Why Is Russia Helping Anti-U.S. Insurgents In Afghanistan? By Philip Ewing, National Public Radio
Russia is supporting anti-U.S. insurgents in Afghanistan — and through them, terrorists, top U.S. national security leaders say.
What isn't clear is why.
The top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John Nicholson, stopped short of detailing everything the U.S. knows about the Russian return to Afghanistan in an appearance before a Senate panel last week. But he did confirm some lawmakers' accounts of what U.S. intelligence has established about the relationship.
"If Russia is cozying up to the Taliban — and that's a kind word — if they are giving equipment that we have some evidence that the Taliban is getting ... and other things that we can't mention in this unclassified setting? And the Taliban is also associated with al-Qaida? Therefore Russia indirectly is helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
"Your logic is absolutely sound, sir," Nicholson said.
Terrorist groups use the Afghan Taliban insurgency as a "medium" in which to operate, Nicholson said, as al-Qaida did before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S.
The disclosures about Russia's operations in Afghanistan, which Nicholson said are increasing after they resumed last year, could complicate any effort by President Trump to work more closely with Moscow on fighting terrorism…
The revelation that Russia is covertly supporting U.S. enemies in Afghanistan makes the political case for increasing a counterterrorism partnership that much trickier. And it further expands the global chessboard on which Moscow is playing against the West…
Comments
Bill C,
There is no reversal, there is no trepidation of the spheres or any other tectonic event. The USSR was a politically bankrupt entity from the very beginning and as such it was doomed.
The demise of the USSR was a forgone conclusion long before any Cold War, Afghanistan or the Berlin wall came down. It had very little to do with spooks (on either side) running around handing out fire-sticks, plastic democracy, Coco-Cola or any other trans-formative 'enlightened' entity/ideology you seem to grant so much gravitas to.
You have this flatulent belief in the deluded power of over-bearing vain white men. As a Vietnam vet you should know better.
In my experience fat housewives who are fed up with all the bullshit you gift so much importance to - in meaningless wars that kill their children - will determine how it ends.
RC
From our article above:
BEGIN QUOTE
"If Russia is cozying up to the Taliban — and that's a kind word — if they are giving equipment that we have some evidence that the Taliban is getting ... and other things that we can't mention in this unclassified setting? And the Taliban is also associated with al-Qaida? Therefore Russia indirectly is helping al-Qaida in Afghanistan," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
"Your logic is absolutely sound, sir," GEN John Nicholson said. ...
The upshot of it all, however, is that Russia and the United States have effectively switched roles in Afghanistan: In the 1980s, American CIA officers supplied weapons to anti-government rebels who were fighting the then-Soviet backed government and the Soviet troops supporting it. Today, 15 years after the American invasion, Russia has begun helping the Taliban against a weak American-backed government still supported by NATO troops and air power.
END QUOTE
Close -- but no cigar.
It is not so much that Russia and the United States, re: the Old Cold War of yesterday, have effectively switched roles in Afghanistan ONLY that should concern us today.
Rather, it is that Russia and the United States, re: our New/Reverse Cold War of today, HAVE EFFECTIVELY SWITCHED ROLES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE WORLD. THIS is what should concern us currently.
In this regard Russia, in this New/Reverse Cold War, effectively playing the "containment" and "roll back" strategy cards to the U.S./the West's "expansionist" and "universalist" strategic initiatives today. This, much as the U.S./the West, in the Old Cold War of yesterday, effectively did the same re: Soviet/communists similar "expansionist"/"universalist" strategic objectives back-in-the-day?
Herein Russia -- in "containment" and "roll back" mode in the New/Reverse Cold war of today (much as the U.S./the West was in the Old Cold War of yesterday) -- logically (a) allying themselves with the "conservative" elements of world's various populations and (b) declaring themselves, to the whole world, to be the "champions" and the "guardians" of traditional values, traditional institutions, etc.?
I have introduced and explained this, seemingly obvious, New/Reverse Cold War phenomenon many, many times in the past. But my such explanation seemed to have fallen on deaf ears back then.
Maybe now, with the information provided to us by this article above, my such explanation -- of the current "conflict environment" -- might find a more agreeable audience and, thus, better "purchase?"
(Note: Such entities as China, Iran, Turkey, AQ, ISIS, etc., all appearing to join with Russia on this "containment"/"roll back"--"conservative elements"/"traditional values" strategic bandwagon -- thereby, effectively countering/containing/rolling back U.S./Western "expansionist"/"universalist" ambitions, activities and ideas today?)
The title question above is: "Why is Russia helping anti-U.S. insurgents in Afghanistan?"
To answer this question, let us look (a) to the Old Cold War of yesterday, (b) to Soviet/communist "expansionist" incursions into America's sphere of influence (for example, into Latin America) back then, and (c) to why the U.S. (then in "containment" and "roll back" mode) would help anti-Soviet/communist insurgents in these (and other?) regions.
BEGIN QUOTE
The purpose of all this? Defending America from hostile foreign interference — the Monroe Doctrine. But it was also a “forward strategy for freedom,” as Secretary of State George Shultz called it, which above all served to demonstrate that America had revitalized its will to oppose the Soviet Union in the Cold War. ...
Employed as part of a broader strategy, what hybrid warfare did was allow the United States to carry out open-ended competition and signal certain confidence that the value of protecting the U.S. sphere of interest was greater than any opponent’s interest in upsetting it. After all, it would have served little purpose to test the escalation dominance the United States enjoyed in the hemisphere, say by threatening direct action against Cuba or rattling nuclear sabers. Instead, the method was a low-fear, low-cost, economy-of-force way to manage superpower confrontation that remained well below the threshold that might have provoked a more energetic response.
END QUOTE
https://warontherocks.com/2015/04/america-did-hybrid-warfare-too/
Thus, in the New/Reverse Cold War of today (the U.S./the West now doing "expansion;" Russia, et al., now doing "containment" and "roll back"), to understand "Why is Russia helping anti-U.S. insurgents in Afghanistan" (and elsewhere?) in this exact same light, to wit:
a. As defending Russia from hostile foreign interference.
b. To demonstrate that Russia has revitalized its will to oppose the United States in this New/Reverse Cold War. And
c. To carry out an open-ended competition and to signal a certain confidence that the value of protection the Russian sphere of interest/former sphere of interest is greater than any opponent's interest in upsetting it.
What say you?
Does the above explanation (see my "a" - "c" above) "answer the mail?"