What did Medvedev have up his sleeve when he welcomed Obama’s new surge in Afghanistan, wonders Eric Walberg
US President Barack Obama’s now expanding war against the Taliban is garnering support from liberals and neocons alike, from leaders around the world, even from Russia. “We are ready to support these efforts, guarantee the transit of troops, take part in economic projects and train police and the military,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev declared in a recent press conference with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Moscow and Washington reached an agreement in July allowing the US to launch up to 4,500 US flights a year over Russia, opening a major supply route for American operations in Afghanistan. Previously Russia had only allowed the US to ship non-lethal military supplies across its territory by train.
So far, Obama has all European governments behind him, if not their people. Despite a solid majority in all countries, from Canada to Europe East and West, who want the troops out now, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was able to deliver pledges from 25 NATO members to send a total of about 7,000 additional forces to Afghanistan next year “with more to come” with nary a dissenting voice. In a macabre statement, Fogh Rasmussen welcomed Obama’s surge: “The United States’ contribution to the NATO-led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more important.”
Explaining the willingness of Euro leaders to ignore their constituents, former US ambassador to NATO and RAND adviser Robert Hunter told the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR): “In terms of motivation, very few European countries believe that winning in Afghanistan — that is, dismantling, defeating, and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban — is necessary for their own security. A few believe that, but most do not. When they add forces, it is to protect the credibility of NATO now that it is there. NATO has never failed at anything it chose to do.” Part and parcel with this, Europeans want to keep the US “as a European power, not just as an insurance policy but also as the principal manager of Russia’s future.” He ghoulishly agreed with the CFR interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to “pay the rent” to the US for continuing to bully Russia.
The combined US and NATO forces will bring together a staggering 150,000 soldiers from more than 50 nations, not to mention the estimated 80,000 mercenaries already there, bringing the total to 230,000. Every European nation except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia will have military forces there, as well as nine of the 15 former Soviet republics. Marvels analyst Rick Rozoff, “Troops from five continents, Oceania and the Middle East. Even the putative coalition of the willing stitched together by the US and Britain after the invasion of Iraq only consisted of forces from 31 nations.” By way of comparison, in September this year there were 120,000 US troops in Iraq and only a handful of other nations’ personnel. The Soviet Afghan occupation force in the 1980s peaked at 100,000 shortly before beginning to pull out in 1989; the British in 1839 had only 21,000 and in 1878 — 42,000.
The world’s last three major wars — Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq — have all been testing grounds for the new, global NATO. Hence the flurry of visits by US officials to prospective members to make sure they sign up for the surge. For instance, Celeste Wallander, US deputy assistant secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, just returned from a visit to her new friend Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, to thank him for coughing up 40 “peacekeepers” who will start training in Germany in January 2010 before deployment in Afghanistan. As if to up the ante with its nemesis, Azerbaijan promised to double its 90 troops. It would be interesting if the two warring nations’ troops were to share barracks. They have far more cause to fight each other than Afghans.
It is hard to imagine this heathen Tower of Babel as an effective force against devoted Muslims ready to die to repel the invaders. But Fogh nonetheless chortles, “With the right resources, we can succeed.” Could it be that one of his “resources” is the “big one”?
What explains Russia’s quiescence at Obama’s determination to wrest Central Asia from its traditional sphere of influence? Russian suspicions about US intentions are very strong on many fronts. Sucking more than half of the ex-Soviet republics into returning to Afghanistan — this time on the US side — is surely brazen. Continuing to expand NATO eastward is strongly condemned by all Russians and is not popular in either Ukraine or Georgia, but continues nonetheless. Russian intelligence is undoubtedly following US and others’ machinations in Chechnya, which continues to be a serious threat to Russian security. Hunter’s cynical explanation to the CFR of Euro complicity in the Afghan genocide is not lost on deaf ears.
Yet, Russia dawdles on its assistance to Iran both in nuclear energy and in providing up-to-date defence missiles, clearly at US prompting. And now seems to be happy that Obama is expanding what all sensible analysts insist is a losing and criminal war virtually next door. Is this evidence of Russian weakness, an acceptance of US plans for Eurasian hegemony which could imperil the Russian Federation itself?
Russia is still in transition, caught between a longing to be part of the West and to be a mediator between the Western empire and the rest of the world. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, represents this conflict between the “Atlantist” and “Eurasian” vision of Russia’s future, terms which have been popularised by Alexandr Dugin. In a TV interview with Russia Today, loose-cannon Rogozin argued: “There is a new civilisation emerging in the Third World that thinks that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must therefore fall at its feet now. If the northern civilisation wants to protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
But Rogozin is not in favour of Russia merely lying down to be walked over by NATO. He would like NATO replaced by a Euro-Russian security treaty. It is no coincidence that just before Obama’s announced surge, Russia unveiled a proposal for just such a new pact, which despite talk of “from Vancouver to Vladivostok” would essentially exclude the US and include Russia. It would prevent member states from taking actions which threaten other members, effectively excluding Ukraine and Georgia from NATO and preventing Poland and the Czech Republic from setting up their beloved US missile bases. Rogozin’s Atlantist vision would see NATO defanged, and North America forced to ally with a new, independent Europe, where Russia is now the dominant power.
