like they were fast food franchises was well known.

The Taliban largely want an Islamic State. ISIL want the entire region (then the world) to only follow their lead. And like the "Palestinian Alphabet Soup" groups of 40 years ago will use any name they think will help them achieve that. And as bad as the Taliban was, ISIL is much worse. Even a great many other Jihadist groups looked at them in shame and disgust when they did things like put people into cages, then cover them with gasoline and set them on fire alive.

 

[Nilhus]

I thought that Russia learned its lesson when the Taliban chased the Soviets out last century.

Yeah, they learned that the Taliban were helped by the US(weapons, financing) , probably won't let that happen again.

I thought that Moscow learned its lesson in 1917/1991, but they don't ...they are still playing imperial games with 1% of the world GDP )))

Plain numbers are not good for anything other than propaganda purposes.

Having a lot of money won't necessarily translate into military power.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Yeah, they learned that the Taliban were helped by the US(weapons, financing) , probably won't let that happen again.

Boy, the fail is strong with this one.

You are aware that the Soviet-Afghan war ended in 1989, right?

And that the Taliban was not formed until 1994, right?

Now I am only in the military, so I must not be all that bright to you. But unless I am mistaken, that is 5 years after the war ended. What kind of time travelers were the Taliban, if the US helped them half a decade before they even existed?

The fact is, the US mostly supported the group that later became known as the Northern Alliance. Not Isalamists, but Secularists. The very reason that we ultimately ended up fighting the Taliban in the first place. Ahmad Shah Massoud was leading the group we gave most support to, and he is the one that the Taliban had assassinated 2 days before they directed an attack against the US.

Tell, you what, try looking up some real history, instead of trying to make it up as you go along. Because you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Nilhus]

And that the Taliban was not formed until 1994, right?

What kind of time travelers were the Taliban, if the US helped them half a decade before they even existed?

Wrong! The Taliban are the exact same people that the US & Saudi Arabia through Pakistani ISI armed and trained to fight against pro-Soviet Afghans. They only got a new name/designation which in Pashto means "students"
Among those trained and armed by US/Saudi/Pakistani ISI was Mullah Omar, which would eventually become the leader of the Taliban.

The fact is, the US mostly supported the group that later became known as the Northern Alliance. Not Isalamists, but Secularists.

Beyond wrong! Quite the opposite! The "Norther Alliance" were the "remnants" of the pro-Soviet Afghans! It's precisely this group that the US fought against using Islamist radicals that it trained, armed and financed with the help of Pakistan!

It's fairly easy to find all kind of details, but it should be pretty obvious from the outset that the pro-Soviets would likely be more secular, while the ones that got funded by the Americans and Saudis would very likely be radical Islamists - as this is what the Saudis seek to promote(Wahhabism). There are not enough secularists in that part of the world to find two groups that would fight against one another.

The US has a long history of using all kinds of radicals, terrorists, dictators, and so on, then at some later time, they'll switch sides and back-stab them(provided Saddam with chemical weapons under dual use to used them against Iranians, then turned on him; used Iranians to fund the Contras; used Noriega then turned on him; helped Gaddafi kidnap dissidents, then turned on him; etc etc)

ps. the same is true for the "secular rebels" sponsored by the US in Syria - nearly all of them are radical Wahhabis .. about the only somewhat secular group in Syria is the one Assad belongs to - but that's politically inconvenient!

 

[Litwin]

Yeah, they learned that the Taliban were helped by the US(weapons, financing) , probably won't let that happen again.

Plain numbers are not good for anything other than propaganda purposes.

Having a lot of money won't necessarily translate into military power.

wabbabi Saudis never nave had a chance against Shiias rebels , much like sovok never had a chance against us , 1991 ...

 

[Litwin]

ISIS in Afghanistan is almost non-existent.

