What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?

[TU Curmudgeon]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

 

[Evilroddy]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

TUC:

In order to avoid or end wars by other than martial means you have to be prepared to speak with and negotiate with the enemy, unless you're powerful enough to compel an unconditional surrender by military means. The US has recently learned that, despite its overwhelming military might, it lacks the means and the political/societal will to fight a multigenerational, guerrila war against a foe which can easily blend into the general population and can operate and survive in the worst conditions Afghanistan can offer. The Soviets learned that lesson between 1979 and 1989 and thus are more willing to talk rather than fight in the region. The US should learn that same lesson. The mess that is modern Afghanistan cannot be sorted by military means short of genocide so other non-military options must be explored, found and implemented if some kind of humane stability is to be returned to Afghanistan.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

TUC:

In order to avoid or end wars by other than martial means you have to be prepared to speak with and negotiate with the enemy, unless you're powerful enough to compel an unconditional surrender by military means. The US has recently learned that, despite its overwhelming military might, it lacks the means and the political/societal will to fight a multigenerational, guerrila war against a foe which can easily blend into the general population and can operate and survive in the worst conditions Afghanistan can offer. The Soviets learned that lesson between 1979 and 1989 and thus are more willing to talk rather than fight in the region. The US should learn that same lesson. The mess that is modern Afghanistan cannot be sorted by military means short of genocide so other non-military options must be explored, found and implemented if some kind of humane stability is to be returned to Afghanistan.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I agree.

Mind you, one might have thought that the US government would have learned that "despite its overwhelming military might, it lacks the means and the political/societal will to fight a multi-generational, guerrilla war against a foe which can easily blend into the general population and can operate and survive in the worst conditions" - especially if that foe believes that it is fighting for ITS homeland.

As the mule trainer who had a reputation for kindness and patience when training mules responded when asked why he carried TWO 6' lengths of 2x4 "Sometimes you have to get the mule's attention more than once.".

 

[Evilroddy]

I agree.

Mind you, one might have thought that the US government would have learned that "despite its overwhelming military might, it lacks the means and the political/societal will to fight a multi-generational, guerrilla war against a foe which can easily blend into the general population and can operate and survive in the worst conditions" - especially if that foe believes that it is fighting for ITS homeland.

As the mule trainer who had a reputation for kindness and patience when training mules responded when asked why he carried TWO 6' lengths of 2x4 "Sometimes you have to get the mule's attention more than once.".

LOL!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

 

[Mariussa]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

The East is tricky. For centuries, Russian diplomacy has created conditions there for a calm and balanced resolution of all conflicts and issues of peaceful coexistence. So it was in Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet Union violated Russia's consistent policy towards the peoples and states of the East, so the current course of Russia is natural and adequate.

 

[beerftw]

The East is tricky. For centuries, Russian diplomacy has created conditions there for a calm and balanced resolution of all conflicts and issues of peaceful coexistence. So it was in Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet Union violated Russia's consistent policy towards the peoples and states of the East, so the current course of Russia is natural and adequate.

I really would not call russias response then or now calm or natural, In the past they minimized problems among the populace due to ethnic issues but even then they did so poorly, and had no issues invading the middle east. By the soviet union they had no issue funding govts against the western sphere but also had no issues trampling on them( iran and afghanistan).

 

[Rich2018]

It's certainly not an end game.

 

[iguanaman]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

That great sucking sound you hear is Trump's foreign policy leaving vacuums waiting to be filled by Putin. We are no longer a world leader and it will come back to bite us for sure.

 

[Litwin]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

It supports there Taliban and other terrorists, i just wonder did Trump tell Putler to stop it?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The East is tricky. For centuries, Russian diplomacy has created conditions there for a calm and balanced resolution of all conflicts and issues of peaceful coexistence. So it was in Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet Union violated Russia's consistent policy towards the peoples and states of the East, so the current course of Russia is natural and adequate.

I do have to admit that "Here are the parameters within which you may negotiate a resolution. Go outside of those parameters and we'll kick the snot out of you like we did to __[fill in the blank]__, __[fill in the blank]__, __[fill in the blank]__, and __[fill in the blank]__." does have a tendency to promote a "calm and balanced resolution of all conflicts and issues of peaceful coexistence" - especially when applied consistently and where the parameters don't change on whims.

The "collapse of the Soviet Union" replaced a creaking, inefficient, centrally controlled, state bureaucracy that (at least) had pretencions to being dedicated to the betterment of the entire populace with a racing, efficient, uncontrolled, kleptocracy that mouthed the same slogans but had no interest in anything except how much richer it could make its private controllers in the shortest possible time.

Mr. Putin is at the top of the Russian kleptocracy pyramid and his actions are natural and adequate to promote his own personal agenda.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It supports there Taliban and other terrorists, i just wonder did Trump tell Putler to stop it?

Things have changed a bit since November.

The US government has now officially admitted that it is negotiating directly with the Taliban in order to "resolve all issues" (read as "get American troops out of Afghanistan in time for Mr. Trump to announce victory in Afghanistan on the second anniversary of being sworn in as President").

Since the (former) position of the US government was that it would NOT, under any conditions, "negotiate with terrorists", the Taliban is taking the fact that the US government is now negotiating directly with it as a significant victory over the United States of America.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The East is tricky. For centuries, Russian diplomacy has created conditions there for a calm and balanced resolution of all conflicts and issues of peaceful coexistence. So it was in Soviet times. The collapse of the Soviet Union violated Russia's consistent policy towards the peoples and states of the East, so the current course of Russia is natural and adequate.