NATO, of course, will not go quietly into the night — unless its latest venture in Afghanistan fails. So Russia is biting the bullet on this war — for the time being. Just in case Obama was too busy with Oslo to notice, Rogozin warned last week that Russian cooperation over transit of military supplies to Afghanistan could be jeopardised by a failure to take the Russian security treaty proposal seriously. In Washington’s worst-case scenario, if its Afghan gamble implodes, not only will it have to take Russia seriously, but so will Europe, giving the Russian Atlantists the opportunity to integrate with Europe without the US breathing down their necks. If by some miracle NATO succeeds in cowing the Afghans and continues to threaten Russia with encirclement, the Eurasians will gain the upper hand, and Russia will build up its BRIC and SCO ties, forced to abandon its dream of joining and leading Europe as the countervailing power to the US empire.
As this intrigue plays itself out, any number of things could tip the apple cart. For example, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two quarrelsome ex-Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan which are vital to Obama’s surge, virtually declared war on each other earlier this month, potentially complicating the shuttling of US materiel to the front. Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the Central Asian electricity grid, a move that isolates Tajikistan by making it impossible for the country to import power from other Central Asian states during the cold winter months. The Tajiks threaten to retaliate by restricting water supplies that Uzbekistan desperately need for its cotton sector next summer.Who knows how this will end? At least they haven’t any troops in Afghanistan, where, like the Azeris and Armenians, they would be sorely tempted to turn their guns against each other rather than against the hapless Taliban.
***
Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/ You can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/
——-
Commentary: I think that Russia’s willingness to let US/NATO supplies transit through its airspace and territory can be explained by a number or pragmatic considerations:
a) If there is one thing which Russia does not want in Afghanistan it is a return to power of the Taliban whom they correctly view as a major destabilizing factor for the Central Asian republics, in particular Tajikistan. That does not mean that Russia wants the US to “succeed” in Afghanistan (such as “success” being probably impossible to achieve anyway), only that Russia does not want the US/NATO to fail dramatically, a la Vietnam, if you want.
b) By allowing US/NATO supplies to transit through Russia Medvedev makes US/NATO dependent on a Russian “service” if you want, something which they can cut off literally in one minute. That gives Russia lot of leverage over its main rival. Think of it this way: could the Ukraine or Georgia provide such a service?
c) keeping the USA involved in a war which by definition cannot be won weakens the USraelian Empire, by depleting its resources and capabilities. Having US/NATO soldiers and Taliban fighters kill each other far away from Russia is actually something very good for Russia as it weakens both of its enemies.
d) by keeping the US/NATO efforts alive in Afghanistan, Russia also keeps the US involved in Pakistan. You could say that the US is “in charge of security” in Pakistan. Considering the truly immense potential for catastrophic developments in Pakistan, having the US in charge there as the hated policeman is not a bad calculation for Russia.
e) lastly, Russia can get a great deal of solace from the fact that the countries which are not supporting the US efforts in Afghanistan are all going to become part of a slow-motion defeat of the US/NATO operation. As the expression goes, victory has many parents, but defeat is an orphan – what could better weaken NATO then a jointly lived defeat.
Somebody once said that while the Americans play monopoly, the Russians play chess. This is quite true. The only ‘strategy’ which the Americans appear to be capable of is to grab as much land as possible and to make others pay for “transit”. The Russians, being the chess players which they are, are capable of far more sophisticated maneuvers, including traps, discovered attacks, pins, skewers, etc. In this case, it is tying up the IS forces in the defense of an indefensible pawn – Afghanistan – and while preparing itself for the best possible position on the board for the endgame.
The Saker
@Eric Walberg: “He ghoulishly agreed with the CFR interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to “pay the rent” to the US for continuing to bully Russia”
What Europe is he talking about? Europe is not interested in confrontation with Russia. Unless he is calling Poland and the Baltic Republics “Europe“. Or the UK. But these countries are not Europe. They are just little countries that are located in Europe that’s all.
Europe is a natural threat for the US. Middle East Asia and Antarctica too, but Europe is too big of a threat for the US to ignore. Thus came along all these nice little Eastern European countries that have been dragged into EU to make sure the German and French economics will get busy supporting them. Imagine EU economical potential without Romania or Estonia? Turkey’s been in the line for a while, and guess who was the biggest supporter of the upcoming new member? What about the Kosovo time bomb which was planted by the US in the middle of Europe at the time when Euro got too strong and is ready to explode if Europe will get too independent or economically strong. Europe could have and should have been the leading world power considering it’s economical, demographic, democratic and former military potential. So after the collapse of the USSR the US had to finish off this threat first and it did. Then it turned out that Russia wasn’t done with yet and the biggest nightmare for the States become a thought that Europe and Russia will get along.
