NATO Talks Could Be Prelude to Russian Military’s Return to Afghanistan
Is Russia Eager to Join Another Failed Occupation?
One might have assumed the Russian military had gotten their fill of occupying Afghanistan in the 1980′s, where over nine years of Soviet occupation led to a disastrous military defeat that played a major role in bankroling the failing empire. Apparently this is not the case, however.
Rather NATO officials are said to be considering a proposal which would include the return of the Russian military to the country, where they would help NATO in backing many of the same politicians, operating out of many of the same bases, as part of their own failed occupation, which is itself entering its 10th year.
Russian officials have raised the prospect of participating in the Afghan War for awhile now, though they had insisted it would be something short of a military involvement. Russian FM Sergey Lavrov has been particularly keen on seeing this. NATO’s desperation to throw ever more troops at the crumbling venture, however, has them keen on finding more troops to put on the ground.
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.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz
- Poll Shows Overwhelming Opposition to US Attacking Syria - May 22nd, 2013
- Kerry Confident Syria Counter-Offensive Will Fail - May 22nd, 2013
- Karzai Gives India 'Wish List' of Military Gear - May 22nd, 2013
- Report: Obama May Restart Gitmo Transfers - May 22nd, 2013
- Ten Dead in Latest Round of North Lebanon Fighting - May 22nd, 2013





EmeraldDruid
October 26th, 2010 at 9:03 pm
I don't think the Russians are stupid enough to make the same mistake twice. In fact, I believe they are laughing profusely at the ignorance of Bush and the neocons for getting the US, at a time of budget surpluses bogged down in two guerrilla/nationalist wars at the same time. Neither of which will arrive at anything resembling a victory. There never did exist a clear objective for either misadventure.
mr. mike
October 26th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
You forget they've been fighting in Chechnya for a decade and a half and that Russian FSB troops have fought the Taliban on Tadzhik-Afghan border in the late 1990s….getting involved in Afghanistan again would be a invitation to rejoin "the great game" and jockey for influence in that buffer state. Face it; after we leave, China, Pakistan, Russia will get involved with Afghanistan because of the possibility of routing oil through it, controlling whatever Islamism goes on (either a reconstituted Taliban regime or a hybrid Taliban/warlord government)….there are loads of possiblities and the surrounding states that can project power will do something with Afghanistan. It just won't be us.
Vasily Zaytsov
October 26th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Wishful thinking on the part of Anglo-American Nazi alliance, Russia will not repeat the mistake of WW2 and provide cannon fodder in this Crusade.
hoct
October 27th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Why not? The Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Georgians, Armenians and Azeris are already there.
Eric
October 27th, 2010 at 1:14 am
These are excellent points made by EmeraldDruid. The US and NATO are going to get so desperate that they will try anything, but having the Russians involved in Afghanistan again could be a public relations disaster.
Peter
October 27th, 2010 at 2:06 am
"We, how they say,' toy' with the Americans" – Russian Official(anonymous of course)
Bruce Richardson
October 27th, 2010 at 4:39 am
One problem among the many obvious, is the fact that Russia will open back channels into Afghanistan affairs as they did during the ten-years war. The Northern Alliance, led by the ficticious warrior Ahmad Shah Massoud, was collaborating with the Soviet 40th Army for the entire duration of the war. This is not easily forgotten among the citizens of the country. This move will be seen as a power play to restore the minority (Tajik) to a position of leaqdership. This will not be tolerated by the general population.
annoying
October 27th, 2010 at 5:34 am
hey i think you mean "bankrupting" not "bankroling."
EmeraldDruid
October 27th, 2010 at 11:54 am
My point exactly. Russia has come a long way since the wall came down and are making great progress regarding building a future for the Russian people. They bankrupted themselves in Afghanistan and are now laughing as America goes down the same memory hole.
Don't expect to see Russia in Afghanistan any time in the next century. Drug interdiction's along their borders, YES. But Russian military in Afghanistan, NO.
EmeraldDruid
October 27th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Their problem, the Russian's aren't that stupid.
MoT
October 27th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Bizarre is about all I can say.
John_Mohammad
October 27th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Russians, as a whole, may be hard-headed when it come to playing the great game of politics- but they are not stupid by any standards. If (and that's a HUGE 'if') they get involved in Afghanistan again it won't be for some 'higher goal' of helping NATO- it will be because they already have a deal worked out with some or all the players presently involved. As Fred Thompson said in The Hunt for Red October, "Russians don't take a dump without a plan". I doubt very seriously they'd stick their necks out again for some fool's errand in Afghanistan without a very, very good reason.
DW75
October 29th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
Its spelled "bankroll" but that means paying for something, you want the word bankrupt or you tried to say something extremely odd.