I agree with Antonov--it is a deliberate campaign which is decades old and will only accelerate. Ironically, it is also the reason why the US cannot win a war since 1950 due to "lessons" learned from something which actually... didn't happen. If one wants to draw "lessons" from Patton's campaign in Lorraine against 10 operational Wehrmacht tanks and whole regiments composed of cooks, deaf Germans and soldiers with stomach ulcers--sure. But that is what Washington wants to continue to do and, eventually, it will "win" wars in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somali et al. It is as simple as that. I am sure US Army annihilating three Axis army groups around Chicago in 1943 will be emblazoned in golden letters in the history of warfare. But, sarcasm aside, reducing oneself to a Stolen Valor MO (BTW, criminal offense) is yet another sign of disintegrating society. I also want to STRESS this point--this in no way belittles heroism and sacrifice of Western Allies' soldiers and sailors who did their duty with honor. But numbers also do not lie.
Putin also publicly, in fact--brutally, rebuked Lukashenko after he started speculating about "negotiations". As per radar in Armavir--120 hours passed by, any new "photos", and I mean real ones, not photoshopped? I am still waiting. I am just saying (not one way or another)--it is so easy to make photo from within the flat circle with the radius of 20 kilometers: 3.14 x 20^2 = 3.14 x 400 = 1, 256 square kilometers.
But the report is interesting. Russia will help, if not already, with restoring Mi-17s helis which Pentagon was buying for Afghan government before it fell. There is also very little what Russia or China can find interesting in what was left by US forces, but the truth is--Russia is interested in stabilizing Afghanistan before even considering recognizing Taliban. Russians naturally have questions to them regarding treatment of women. Russia still provides humanitarian aid anyway though.
The region is extremely complex and screwed up, but it is a process.
When, two days ago, I was writing my post on obvious failure of the combined West in Afghanistan I stressed the point of this war having a serious religious, that is civilizational, aspect which people in D.C. and Europe are incapable of grasping. I also wrote a number of times about Noblesse Oblige between superpowers, which, in effect, should keep interactions, including a conflict, within superpowerdom elite "framework", because delegating own victories to proxies is a very bad business when Islam is involved. Well, Irina Alksnis expanded on this idea in today's piece in Ria.
Translation:Of course, understanding who comes to the place of the Americans and the dire consequences that are associated with this plays a role here. Despite the promise of the Taliban not to repress those who served the previous government, and their statement to soften the position on the place of women in society, there is no doubt that Afghanistan will face reprisals and executions. And the fate of Afghan women is still not to be envied.
The archaic defeated modern civilization - and no matter how you relate to the West, it is impossible to rejoice at this fact.
However, the point is not only in the harsh and bloody Afghan realities and not in sympathy for the citizens of the unfortunate country returning to the remote Middle Ages.
Sunday's events were also so overwhelming because they gave the world a very clear idea of what the ultimate collapse of US global hegemony could be - and is likely to be.
As I stated not for once, the United States was to a large degree an accidental superpower. Superpower by default, which never understood a complex relation between domestic and foreign policies, nor, overwhelmingly, developed any coherent view on military power and its application. Today it all came to a head. I am not talking about the defeat of the combined West--that it was in a precipitous decline was clear since mid-2000s. I am talking about the West and its leader the United States being incapable to maintain a civilization as, in the words of late Huntington (he quotes also somebody else), "a culture writ large". While today's headlines are filled with this:
The world took notice and the United States handed the victory to Islamic fanatics and thus emboldened them, the same way the United States fanned the flames of Political Islam in 1980s and helped to form the force which is radically anti-civilizational in its essence. This IS the main failure of the combined West and it will be, yet again, up to someone else to clean this fucking mess after the US, whose political and military "elites" not only did not learn shit from anything but are incapable of learning. In that, when combined with a myriad of other economic, scientific, cultural and moral failures, modern West, headed by the United States, declared itself a failure. Events in Kabul today demonstrate perfectly and are the epitome of the modern West. I write about this for many years, but I am not enjoying my "I told you so" moment. Neither does Irina Alksnis.
Against this background of yet another America's lost war, this news should be taken into account:
There are no uncertainties here, I may add, combined West failed as a civilization and is spiraling into the military and, by definition, geopolitical second league if not irrelevance with an astonishing speed. Unlike with post-Vietnam syndrome, however, US loss in Afghanistan is not to capable and supported by other superpower fairly advanced Vietnamese military and Vietnamese people, the United States lost to a primitive force driven by the most retrograde ideology which stands against everything most of the world recognizes as essential for its existence. Meanwhile American idiots, a euphemism for US "journos" and media still discuss percentages and a political psychobabble which in the US, for some reason, is called "strategy".
