The Russians went broke after spending almost 10 yrs occupying Afghanistan. It is billed as Russia's Vietnam. This was a lost cause from the beginning. We have to realize that the war in Afghanistan is about 2 things...Dope and that oil pipeline. Yes the players are real, the Taliban is the enemy but not for the reason 's that you might think or that has been spoon-fed to us. This is Vietnam all over again in the fact that this war is not to won or lost just sustained until the bankers can maximize profits.
Now the reason that the Russians got beat down and run outta Afghanistan is that the Afghans had undercover American help (Watch the Movie "Charlie Wilson's War"). With this fact well known and the "Cold War" still raging it stands to reason that Russia is now helping the Taliban. It is a dirty, dirty game!
First of all, Cold War is not raging. While there clearly is a power struggle, Russia is no Soviet Union and using the same term to characterize this struggle is misleading.
Secondly, is there any information about Russia helping Taliban? I'm not saying it's not possible, or even probable :), but just wondering whether there is any more or less credible information or evidence to support that suspicion.
I would seriously doubt it. Russia fears expanding Muslim influence even worse than we do. They have more to lose from it. We really screwed up with Georgia and NATO. The Russians would have been a natural ally in the fight against Islamic Terrorism. They have had one hell of a lot more in the way of domestic attacks than we have.
Russia is not as simple as you might think. I do not rule out that something of that sort is possible. However, just suspicions are not enough to go on.
Also, what do you mean "we screwed up with Georgia and NATO"? Are you suggesting that Russia should be placated and catered to regarding her imperial drive in the region? I agree with you - the West screwed up - but not in the sense you are suggesting. Opportunistic search for allies should not overpower other, more important considerations of principles.
I am suggesting that the differences over NATO could have been handled a lot better. Russia originally wanted to join it. Also Russia gave us permission to establish a number of bases on its boarders to fight terrorism. When they later asked how long they were going to be there, they were told "forever". That is not exactly a trust building exercise, and was probably on their minds with Georgia. That and Georgia really was the aggressor there, probably with our tacit agreement.
So who do you want running the Muslim republics on Russia's southern border? Putin or Bin Laden? (for the sake of picking two names people are familiar with only).
Ultimately, how one views this conflict between Russia and Georgia is indicative of one's view of international politics - I, for one, do not believe in realpolitik (roughly, Machiavelli-Bismarck-Kissinger tradition) - I think it is a bankrupt way of doing politics and has been the source of many serious problems in the past centuries. "Spheres of influence", "balance of powers" and others such concepts are all morally bankrupt ways, as far as I see it.
Neither do I support OVERLY moralized politics, such as "Axis of Evil" and black-and-white "good vs. evil" framework, a la Reagan and W. Bush. I am a proponent of a balanced position: based on firm principles, yet pragmatic and culturally competent. That kind of politics requires sound leadership and highly sophisticated moral standards - something that is, unfortunately, too difficult to find in most world leaders. Neither ideology, nor cynical realism - both old ways of doing politics - will be able to meet the challenges of the future.
It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.
Excellent article. Fareed Zakaria is a brilliant analyst. He describes himself as a realist, I believe, but his realism is mitigated by other considerations, and his analyses always provide food for thought.
Sorry to disagree (I so hate disagreeing with anyone) but it wasn't the Russians who got embroiled in Afghanistan but the Soviet Union. Their assistance was requested (under treaty) by an unpopular Marxist government who had attempted social reforms that were simply unacceptable or many, many years before their time. I accept totally that their actual reason for going in was to try to balance what they perceived as a real threat from US influence in neighbouring countries. I also accept that the US was arming the Mujahadeen, again from the same Cold War premise of denying any encroachment by the political enemy. But... the reason it developed into their Vietnam was they tried to turn Kabul into a fortress and rarely ventured forth on the ground. As a result their supply routes were under constant attack and the casualties high. Once the Mujahadeen had infriltrated Kabul the war was lost. What's different this time is there is no idealogical basis for the allied forces being there. Their purpose is, not regime change, it's simply to engage a viable enemy on their ground rather than ours. It would be nice to think that we actually cared about democracy there but again that is an idea before its time. Just as Chechnya attracted insurgents so are they drawn to Afghanistan and, hopefully that will prove to be their killing fields. We've really only got a simple choice in this matter. Do we wish to live in a society that they would seek to impose on us or one where we can actually say no because we are allowed, whatever the political failures, to have an opinion. Finally, I don't believe for one moment that Russia is funding any faction in Afghanistan. Possibily Iran and groups withing Pakistan but then you have to question their agenda.
