Tweet
One of the abiding paradoxes of the United States’ war strategy in Afghanistan is that when it comes to the Russian offers of help to salvage the war, Washington looks away. For the past three years or more, Moscow has been beseeching that the Collective Security Treaty Organization [CSTO is willing to help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization pull the latter's chestnuts out of the Taliban fire, but it evoked a studied indifference.
The US and NATO prefer to cherry-pick. So, Northern Distribution Network? Indeed, yes. The NDN provides an alternate northerly route which lessens the NATO's dependency on Pakistan, although it comes at a high price. Again, the US and NATO would even buy helicopters from Russia for the use of the Afghan air force and pay good money for it, too.
But when it comes to CSTO, the stonewalling repeats. Thus, in Brussels last week at the NATO-Russia Council meeting, Moscow proposed once again, and Brussels NATO brusquely disposed. Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, the newly appointed Russian chief of general staff even offered that CSTO can develop a new 'security concept for the region' for NATO, but there were no takers. In fact, the alliance thinks it is doing splendidly well and can do without CSTO's help.
On the sidelines of the meeting in Brussels, the chairman of the US' joint chiefs of staff committee General Martin Dempsey reiterated this to Gerasimov. The Pentagon readout of the Dempsey-Gerasimov exchange noted:
"Dempsey said he also spoke to Gerasimov about the Russian's two years in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "The Russian experience in the country was that they were moving in the right direction, and if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, Afghanistan would have been fine," Dempsey said.
"The chairman [Dempsey] maintains that there is some commonality in the US and Russian approach to Afghanistan, but “I think we learned from their mistakes,” he said. “I told him [Gerasimov] that our results will be more enduring. He disagreed. I told him… history will prove one of us right.”
Is it a mere quarrel over history that the US shuts the door on the CSTO’s face? Certainly not. The US doesn’t want Russia to ‘return’ to Afghanistan. Period. Besides, the US doesn’t want to be party to any enterprise that might help CSTO gain credibility as a regional security organization in Central Asia — and rival NATO’s role.
Third, Washington prefers to deal with the Central Asian states on security issues on a bilateral basis rather than through Moscow and, therefore, anything that even remotely acknowledges Russia’s leadership role in Central Asia as a provider of security or helps Moscow-led integration processes gain traction in the post-Soviet space becomes anathema to the US’ regional policies.
US learnt from Soviet defeat in Afghanistan - Indian Punchline
The US and NATO prefer to cherry-pick. So, Northern Distribution Network? Indeed, yes. The NDN provides an alternate northerly route which lessens the NATO's dependency on Pakistan, although it comes at a high price. Again, the US and NATO would even buy helicopters from Russia for the use of the Afghan air force and pay good money for it, too.
But when it comes to CSTO, the stonewalling repeats. Thus, in Brussels last week at the NATO-Russia Council meeting, Moscow proposed once again, and Brussels NATO brusquely disposed. Colonel-General Valery Gerasimov, the newly appointed Russian chief of general staff even offered that CSTO can develop a new 'security concept for the region' for NATO, but there were no takers. In fact, the alliance thinks it is doing splendidly well and can do without CSTO's help.
On the sidelines of the meeting in Brussels, the chairman of the US' joint chiefs of staff committee General Martin Dempsey reiterated this to Gerasimov. The Pentagon readout of the Dempsey-Gerasimov exchange noted:
"Dempsey said he also spoke to Gerasimov about the Russian's two years in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "The Russian experience in the country was that they were moving in the right direction, and if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed, Afghanistan would have been fine," Dempsey said.
"The chairman [Dempsey] maintains that there is some commonality in the US and Russian approach to Afghanistan, but “I think we learned from their mistakes,” he said. “I told him [Gerasimov] that our results will be more enduring. He disagreed. I told him… history will prove one of us right.”
Is it a mere quarrel over history that the US shuts the door on the CSTO’s face? Certainly not. The US doesn’t want Russia to ‘return’ to Afghanistan. Period. Besides, the US doesn’t want to be party to any enterprise that might help CSTO gain credibility as a regional security organization in Central Asia — and rival NATO’s role.
Third, Washington prefers to deal with the Central Asian states on security issues on a bilateral basis rather than through Moscow and, therefore, anything that even remotely acknowledges Russia’s leadership role in Central Asia as a provider of security or helps Moscow-led integration processes gain traction in the post-Soviet space becomes anathema to the US’ regional policies.
US learnt from Soviet defeat in Afghanistan - Indian Punchline