|

ERIC
WALBERG (IDN)  |
Russia,
NATO and Afghanistan: High stakes Great Game
What
did Medvedev have up his sleeve when he welcomed Obama's new surge in
Afghanistan, wonders Eric Walberg. US
President Barack Obama's now expanding war against the Taliban is
garnering support from liberals and neocons alike, from leaders around
the world, even from Russia. “We are ready to support these efforts,
guarantee the transit of troops, take part in economic projects and
train police and the military,” Russian President Dmitri Medvedev
declared in a recent press conference with Italian Prime Minister
|
Silvio
Berlusconi. Moscow and Washington reached an agreement in July allowing
the US to launch up to 4,500 US flights a year over Russia, opening a
major supply route for American operations in Afghanistan. Previously
Russia had only allowed the US to ship non-lethal military supplies
across its territory by train.
So far, Obama has all European governments behind him, if not their
people. Despite a solid majority in all countries, from Canada to Europe
East and West, who want the
troops out now, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen was able to
deliver pledges from 25 NATO members to send a total of about 7,000
additional forces to Afghanistan next year "with more to come"
with nary a dissenting voice. In a macabre statement, Fogh Rasmussen
welcomed Obama's surge: "The United States' contribution to the
NATO-led mission has always been substantial; it is now even more
important."
Explaining the willingness of Euro leaders to ignore their constituents,
former US ambassador to NATO and RAND adviser Robert Hunter told the
Council of Foreign Relations (CFR): "In terms of motivation, very
few European countries believe that winning in Afghanistan -- that is,
dismantling, defeating, and destroying Al-Qaeda and Taliban -- is
necessary for their own security. A few believe that, but most do not.
When they add forces, it is to protect the credibility of NATO now that
it is there. NATO has never failed at anything it chose to do."
Part and parcel with this, Europeans want to keep the US "as a
European power, not just as an insurance policy but also as the
principal manager of Russia's future." He ghoulishly agreed with
the CFR interviewer that Afghanistan is a way for Europe to "pay
the rent" to the US for continuing to bully Russia.
The combined US and NATO forces will bring together a staggering 150,000 soldiers from more than 50 nations, not to mention the estimated 80,000 mercenaries already there, bringing the total to 230,000. Every
European nation except for Belarus, Cyprus, Malta, Russia and Serbia
will have military forces there, as well as nine of the 15 former Soviet
republics. Marvels analyst Rick Rozoff, "Troops from five
continents, Oceania and the Middle East. Even the putative coalition of
the willing stitched together by the US and Britain after the invasion
of Iraq only consisted of forces from 31 nations." By way of
comparison, in September this year there were 120,000 US troops in Iraq
and only a handful of other nations' personnel. The Soviet Afghan
occupation force in the 1980s peaked at 100,000 shortly before beginning
to pull out in 1989; the British in 1839 had only 21,000 and in 1878 --
42,000.
The world's last three major wars -- Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq --
have all been testing grounds for the new, global NATO. Hence the flurry
of visits by US officials to prospective members to make sure they sign
up for the surge. For instance, Celeste Wallander, US deputy assistant
secretary of defence for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, just returned from
a visit to her new friend Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, to thank
him for coughing up 40 "peacekeepers" who will start training
in Germany in January 2010 before deployment in Afghanistan. As if to up
the ante with its nemesis, Azerbaijan promised to double its 90 troops.
It would be interesting if the two warring nations' troops were to share
barracks. They have far more cause to fight each other than Afghans.
It is hard to imagine this heathen Tower of Babel as an effective force
against devoted Muslims ready to die to repel the invaders. But Fogh
nonetheless chortles, "With the right resources, we can
succeed." Could it be that one of his "resources" is the
"big one"?