The Russians only departed Afghanistan due to high casualties and non-sustainable losses from the Stingers. No diplomacy was involved. They left their puppet in place who was eventually overthrown.

 

[tecoyah]

Thread: What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?

Putin is very smart and wishes to rebuild Russia into a Superpower. Right now he likely sees great opportunity worldwide as the United States deals with what is has done to itself with his assistance...likely according to plan. Afghanistan, Syria.....etc...are simply opportunities presented he has calculated as beneficial to his goals. As former (and likely current) KGB his tactics will be complex and deceptive but effective.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Russians only departed Afghanistan due to high casualties and non-sustainable losses from the Stingers.

The losses were NOT "non-sustainable", but they certainly weren't worth the benefits which the Russians received in return for them.

No diplomacy was involved.

Indeed. What was involved was simply the US providing military support for its then current "Rent-A-Frineds".

They left their puppet in place who was eventually overthrown.

Quite true. And that regime was replaced by an American backed one that is generally regarded as one of the ten most corrupt ones in the world. Quite frankly, for the Afghan people, the Russian's "Rent-A-Friends" were of a substantially higher quality than the American's "Rent-A-Friends".

 

[Rogue Valley]

The losses were NOT "non-sustainable", but they certainly weren't worth the benefits which the Russians received in return for them.

They were non-sustainable at this time for the Russian military. Russia was in the throes of political dissolution and the Russian MIC was not cranking out helicopters. The Kremlin had no answer to the US MANPADS.

Afghanistan is still littered with Soviet air and armor corpses to this day.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Quite frankly, for the Afghan people, the Russian's "Rent-A-Friends" were of a substantially higher quality than the American's "Rent-A-Friends".

I highly doubt the thousands of Afghani's that were executed by KHAD would agree with your warped morality.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

They were non-sustainable at this time for the Russian military. Russia was in the throes of political dissolution and the Russian MIC was not cranking out helicopters. The Kremlin had no answer to the US MANPADS.

Afghanistan is still littered with Soviet air and armor corpses to this day.

IF the Russians had thought that the game was worth the candle they COULD have sustained the losses.

The Russians finally came to the conclusion that the "benefits" they received from Afghanistan simply weren't worth the cost.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I highly doubt the thousands of Afghani's that were executed by KHAD would agree with your warped morality.

There isn't any "morality" involved.

What IS involved is the fact that "the peasantry" (which describes the majority of the people of Afghanistan in socioeconomic terms and is not used in any derogatory sense) generally want nothing more from "the government" than to have the rules simple as well as consistent and the "taxation" low enough that they don't starve.

Harsh and brutal as the Taliban were, they were at least honest, effective (in the local context), and predictable. The same applied to the government that the Russians supported. The US installed government is NOT honest, is NOT effective (in the local context) and NOT predictable. The Russian supported government is NOT likely to come back.

The same cannot be said for the Taliban because given the choice between the two, at the local level, the Taliban government is preferable (which does NOT mean the same thing as "a really good thing").

Based on Afghanistan's history, about the best result that can be hoped for (until Afghan society evolves into a modern one) is that - metaphorically speaking - the Afghans limit their horse stealing to Afghanistan.

 

[marke]

From al-Jazeera

What game is Russia playing in Afghanistan?
​

Earlier this month, the Russian government hosted a much-awaited peace conference on Afghanistan, which was attended by representatives from the Taliban. After the event, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was photographed posing next to members of the Taliban leadership, who, paradoxically, are still on Russia's terror list.

For keen observers of Russian foreign policy, it was clear that the conference was not more than a photo-op meant to publicly declare the Kremlin's ambition to re-assert itself in the southern part of Central Asia and Afghanistan in particular.

The Taliban also benefited from the conference: for the first time its representatives participated in a forum organised by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

The conference was initially scheduled for September 4, but after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani personally spoke to Lavrov asking him to cancel it, it had to be postponed. That reportedly angered the Taliban who through unofficial channels made it clear to Moscow that if it does not coordinate such changes of plan under pressure from Kabul, its representatives would not show up at the next conference.

This time around, the Russian government decided to proceed even ...

COMMENT:-

The possibility that some international leaders know what they are doing in Afghanistan cannot be completely discounted.
​

Russia is not to be trusted. They still support atheistic policies which demonstrate the fact that too many of their leaders are followers of the devil.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Russia is not to be trusted.

On the contrary, the Russians are to be trusted to act in what they consider to be the best interests of Russia. If that isn't the same thing as what you consider to be the best interests of the United States of America then the Russian leadership will give your opinion all the respect and consideration that they feel it is worth.

They still support atheistic policies ...

I don't suppose that you'd like to actually specify what those "atheistic policies" are, would you?

...which demonstrate the fact that too many of their leaders are followers of the devil.

Did you know that it is not possible to be BOTH an "atheist" and a "follower of the Devil" at the same time? So, please specify which the Russian leadership actually is:

1. atheists;
2. Devil worshipers;
3. leaders of a country that is not the United States of America and which pursues the interests of its own citizens even if those interests aren't the same ones as the financial backers of the Republican or Democrat party in the United States of America; or
4. other (SPECIFIC DETAILS in logically constructed sentences that deal with actual facts REQUIRED).

Thank you for your cooperation. Spelling and grammar WILL form a part of your final mark, as will whether or not you have actually provided an actual answer to the actual question actually asked.