Morons, in order to make a brothel profitable, try to change not beds, but whores. See what happens. But don't hold your breath, and those who feel like it--mark today's date as the official end of US self-proclaimed hegemony. We will discuss consequences of this clusterfuck later. I am not celebrating because I know what is coming.
Pepe Escobar wrote an outstanding piece on Afghanistan and he has the expertise to do so because Pepe spent a lofty amount of time in the region and knows it extremely well. Unsurprisingly, Pepe titles his excellent insight like this:
Translation:Doha, 8 July--RIA Novosti. The delegation of the political office of a radical movement Taliban has arrived to Moscow for negotiations, stated the official representative of the movement Sukheil Shahin, whose leadership resides in Qatar. "The visit will last for two day", stated Shahin who himself is a part of a delegation.
Only real power with enough military wherewithal has real... well power and weight which allows them to broker anything: peace, war, armistice, what have you. Taliban knows that and they talk to Russia. Recall, it matters how you leave. The USSR left Afghanistan in 1989 not only undefeated but left the country which was functional. Many Afghans even today recall those Shuravi who were building schools, hospitals and infrastructure. This is well documented. Late Ahmad Shah Massoud himself is on record that if they would know what would happen to the country after USSR leaving and the collapse of Najibullah government, they wouldn't have resisted. Well, hindsight is a 20/20 vision. Per Taliban's visit--there are many other groups in Afghanistan, including transported by the US from Syria remnants of ISIS and associated Al Qaeda structures which do have an expansionist agenda and will try to continue to destabilize not only Afghanistan but its surroundings. I am sure, this is on the agenda in Moscow in negotiations with Taliban.
In related news, Russia marks today the Day of Air Defense--the only air defense in the world with unrivaled capabilities and a cutting edge technologies. Some of those technologies are beyond the reach of the combined West and will remain such for a long-long time. Speaking on this occasion to Red Star (in Russian), the Superintendent of this branch Major-General Babakov confirmed that S-500 has passed combat missile launches tests and, as he stressed, there are no analogues to this system. Yes, once you consider that a single S-500 in Kaliningrad can shoot down E-3 Sentry over Berlin, not to speak about Poland, you get the idea. Now consider also the fact that naval version of S-500 is being worked on as I type this, make you own conclusions. Russia's lead in AD and ABM complexes today is so colossal, that it does completely change a whole strategic balance calculus. I am writing the article on this now. Especially when taking into account anti-hypersonic capabilities of S-500, S-400 and other latest systems.
For the United States it creates a strategic ambiguity initially and then, if one considers the way US top brass thinks, or, rather, don't, a real gap which cannot be closed. But I am on record since 2017 that the United States lost the arms race and I do not state it lightly or in vain. That is why The National Interest tabloid dedicated the article to memoirs of once negotiator on START:
Her experiences are as relevant to real revolution in military affairs as are my experiences with driving my car to flying a commercial jet airliner. Nice try though. But look at this bird:
Serial MC-21s are already on assembly lines and "hot" heart for PD-8 was recently successfully tested and that means SSJ-100s become russified soon.God, Russia is disintegrating especially dramatically today, wink, wink.
UPDATE: completely forgot. Russia's MoD released a short film to mark Air Defense Day and it shows different generations of AD from 1960s to today and what those guys do. Really nice.
It was like watching a runaway train diving into the abyss from the track which abruptly ends over the precipice in slow motion. It was clear already around 2007-08 that the United States was on its way to lose yet another war.
Who would have thought that it will turn out this way, right? I am being facetious, of course. Anyone with IQ above room temperature knew already then that a major clusterfuck was emerging in Afghanistan. It matters, also, how you leave, in what manner. Russia's 201 Military Base in Tajikistan is a serious military formation, which can call on whatever reinforcements it may need and I am sure Tajikistan will have little objections. In 2017 Russia already transferred to Tajik Army a substantial number of modern equipment.
And the very presence of a powerful Russian military formation is in itself a substantial morale-boosting factor for Tajikistan. Such as Russian gunnery exercises yesterday.
We may, of course, debate until hell freezes over, how bad is the situation for the United States which effectively run from Afghanistan which collapses as I type it and Kabul's regime is counting last weeks, most likely, until it falls. Some people, like former Senator Ron Paul call it a new Saigon.