Russia has lost (I believe) its imperial drive. While they will desparately try to control what remains of the Soviet Union they know the idealogical battle is lost. Obviously it's only my theory (but I'm normally right. lol!) but I sense that many, within government, including Putin himself actually want to come in from the cold. The problem is they want to come in with honour and with their heads held high. They realise that globalism has replaced international politics and they want a seat at that global table. While this may take some time they are acutely aware that both India and China are growing in economic stature with each year that passes and that is where the future could lie for them. While they may still meddle in the politics of developing countries the master plan died with the demise of the Soviet Union. They no longer have the political will to become embroiled in military ventures from which there can be no gain. They actually want to join the party but are unsure as to how they can move towards it.
I can agree with you on some points. However, I disagree that it has lost its imperial drive - everything points to the contrary. Hence the slightly schizoid character of Russian government and society - they want to join the club, so to speak, but don't know how; at the same time, they are nostalgic for their former power. Those mental structures are deep-seated and are not so easily extinguished. It has nothing to do with ideology - Soviet Union used communist/socialist ideology only as a facade for its totalitarian empire. Today, Russia simply is substituting capitalist ideology, while the imperial structures are still alive.
In short, I would caution against underestimating the strength of the imperial drive - two decades have not been nearly enough to extinguish it.
Russia helped the Northern Alliance materially, and it also had Indian and Iranian help when it, alone, stood against the Taliban. The LAST thing Russia wants is a revival of the Chechen war or other Muslim fundamentalist jihads. A Taliban victory will be bad news for Russia; for Iran, an anti-Taliban Shia state; for China, with its Uighurs as a target population for jihadi indoctrination.
What the hell has revenge for the Cold War got to do with that?
Also, the Taliban are concentrated in SOUTH Afghanistan, allegedly the American bailiwick, far, far from Russia. And the US has repeatedly proved itself capable of losing the war on its own without anyone's help. The way it's gone about it, it would've lost the war without the taliban as well, simply by alienating the Afghan puppets till they turned on their puppet-masters.
I don't understand this comment at all. I've been trying to understand how Russia "provoked" Georgia into triggering the war. Russia did not attack Georgia, did not mass troops on its borders, did not post no-fly zones over it, did not prepare a list of demands.
What do you mean Russia did not attack Georgia? Then who did? Santa Claus? And you are wrong - it did pull up its troops to the borders - how do you think it was able to react so quickly and conduct such a Blitzkrieg?
It simply stargted giving out Russian passports to South Ossetians, to be able to claim later that they are "defending their own citizens." The same tactic has been happening in Crimea - passports have been given out. Ukraine is a tougher nut to crack, so Russia has not tried to invade it yet. Thankfully. But the threat is real, considering the statements Putin has made about Ukraine, etc.
In addition, Russia did not only go into South Ossetia, but also invaded Georgia itself, pillaging and plundering. While claiming that Georgia provoked them by doing ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia - which was a lie - Russia itself conduct cleansings once it invaded.
So, please, try harder to understand. Learn about the history of the region - many people have been warning that this might happen. One book I can think of is Rogers Brubaker's "Nationalism Reframed". It is an academic book about nationalism in the late 20th century, but it has parts where it analyzes the situtation with Russia and the former Soviet "republics", more accurately called colonies. Ever since they gained their long-sought independence, Russia can't make peace with its loss of empire.
Probably that Russia during that period was no different from anybody else. What finally cured empire fever with the rest of the European Nations was WWII - WWI didn't even do it.
No, I understand that's what is implied. I am asking what the point is - how does that relate to the conversation. The fact taht there were other empires in the world does not have anything to do with this specific case of Russia.
In addition, the Russian empire was of a somewhat different character than the European ones. It was a multinational inland empire, rather than a nation-state with overseas colonies. That's a major difference.
Hmmm... From the world viewpoint however, the US is considered an empire. There would be reasonable grounds for that. We basically annexed most of Mexico for example. How did we differ from the Russia of that day? Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, although World War 1 was sort of a Russian Style Empire building exercise, as was World War II.
The U.S. definitely had its imperial moment in late 19th - early 20th century, exemplified by the war against Spain and annexation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc. But, from a social-scientific point of view, "empire" has a very specific connotation, and should not be used loosely, otherwise it confounds the issue. Domination is one thing, imperialism another, empire yet another. Briefly, domination is present in all societies, like it or not; imperialism (as well as colonialism) is either a process or an ideology; empire is a concrete entity with social and bureaucratic structures. I'm point all this out, because too often "empire" is used as a metaphor these days, which is misleading and obscures things, in my opinion.