ISIS in Afghanistan Remains 'Serious Threat' | Air & Space Forces Magazine

ISIS-Khorasan, the Islamic State branch in Afghanistan, could soon "reconstitute capability," said the US State Department's John T. Godfrey.

www.airforcemag.com

 

[Litwin]

Afghanistan does not border russia, russia has interests there due to it being a former neighbor while the soviet union existed, and even now russia has issues with islamic extremists in chechnya and is also allied or friendly with the nations between afghanistan and russia.

This is not the underbelly of russia, russia is not stupid enough to invade again but does have concerns, likely russia will team up with china iran america and the inbetween nations like they did with the northern alliance, the northern alliance had polar opposites backing it, with even russia china america and iran all agreeing to back the northern alliance and oppose the taliban.

wrong, A-stan is inside of Moscow empire which is great news )) for our liberal order

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

The Taliban would have a hard time operating outside Afghanistan. Their fighting style generally requires the safe haven of the mountains for protection from air power. Kazakhstan has large flat plains which would leave any Taliban army open to mass bombing

 

[Litwin]

The Taliban would have a hard time operating outside Afghanistan. Their fighting style generally requires the safe haven of the mountains for protection from air power. Kazakhstan has large flat plains which would leave any Taliban army open to mass bombing

whats about The Fergana Valley, etc. ? all CA:stans are very Fragile states

Central Asia's five fragile states

Subscribers // by Vicken Cheterian (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, March 2005)

mondediplo.com

​

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

whats about The Fergana Valley, etc. ? all CA:stans are very Fragile states

Central Asia's five fragile states

Subscribers // by Vicken Cheterian (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, March 2005)

mondediplo.com

Kyrgyzstan is a fragile country, small and meaningless, Uzbekistan is ruled by a despot who would kill more and faster than the Taliban

Kazakhstan is a large country with quite a bit of oil wealth. Russia would love the opportunity to go in and “support “ the government against radical Taliban invaders. The Taliban would collapse in any invasion of Kazakhstan

​

 

[Tigerace117]

whats about The Fergana Valley, etc. ? all CA:stans are very Fragile states

Central Asia's five fragile states

Subscribers // by Vicken Cheterian (Le Monde diplomatique - English edition, March 2005)

mondediplo.com

​

A Taliban invasion of any of those countries would lead to the Taliban being bombed back into oblivion.....again.

 

[Fledermaus]

wrong, A-stan is inside of Moscow empire which is great news )) for our liberal order

Afghanistan is nowhere near RUSSIA.

Geography.

And Muslim does not mean Afghanistan.

 

[Fledermaus]

Wrong! The Taliban are the exact same people that the US & Saudi Arabia through Pakistani ISI armed and trained to fight against pro-Soviet Afghans. They only got a new name/designation which in Pashto means "students"
Among those trained and armed by US/Saudi/Pakistani ISI was Mullah Omar, which would eventually become the leader of the Taliban.

Beyond wrong! Quite the opposite! The "Norther Alliance" were the "remnants" of the pro-Soviet Afghans! It's precisely this group that the US fought against using Islamist radicals that it trained, armed and financed with the help of Pakistan!

It's fairly easy to find all kind of details, but it should be pretty obvious from the outset that the pro-Soviets would likely be more secular, while the ones that got funded by the Americans and Saudis would very likely be radical Islamists - as this is what the Saudis seek to promote(Wahhabism). There are not enough secularists in that part of the world to find two groups that would fight against one another.

The US has a long history of using all kinds of radicals, terrorists, dictators, and so on, then at some later time, they'll switch sides and back-stab them(provided Saddam with chemical weapons under dual use to used them against Iranians, then turned on him; used Iranians to fund the Contras; used Noriega then turned on him; helped Gaddafi kidnap dissidents, then turned on him; etc etc)

ps. the same is true for the "secular rebels" sponsored by the US in Syria - nearly all of them are radical Wahhabis .. about the only somewhat secular group in Syria is the one Assad belongs to - but that's politically inconvenient!

100% wrong.