@Saker “a) If there is one thing which Russia does not want in Afghanistan it is a return to power of the Taliban whom they correctly view as a major destabilizing factor for the Central Asian republics, in particular Tajikistan…”
To be honest it could be better for Russia if the Taliban returns to power. Whatever bad thing they are the Taliban had practically eliminated drug production in Afghanistan. They are bad guys and are capable of causing some troubles in the neighbouring countries but it was manageable then and can be manageable now but what is happening now with a drug flow into Russia is a disaster.
Excellent thoughts, Saker (and alibi too)
Keeping two enemies fighting each other is a very desirable outcome. When Iraq and Iran were at each other, US right wingers were in hog heaven. Iran got some payback when the US was up against a Sunni/Bathist insurgency in Iraq. And now Russia and Iran get to see that scenario replayed in Af-Pak.
I would quibble with a couple of points, though. I don’t think the Taliban are much of a threat to Russia. They were never aggressive in their foreign policy and most of the problems were caused by trouble makers imported to Afghanistan during the 80’s By the ISI, Saudi and Egyptian intelligence all coordinated by the CIA.
Without that, I don’t think the Taliban alone would threaten central Asia.
I like alibi’s point about Europe. But I do think the US markets itself to Euro decision makers as the defender of western civilization and without them, Chinese and Indian economic dominance will eventually pulverize Europe.
@everybody: I believe that the Russians cannot let the Taliban back to power primarily because of what that would mean for the allies of Russian (and Iran), i.e., the Tadjiks and the Uzbeks of the Northern Alliance. The last time the Taliban were at the borders of Iran and Tadjikistan this ended in disaster (a war with Iran barely averted and a major destabilisation in Tadjikistan). As for the drug problem – yes the Taliban did better in controlling it, but since I am a firm believer in a “demand-side” approach the the drug problem I don’t see much use in restricting supplies. I agree that the drug problem is a disaster for Russia, I just don’t think that this is a problem which can be blamed on the supply of drugs from Afghanistan.
Besides, Afghanistan will remain the cesspool of Wahabi crazies for as long as Pakistan will be the rear-base for this. I just don’t see anytyhing getting better in Pakistan for the foreseeable future, and the same goes for Afghanistan. So the best thing for the time being from the Russia perspective is to let the USraelian Empire waste its ressources on trying to police is nightmare.
I have been reading Arundhati Roy’s excellent “Listening to Grasshoppers” and I get a strong sense that Pakistan is metastacizing into India. Even if the Hindu extremists are only making things worse, there is only so much which can be blamed on them, I think. So if India is also slowing slouching into chaos we will see a huge section of the globe sinking into a semi-permanent state of crisis and chaos, from Turkey to Bangladesh.
From Russia’s point of view only one policy makes sense: stay out of it and let the Yankees try to police all this chaos.
My 2cts.
Thanx Saker,
On a separate note, can anyone tell e where I could find out what is happening in Yemen? Not only do we have Saudi involvement, but Press TV is telling us the US has joined the bombardment. I don’t know if that is true, but if it is it only mains that Government forces have failed, and that Saudi forces have also failed.
The US cannot allow a defeat of Saudi Arabia. That would be almost as catastrophic as an Israeli defeat.
The US also has said it has no evidence of Iranian assistance to the Houthis. I take that as meaning a massacre is going on and the US does not want to draw media attention to it by involving Iran.
From what I know, Yemeni guerrillas are strong fighters and the terrain is ideal for that kind of fighting. And so, as is typical, the US/Saudis are trying to bomb civilian areas in the hopes of getting the Houthis to give up.
Anyway,
If anyone knows of a good source of info about it. I’d be much obliged. If I happen to run into a source myself, I’ll post it here.
@lysander: actually, I have no idea about what is going on in Yemen. I meant to look into it, but simply never had the time. I would be VERY interested in any information about what is going on there. If you find out something, please send me the info (and, even better, an analysis) to my email address vineyardsaker@gmail.com and I will publish it here.
Thanks,
VS
@ Saker: “So the best thing for the time being from the Russia perspective is to let the USraelian Empire waste its resources on trying to police this nightmare”
Absolutely. That’s exactly what the Russians are doing at the moment. I agree with Eric’s and your analysis on the issue. The States bogged in Afghanistan and Iraq the way they are now – what can be better for Russia. I just don’t think that the Taliban are so much of a threat for Russia’s interests in the region. Sure they can cause troubles in the neighbouring “Stans” but Russia can and will offer military protection for them. After all the fear of the Taliban may bring them closer to Russia in hope of the protection. I doubt the Stans will look at the States for help. Yankees have screwed up in Uzbekistan and Kirgizstan with colour revolutions and the local lords are not stupid.
@Lysander: “But I do think the US markets itself to Euro decision makers as the defender of western civilization and without them, Chinese and Indian economic dominance will eventually pulverize Europe”
If the States were interested in having Europe consolidated to face Asian powers wouldn’t there be a smart move to include Russia into the club instead of pushing her back towards Asia. The problem with Russia joining Europe would be just too big for the States. Just imagine that there will be no need for American military protection anymore. End of German occupation. What a nightmare for Europe. Add to that Russian resources, enourmous market which would be in favour of Europe instead of the States, Russia’s influence in the Middle East and Asia which if added to European influence will diminish American… Jeez – what a nightmare.