What explains Russia's quiescence at Obama's determination to wrest
Central Asia from its traditional sphere of influence? Russian
suspicions about US intentions are very strong on many fronts. Sucking
more than half of the ex-Soviet republics into returning to Afghanistan
-- this time on the US side -- is surely brazen. Continuing to expand
NATO eastward is strongly condemned by all Russians and is not popular
in either Ukraine or Georgia, but continues nonetheless. Russian
intelligence is undoubtedly following US and others' machinations in
Chechnya, which continues to be a serious threat to Russian security.
Hunter's cynical explanation to the CFR of Euro complicity in the Afghan
genocide is not lost on deaf ears.
Yet, Russia dawdles on its assistance to Iran both in nuclear energy and
in providing up-to-date defence missiles, clearly at US prompting. And
now seems to be happy that Obama is expanding what all sensible analysts
insist is a losing and criminal war virtually next door. Is this
evidence of Russian weakness, an acceptance of US plans for Eurasian
hegemony which could imperil the Russian Federation itself?
Russia is still in transition, caught between a longing to be part of
the West and to be a mediator between the Western empire and the rest of
the world. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, represents
this conflict between the "Atlantist" and "Eurasian"
vision of Russia's future, terms which have been popularised by Alexandr
Dugin. In a TV interview with Russia Today, loose-cannon Rogozin argued:
“There is a new civilisation emerging in the Third World that thinks
that the white, northern hemisphere has always oppressed it and must
therefore fall at its feet now. If the northern civilisation wants to
protect itself, it must be united: America, the European Union, and
Russia. If they are not together, they will be defeated one by one.”
But Rogozin is not in favour of Russia merely lying down to be walked
over by NATO. He would like NATO replaced by a Euro-Russian security
treaty. It is no coincidence that just before Obama's announced surge,
Russia unveiled a proposal for just such a new pact, which despite talk
of "from Vancouver to Vladivostok" would essentially exclude
the US and include Russia. It would prevent member states from taking
actions which threaten other members, effectively excluding Ukraine and
Georgia from NATO and preventing Poland and the Czech Republic from
setting up their beloved US missile bases. Rogozin's Atlantist vision
would see NATO defanged, and North America forced to ally with a new,
independent Europe, where Russia is now the dominant power.
NATO, of course, will not go quietly into the night -- unless its latest
venture in Afghanistan fails. So Russia is biting the bullet on this war
-- for the time being. Just in case Obama was too busy with Oslo to
notice, Rogozin warned last week that Russian cooperation over transit
of military supplies to Afghanistan could be jeopardised by a failure to
take the Russian security treaty proposal seriously. In Washington's
worst-case scenario, if its Afghan gamble implodes, not only will it
have to take Russia seriously, but so will Europe, giving the Russian
Atlantists the opportunity to integrate with Europe without the US
breathing down their necks. If by some miracle NATO succeeds in cowing
the Afghans and continues to threaten Russia with encirclement, the
Eurasians will gain the upper hand, and Russia will build up its BRIC
and SCO ties, forced to abandon its dream of joining and leading Europe
as the countervailing power to the US empire.
As this intrigue plays itself out, any number of things could tip the
apple cart. For example, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two quarrelsome
ex-Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan which are vital to Obama's
surge, virtually declared war on each other earlier this month,
potentially complicating the shuttling of US materiel to the front.
Uzbekistan announced its withdrawal from the Central Asian electricity
grid, a move that isolates Tajikistan by making it impossible for the
country to import power from other Central Asian states during the cold
winter months. The Tajiks threaten to retaliate by restricting water
supplies that Uzbekistan desperately need for its cotton sector next
summer.Who knows how this will end? At least they haven't any troops in
Afghanistan, where, like the Azeris and Armenians, they would be sorely
tempted to turn their guns against each other rather than against the
hapless Taliban.
____________
Eric Walberg is a journalist and writer
specialising in the Middle East, Russia and Central Asia, and a
long-time peace activist. He writes for Al-Ahram Weekly in Cairo, Egypt
and welcomes your comments at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/.
|