Also, by pointing out that Russia's imperial history stretches back many centuries, the argument is that imperial mindset is deeply embedded into Russian psyche and the process of squeezing it out is going to be painful and prolonged. Russia has no historical experience with democracy, as opposed to Ukraine, for example. This goes to underscore the importance of not underestimating Russia's imperial drive, which we discussed above.
Okay maybe "raging" was a bad term and Russia is not the old Soviet Union, however Russia IS a major player still. Take the whole Georgia incident as some have elaborated on here. Then there is the whole "Missile Shield" issue...Now while weakened they are still a major threat to blow the earth up as much as we are...
As far as any "proof" of Russia's involvement, I will just say there were "suspicions" back then about our involvement and as things go with all these "Bankster" (government) enforcement arms, ie the CIA, Mossad, 007 and the like it's more than just a suspicion. Just like our involvement was back in the day.
The third point I was trying to make and missed was the fact that we are talking about articles In the Washington "Pravda" Post, spreading the Bankster's propaganda of "all war all of the time".
Almost?
AntwortenLöschenThe headline writer was being generous, no?
AntwortenLöschenThe Russians went broke after spending almost 10 yrs occupying Afghanistan. It is billed as Russia's Vietnam. This was a lost cause from the beginning. We have to realize that the war in Afghanistan is about 2 things...Dope and that oil pipeline. Yes the players are real, the Taliban is the enemy but not for the reason 's that you might think or that has been spoon-fed to us. This is Vietnam all over again in the fact that this war is not to won or lost just sustained until the bankers can maximize profits.
AntwortenLöschenNow the reason that the Russians got beat down and run outta Afghanistan is that the Afghans had undercover American help (Watch the Movie "Charlie Wilson's War"). With this fact well known and the "Cold War" still raging it stands to reason that Russia is now helping the Taliban. It is a dirty, dirty game!
PEACE!
He was being very very generous! History is repeating itself and the players are virtually the same!!
AntwortenLöschenFirst of all, Cold War is not raging. While there clearly is a power struggle, Russia is no Soviet Union and using the same term to characterize this struggle is misleading.
AntwortenLöschenSecondly, is there any information about Russia helping Taliban? I'm not saying it's not possible, or even probable :), but just wondering whether there is any more or less credible information or evidence to support that suspicion.
On a related note, here's an interesting link:
Israel names Russians helping Iran build nuclear bomb
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6860161.ece
This thread is related to my point about the "New Cold War"
AntwortenLöschenhttp://geopolitics.multiply.com/links/item/273/Edward_Lucas_The_New_Cold_War
I would seriously doubt it. Russia fears expanding Muslim influence even worse than we do. They have more to lose from it. We really screwed up with Georgia and NATO. The Russians would have been a natural ally in the fight against Islamic Terrorism. They have had one hell of a lot more in the way of domestic attacks than we have.
AntwortenLöschenRussia is not as simple as you might think. I do not rule out that something of that sort is possible. However, just suspicions are not enough to go on.
AntwortenLöschenAlso, what do you mean "we screwed up with Georgia and NATO"? Are you suggesting that Russia should be placated and catered to regarding her imperial drive in the region? I agree with you - the West screwed up - but not in the sense you are suggesting. Opportunistic search for allies should not overpower other, more important considerations of principles.
With Russia (S.U.) it was ALL of Afghanistan.
AntwortenLöschenNow, it's *only* the Taliban, - in theory.
And Al Qaeda - in theory :)
AntwortenLöschenI am suggesting that the differences over NATO could have been handled a lot better. Russia originally wanted to join it. Also Russia gave us permission to establish a number of bases on its boarders to fight terrorism. When they later asked how long they were going to be there, they were told "forever". That is not exactly a trust building exercise, and was probably on their minds with Georgia. That and Georgia really was the aggressor there, probably with our tacit agreement.
AntwortenLöschenSo who do you want running the Muslim republics on Russia's southern border? Putin or Bin Laden? (for the sake of picking two names people are familiar with only).
Ultimately, how one views this conflict between Russia and Georgia is indicative of one's view of international politics - I, for one, do not believe in realpolitik (roughly, Machiavelli-Bismarck-Kissinger tradition) - I think it is a bankrupt way of doing politics and has been the source of many serious problems in the past centuries. "Spheres of influence", "balance of powers" and others such concepts are all morally bankrupt ways, as far as I see it.