Maybe. It was the only modern American war I personally supported, until 2003 when it became clear that it was not about fighting Islamic terrorism, the United States so enthusiastically helped to grow into a global movement in 1970s and 80s. Well, you all know the circumstances. Until Afghanistan is broken into ethnic enclaves and majority of Pushtu are separated from others, which implies partition of that country, things will continue to deteriorate there. So, here we are, $2 trillion and thousands upon thousands of lives later, Afghanistan is to become a playground for the most radical forms of insanity. I am sure there will be, later, yet another iterations of "Dereliction of Duty 2.0, 3.0 and 4.0" written by some disgruntled American officer who would continue to believe that the war in Afghanistan, as well as in Vietnam and Iraq, "could have been won", if only America would... stop being America and become something completely different in terms of how it fights wars and conducts her foreign policy. Sure, and I could fly if I would have been a Superman.
The damage to the America's always PR-polished and exaggerated reputation is gigantic and we may yet fully grasp ramifications of this hasty (yes, let's call it that) "retreat" from Afghanistan. Obviously, the school of thought that the United States wanted to set Afghanistan on fire to lure Russia into it, is wrong on many levels when states this because Russia is not Soviet Union and she is not getting back to Afghanistan, to start with. Today Russia has proxies--Tajiks, Uzbeks etc. Those peoples and their, however corrupt, governments do not want to be run by Taliban. So, let them fight if it comes down to it. But, I think, purely militarily Russia is in a good position to provide required assistance without getting involved by serious formations or serious expenditure of own resources. They already run to Moscow. Hm, and I thought they didn't like Russians, wink, wink. Look how Emomali Rahmon loves Putin and recalls Soviet past and common Victory over Nazism on May 8th this year.
Of course, Vladimir Vladimirovich offered help to Tajikistan. But Russia of 2021 and Russia of 2001 are two completely different countries and Russians developed now a good practice of "what's in it for me?" Many former Soviet republics suddenly found themselves in an uncharted territory of begging Russia for whatever they want or need. Hey, nothing personal, just business. After all, it is capitalism and market geopolitics. They don't like Russia's conditions they can go and ask the United States for...ah, wait, yes. So, you get the idea. Actually, same goes for Belarus or anyone else from the former USSR.
In other news, the Russian Navy Day is coming (the last weekend of July) and, what a show it will be--not only project 971 SSNs Vepr and modernized pr. 949AM Orel (with its monstrous salvo of 72 P-800 Oniks) will be in line for the main naval parade in Kronstadt--but, as TASS reports (in Russian), pr. 955A (Borey-A) SSBN Prince Vladimir will also be presented. That is a treat.
All three subs are now sailing from the North into the Baltic Sea. Expect some awesome videos from Denmark. Fuck COVID-19, I could have been in St. Petersburg and Kronstadt this July getting drunk with my friends and classmates and taking some photos, or, rather, the other way around--taking photos and then getting drunk, if you know what I mean. But...
3M22 Zircon: M=9+, range of 1000+ kilometers, AI driven, once several tons of it hit the target--it is over for the target. Now, alternative: rail gun M=7 for a "whole" 23-pound projectile with an "astonishing" range of a whole around 160 kilometers. But, but it is so cool, the iPhone, the Tesla, of naval weapons. Boy, talk about technology mismatch. Talk about a mindless pursuit of "woke" technological and operational BS. Ah, wait...
I recall how few years ago, when I would state that this whole rail gun thingy was nothing more than a crock'o'shit which would have zero combat value, many "experts" would laugh at me. Indeed, what do I know. Four years ago I warned:
Ah, good ol' me, ever so pessimistic and doubtful about this whole Pentagon's war-fighting thingy. Indeed, who am I compared to some political "scientist" from some Ivy League prestigious school who saw so many pictures of weapons and was taught history in which the United States won all of its wars starting from Peloponnesian, Punic and Napoleonic wars. Of course, at this stage one has to ask a very simple question and a painful one: how far the United States lags behind Russia (and China) in hypersonic and laser weapons. Honest answer in terms of hypersonic ones, genuine hypersonic weapons capable of receiving targeting, flying, including within atmosphere, being controlled, locking on target and hitting it--as I say non-stop, at least a generation. I am not sure about lasers, though, and we all know the real, unimpressive, putting it politely, state of the American air and anti-missile defenses. Here, the lag is not one but several generations. As Pink Floyd sang:
And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun
The United States missed the starting gun on Revolution in Military Affair in 1990 when it convinced itself, against the overwhelming empirical evidence, that is can fight a peer (or near peer) and win. It can't and that is why America is so dangerous today--she is always at the precipice of a historic miscalculation which will see her military's destruction thus triggering the only response the United States has as an option--nuclear.
