Russians to Boost Support for NATO in Afghanistan

Although the American media seem painfully unaware of it, reports from Europe suggest that the Russians will expand the support they are providing to NATO in Afghanistan including helicopter support. The official announcement will come at next month's NATO summit in Lisbon. Although Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's permanent representative in NATO, denies Russian troops will head back into Afghanistan, more helicopters and training of Afghan pilots along with more open supply lines are a done deal. It is hard to see this development as anything but good.

From NATO's perspective, the Russians' participation in Afghanistan creates a vital logistical counterweight to Pakistan. While it is inconvenient to ship men and materiel across Russia and various 'Stans into Afghanistan, the supply lines are more secure than those going through Pakistan. Recently, Taliban and related insurgents (perhaps in collaboration with Pakistan's security services) have attacked NATO convoys waiting at checkpoints to cross into Afghanistan. Moreover, Russian helicopters ruled Afghanistan until the CIA and the mujihadeen started using Stinger missiles to bring them down in the 1980s. Air superiority in a mountainous region is the difference between winning and losing.

As for the Russians, they have a vital interest in ensuring that the Afghan government is friendly and ideally stable after NATO departs. Russia has complained to NATO that too much heroin is coming into its southern cities, and a base for Islamic extremism stirs up fears (rightly so) in Russia about Chechen terrorism. So long as no Russian troops get involved in the fighting, this is a good deal for Russia.

However, NATO's relatively weak position means that the issue of Russian occupation of parts of Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) may get swept under the rug. Occupation of a NATO member state's territory by Russia is a genuine problem. However, the Russians argue that Georgia was occupying these non-Georgian places. In the end, one fears that the occupation will stand by default -- a settlement postponed for years.

Stepping back from the trouble in the Caucasus, though, the Afghan agreement between Russia and NATO could well deepen a relationship that this journal has supported for a long time. It is better for NATO to have Russia on its side, warts and all, than it is to have Russia acting as a would-be rival stirring up trouble in Eastern Europe. Russia may be corrupt and it is governed by ex-KGB officers, but it is a 21st century power. That is far preferable to the likes of the Taliban, a 12th century movement. After all, even at their worst, Russian leaders never banned music and kite-flying as the Taliban did.

© Copyright 2010 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.

Kensington Review Home