AntwortenLöschenNeither do I support OVERLY moralized politics, such as "Axis of Evil" and black-and-white "good vs. evil" framework, a la Reagan and W. Bush. I am a proponent of a balanced position: based on firm principles, yet pragmatic and culturally competent. That kind of politics requires sound leadership and highly sophisticated moral standards - something that is, unfortunately, too difficult to find in most world leaders. Neither ideology, nor cynical realism - both old ways of doing politics - will be able to meet the challenges of the future.
8 US troops killed in fierce Afghan fighting
AntwortenLöschenhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American soldiers were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.
I posted that on my group blog this morning. But check out what Fareed Zackaria has to say:
AntwortenLöschenFareed Zackaria: We must stop exaggerating the Iranian Threat
http://www.newsweek.com/id/216702/page/1
Excellent article. Fareed Zakaria is a brilliant analyst. He describes himself as a realist, I believe, but his realism is mitigated by other considerations, and his analyses always provide food for thought.
AntwortenLöschenSorry to disagree (I so hate disagreeing with anyone) but it wasn't the Russians who got embroiled in Afghanistan but the Soviet Union. Their assistance was requested (under treaty) by an unpopular Marxist government who had attempted social reforms that were simply unacceptable or many, many years before their time. I accept totally that their actual reason for going in was to try to balance what they perceived as a real threat from US influence in neighbouring countries. I also accept that the US was arming the Mujahadeen, again from the same Cold War premise of denying any encroachment by the political enemy. But... the reason it developed into their Vietnam was they tried to turn Kabul into a fortress and rarely ventured forth on the ground. As a result their supply routes were under constant attack and the casualties high. Once the Mujahadeen had infriltrated Kabul the war was lost.
AntwortenLöschenWhat's different this time is there is no idealogical basis for the allied forces being there. Their purpose is, not regime change, it's simply to engage a viable enemy on their ground rather than ours. It would be nice to think that we actually cared about democracy there but again that is an idea before its time.
Just as Chechnya attracted insurgents so are they drawn to Afghanistan and, hopefully that will prove to be their killing fields. We've really only got a simple choice in this matter. Do we wish to live in a society that they would seek to impose on us or one where we can actually say no because we are allowed, whatever the political failures, to have an opinion.
Finally, I don't believe for one moment that Russia is funding any faction in Afghanistan. Possibily Iran and groups withing Pakistan but then you have to question their agenda.
I agree that the idea seems far-fetched. But let me ask you: what makes you so categorical? I'm just curious to hear your reasoning. Thanks.
AntwortenLöschenRussia has lost (I believe) its imperial drive. While they will desparately try to control what remains of the Soviet Union they know the idealogical battle is lost. Obviously it's only my theory (but I'm normally right. lol!) but I sense that many, within government, including Putin himself actually want to come in from the cold. The problem is they want to come in with honour and with their heads held high. They realise that globalism has replaced international politics and they want a seat at that global table. While this may take some time they are acutely aware that both India and China are growing in economic stature with each year that passes and that is where the future could lie for them.
AntwortenLöschenWhile they may still meddle in the politics of developing countries the master plan died with the demise of the Soviet Union. They no longer have the political will to become embroiled in military ventures from which there can be no gain.
They actually want to join the party but are unsure as to how they can move towards it.
I can agree with you on some points. However, I disagree that it has lost its imperial drive - everything points to the contrary. Hence the slightly schizoid character of Russian government and society - they want to join the club, so to speak, but don't know how; at the same time, they are nostalgic for their former power. Those mental structures are deep-seated and are not so easily extinguished. It has nothing to do with ideology - Soviet Union used communist/socialist ideology only as a facade for its totalitarian empire. Today, Russia simply is substituting capitalist ideology, while the imperial structures are still alive.
AntwortenLöschenIn short, I would caution against underestimating the strength of the imperial drive - two decades have not been nearly enough to extinguish it.
Er, anybody but me remember what Russia was before it went communistic? Place has been an empire a long time. For far longer than it was Communistic.
AntwortenLöschenExactly my point.
AntwortenLöschenRussia helped the Northern Alliance materially, and it also had Indian and Iranian help when it, alone, stood against the Taliban. The LAST thing Russia wants is a revival of the Chechen war or other Muslim fundamentalist jihads. A Taliban victory will be bad news for Russia; for Iran, an anti-Taliban Shia state; for China, with its Uighurs as a target population for jihadi indoctrination.