Why tragic, you say? Because against better advice and help from friends and even "foes" alike (Russia aided the United States mightily in Afghanistan), the United States accomplished nothing there and it is up to someone else to clean this mess up and deal with a triumphant Taliban. Guess from three times who will be cleaning this goddamn mess, while the United States runs and there are huge issues with...
For now, Turkey wants the job in Afghanistan. Let them, Erdogan still thinks in terms of the Great Turan forgetting, of course, that it is the 21st century and Turkey simply has no resources to accomplish things of this scale and nature. Of course, he should remember that neighboring Iran and Pakistan have their own designs in Afghanistan, so it will be fascinating to observe events unfold in that locality.
It took the alcoholic and degenerate Yeltsin and his cabal of "reformers" to shut down any help to Najibullah's government. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had what we have today in Afghanistan, we might not have had a tragedy of 911. But the United States runs and utterly corrupt regime in Kabul starts counting its last months, probably weeks. We will, I have to sadly admit this, witness a tragedy of many people in Afghanistan again, those who believed at some point that some positive change was possible in that cursed land. Boy, they were wrong. As de Saint-Exupéry once prophetically uttered: "You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." Many people in Afghanistan will learn now that the United States doesn't have responsibilities and is non-agreement capable. But hey, "let's declare a victory and leave" principle is as American as baseball and apple pie.
But I always recall those Afghan girls who started playing women's soccer--a crime in the eyes of Taliban. What will happen to them? Remember, we are responsible for those we have tamed. Now, watch Russia, her actions.
I stated many times that the so called American "journalism" is a joke and US MSM are basically staffed with human compost who pretend that they do God's work. Enter another "leak" (of a diarrhea variety) from the US "intelligence" and, of course, NYT.
Some gullible morons already started calling Russia's embassy with threats. What is remarkable in this whole piece is its sterility in terms of any substantive information or sources. Again, it is NYT--a tabloid at the service of globalists in DNC. As per US "intelligence"--they know they suck and they know that US lost the war in Afghanistan DESPITE support from Russia. Judging by "successes" of US "intelligence" in preventing 9/11, Tzarnaev brothers and, especially, still being busy trying to find Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction, and having this "intelligence" in cahoots with terrorists in Syria, as well as being initiators of Russiagate, it is no surprise then that it has found a new pile of BS it can throw at the fan, thus trying to damage Trump and whatever is left of Russian-American relations.
This is a pattern of sore losers who cannot even come up with a decent enough false flag operation which is believable for people with IQ higher than room temperature. The spiraling of America out of control continues. Meanwhile, there could be some arrangement announced in Afghanistan and it will be Russia who will have to deal with a bloody mess US left there. WaPo, uncharacteristically for itself, called those, now famous, reports of the US war in Afghanistan At War With The Truth. This is exactly the case with NYT excrement. Another one is in progress as I type it. Why now? Explanation is simple: while some polls show that Uncle Joe Biden leads Trump, and we all know how reliable those polls are, it becomes increasingly clear that the "cultural revolution" unleashed by DNC, MSM and financial oligarchy, begins to slowly but spectacularly blow back. It also demonstrated the degree of degeneracy of American political system, which is weak and dysfunctional, and of its political class, headed by Democrats who, always being incompetent, proved themselves also to be utterly insane.
They definitely feel the tug of a whirlpool of events, some may have arrived already to a conclusion that the US is done, and because of that they try desperately to switch public's attention away from serious economic and political issues, to some media circus run by people who do not even understand that for many of them it will not be a desired political outcome of Trump's defeat but of disintegration of the country with all what comes with this territory, including settling accounts. But then again, expecting any understanding of the consequences from US media or, for that matter, "intelligence" is a fool's errand. But I am on record with that for years. Intellectual collapse is almost complete and with it the collapse and disintegration of the country seems increasingly probable.
Indeed, how could this be (/s) that Iran which knows what real war is doesn't want a war? We all know that Pompeo is good at telling fairy tales, especially to the benefit of his Old Testament buddies from Israel, but actual report by three Inspectors General from DoD, Department of State and USAID, could be found on line and it has a funny name of:
I may never grasp the significance of the usage (in reality shameless abuse) of the term "freedom" when naming military operations which are designed to kill on a massive scale, but it is just me and after Freedom Fries, I don't think I have a strong case. But here is the phrase which should be paid attention to:
According to the DoS, the United States and Russia released a joint statement welcoming the signing of the U.S.-Taliban agreement as an important step to end the war in Afghanistan.Russia also offered to discuss sending military assistance to a future interim government. China maintained contact with the Taliban and the Afghan government throughout the peace process, and stood by its offer to mediate between the two sides, according to press reporting.
What is highlighted in yellow is highly significant and reflects not only Russia's concern, understandable, with the matter at hand, namely Talibanization of Afghanistan, and Taliban is officially declared in Russia a terrorist organization, but it also has a lot to do with... ISIS. Russia believes (not without justification) that the United States is supporting ISIS through a number of her proxies in Syria and transported, on a number of occasions throughout the years, some big ISIS honchos to Afghanistan away from Russia's smart munitions and SSOs in Syria. This is a serious matter, knowing America's history with being in cahoots with the most despicable elements among jihadists, not least with those "moral equivalents of America's founding fathers" in Afghanistan which was destabilized (what's new) under the supervision of late Zbig in 1970s. Same pattern is repeated in Syria, plus knowing that there is a lot of butt-hurt and many sore losers among US "elites", destabilizing Eurasian subcontinent, not far from Russia and China, seems like a logical conclusion for them. If it takes most vicious terrorists, why not?
Russia once, in 2000, provided a serious military assistance to Northern Alliance, so, for Russia it is only natural to help out to whatever least bat shit crazy interim government may emerge in Afghanistan (hope dies last, you know), because, unlike with the United States, the principle of "better to fight them there, than here" applies fully. Such is the fate of continental powers which have a world view different from such power, a world island, as the United States. So, expect a flow of weapons and advisers once ISIS will raise its ugly head in Afghanistan and everything points out to this development, despite all those upbeat points about ANDSF which WILL disintegrate the moment the United States leaves Afghanistan. In other words, there is a lot of excrement ready to hit the fan in Afghanistan and around, plus, who can forget a required massive effort domestically in turning humiliating defeat into some sort of a "victory" for America against those, you know, bearded dudes in sandals with old Kalashnikovs and RPGs roaming Hindu-Kush mountains. Boy, are we in for a show, granted the whole damn thing doesn't collapse completely, which is probable, and the US will need to simply leave, deal or no deal.
There are some secret addenda to this deal, which include arrangements for some "anti-terrorist forces" to remain and, not least, some hefty declarations such as "requirement" for Taliban to denounce terrorism and extremism. Sure, make bees hate honey, this is so easy, after all. I don't know, this whole things reeks of Paris Peace Accords. Truth is, we knew it was coming. Only completely delusional people believed that some kind of "victory" can be attained in Afghanistan. A face saving arrangement is desperately needed for the United States, but the US leaving Afghanistan will not be the end of it, it will be the start of what Russians (General Gromov and Dmitri Rogozin) warned about in 2010.
That was exactly 10 years ago. As experience has shown, not only Talibanization was not prevented, but Taliban gained legitimacy and will enjoy now a status of a force which defeated the Great Satan of America. Russians knew already then, that nothing good was coming out of this US (and NATO) war:
That is the Russian position. We are ready to help NATO implement its
U.N. Security Council mandate in Afghanistan. We are utterly
dissatisfied with the mood of capitulation at NATO headquarters, be it
under the cover of “humanistic pacifism” or pragmatism. We insist that NATO troops stay in the country until the necessary
conditions are provided to establish stable local authorities capable of
independently deterring radical forces and controlling the country.
That is why we are helping NATO by providing transit for goods and
training personnel for Afghanistan, including anti-narcotics officers.
I am also not sure that NATO really studied Soviet war in Afghanistan, certainly not on a purely political level, and no one in their own mind believes that Ashraf Ghani's government in Kabul will last longer than Taliban will allow it to exist. The jury is already in on this issue, especially after Washington Post releasing a trove of documents on 20 year long insanity that the War in Afghanistan has become for the United States. As one observer noted:
This is a familiar pattern, which repeats itself time after time in the United States which refuses to face a reality until it is too late and nothing could be done about it. Obviously there is plenty of a denial to go around, especially among US military:
I am ready to give the guys the benefit of a doubt, after all, these were they, not me, who did tours in Afghanistan but "continuing to move forward" doesn't sound to me asa viable strategy or operational concept in a country in which in 20 years the United States controls only few very limited areas. Even British BS corporation couldn't deny facts on the ground:
If this is how the moving forward is defined, then it looks like it is Taliban which is moving forward, not the US military. It is clear that Vietnam moment has come and that after 20 years the United States has nothing to show for blood and treasure spent in this war-torn country. In the end, Afghanistan also factors in the US election cycle and Trump cannot afford being called out for his failure to deliver on his 2016 campaign promise to end America's wars. Afghanistan, though, is the easiest (relatively) war to end since Afghanistan is not high on Israeli Lobby's agenda and American public is tired and is ready for this withdrawal.