AntwortenLöschenWhat the hell has revenge for the Cold War got to do with that?
Also, the Taliban are concentrated in SOUTH Afghanistan, allegedly the American bailiwick, far, far from Russia. And the US has repeatedly proved itself capable of losing the war on its own without anyone's help. The way it's gone about it, it would've lost the war without the taliban as well, simply by alienating the Afghan puppets till they turned on their puppet-masters.
I don't understand this comment at all. I've been trying to understand how Russia "provoked" Georgia into triggering the war. Russia did not attack Georgia, did not mass troops on its borders, did not post no-fly zones over it, did not prepare a list of demands.
AntwortenLöschenJust about any European nation of the time, apart from Switzerland, was an empire at that time, even if it was a republic like France.
AntwortenLöschenbull's eye...
AntwortenLöschenWhat do you mean Russia did not attack Georgia? Then who did? Santa Claus? And you are wrong - it did pull up its troops to the borders - how do you think it was able to react so quickly and conduct such a Blitzkrieg?
AntwortenLöschenIt simply stargted giving out Russian passports to South Ossetians, to be able to claim later that they are "defending their own citizens." The same tactic has been happening in Crimea - passports have been given out. Ukraine is a tougher nut to crack, so Russia has not tried to invade it yet. Thankfully. But the threat is real, considering the statements Putin has made about Ukraine, etc.
In addition, Russia did not only go into South Ossetia, but also invaded Georgia itself, pillaging and plundering. While claiming that Georgia provoked them by doing ethnic cleansing in South Ossetia - which was a lie - Russia itself conduct cleansings once it invaded.
So, please, try harder to understand. Learn about the history of the region - many people have been warning that this might happen. One book I can think of is Rogers Brubaker's "Nationalism Reframed". It is an academic book about nationalism in the late 20th century, but it has parts where it analyzes the situtation with Russia and the former Soviet "republics", more accurately called colonies. Ever since they gained their long-sought independence, Russia can't make peace with its loss of empire.
What's your point?
AntwortenLöschenProbably that Russia during that period was no different from anybody else. What finally cured empire fever with the rest of the European Nations was WWII - WWI didn't even do it.
AntwortenLöschenNo, I understand that's what is implied. I am asking what the point is - how does that relate to the conversation. The fact taht there were other empires in the world does not have anything to do with this specific case of Russia.
AntwortenLöschenIn addition, the Russian empire was of a somewhat different character than the European ones. It was a multinational inland empire, rather than a nation-state with overseas colonies. That's a major difference.
Hmmm... From the world viewpoint however, the US is considered an empire. There would be reasonable grounds for that. We basically annexed most of Mexico for example. How did we differ from the Russia of that day? Not disagreeing with the rest of what you said, although World War 1 was sort of a Russian Style Empire building exercise, as was World War II.
AntwortenLöschenThe U.S. definitely had its imperial moment in late 19th - early 20th century, exemplified by the war against Spain and annexation of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Philippines, etc. But, from a social-scientific point of view, "empire" has a very specific connotation, and should not be used loosely, otherwise it confounds the issue. Domination is one thing, imperialism another, empire yet another. Briefly, domination is present in all societies, like it or not; imperialism (as well as colonialism) is either a process or an ideology; empire is a concrete entity with social and bureaucratic structures. I'm point all this out, because too often "empire" is used as a metaphor these days, which is misleading and obscures things, in my opinion.
AntwortenLöschenAlso, by pointing out that Russia's imperial history stretches back many centuries, the argument is that imperial mindset is deeply embedded into Russian psyche and the process of squeezing it out is going to be painful and prolonged. Russia has no historical experience with democracy, as opposed to Ukraine, for example. This goes to underscore the importance of not underestimating Russia's imperial drive, which we discussed above.
Okay maybe "raging" was a bad term and Russia is not the old Soviet Union, however Russia IS a major player still. Take the whole Georgia incident as some have elaborated on here. Then there is the whole "Missile Shield" issue...Now while weakened they are still a major threat to blow the earth up as much as we are...
AntwortenLöschenAs far as any "proof" of Russia's involvement, I will just say there were "suspicions" back then about our involvement and as things go with all these "Bankster" (government) enforcement arms, ie the CIA, Mossad, 007 and the like it's more than just a suspicion. Just like our involvement was back in the day.
The third point I was trying to make and missed was the fact that we are talking about articles In the Washington "Pravda" Post, spreading the Bankster's propaganda of "all war all of the time".
Peace!