In a bizarre twist of historic fate and with a great deal of a dark historic irony, it was Soviet aid to Vietnam which played a crucial role in US loss there. It was also Vietnam War which influenced one Polish pseudo-"scholar" afflicted by a fanatic Russophobia to help destabilize Afghanistan in 1970s, which started this deadly, spanning 4 decades, spiral of violence. It is, indeed, darkly ironic that the United States faces her Vietnam Moment in the land in which it helped to create all conditions for gestation of the most extreme Islamic fanaticism, which, in the end, resulted in a tragedy of 9/11 and de facto defeat of the United States. It will be left to Russians and Middle Asian former Soviet States to eventually, at least, contain the utter mess the US leaves in Afghanistan. Hopefully, this time the United States will abstain from arming fanatic jihadists. US had the chance to fix it, it blew it. What's left to do today is to declare a victory and leave. Because, quoting Ronald Reagan from 1982:
I finished latest book, The Great Delusion, by John Mearsheimer recently. I will review it later, it is not that important to do it now, I have to say, that while being sympathetic to the so called Realism in general, and some points Mearsheimer makes in this his treatise, it seems that he himself still resides in a delusion. Mearsheimer repeats, with conviction, some beaten to death cliches of American exceptionalism, such as the myth of "liberalism defeating Fascism",
Liberalism "defeating" Fascism
or stressing Soviet Union's "humiliating defeat in Afghanistan". Unlike Mearsheimer, who has very little knowledge of Russia, Colonel Lester Grau long ago addressed this issue. Unlike Merasheimer, who, despite his USMA West Point background, is a political "scientist", Grau is an authority on Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. I will repeat his conclusions yet again:
In what can only be described as an empirical middle finger to Mearsheimer's assertion about "humiliating defeat" (and I get it where he comes from in his assertion, but about this later), we get today these news. You don't need to read Russian, just go directly to CNN video embedded in article (which is a transcript of the video) and listen.
Defeated, especially "humiliatingly", nations do not host in their capitals meetings of parties involved in the war in which the host supposedly was defeated. Obviously, even after this "humiliating defeat", Russia continued to exert an immense influence on Afghanistan both indirectly and directly, including, of course, arming Northern Alliance. "Humiliatingly defeated" nations do not behave like that. I will omit here the whole issue of Taliban being officially declared (in 2003) in Russia a terrorist organization, but times and things change. As in Syria, where Russia was forced to clean a mess created by NATO (US), Russia will have to make arrangements in Afghanistan. After all, we know by now how ISIS was defeated in Syria.
The United States has been in Afghanistan for 17 years--with zero results to show for it while redefining military common sense (and science) in terms of victory being "just staying there", and, of course, having a good PR machine, which can spin a defeat into victory. This is not how Russia works and that is what parties in Afghanistan know. The prime task is to prevent ISIS from reconstituting itself as a major player in Afghanistan. If it takes Taliban to help deal with this scourge--so be it, let's talk. In the end, the fate of a huge region is at stake, including Russia's "soft underbelly". And here we come to this "realism" thing; while I still would recommend a book by Mearsheimer to be read, it is really about time that many (not all) American "realists" followed Mearsheimer's advise and stopped living in delusion, no, not the liberal one, a "realist" one, and finally face geopolitical reality of a tectonic shift in power balance in the world in which real realism, capable to operate with tangibles, not simulacra, triumphed. In the end, one has to operate with reliable data, not propaganda cliches. Victory in war is defined by attaining war's political objectives. We know how that goes for the US lately.
The main question, however, remains--what is this "support", what goes into it, how does this "support" manifest itself? What does "some level" stand for, what is definition of this level? Russians lecturing Taliban on Theory Of Operational Research and getting those Afghan dudes into the neck of the woods of Osipov-Lanchester Differential Equations or Salvo Model? Or maybe consulting them on Net Centric Warfare? Providing "intelligence", maybe? Considering what passes for "intelligence" today in US, one may assume that giving local civilians a weather forecast for a week may be considered an "intelligence". Who knows what is the semantics of this newspeak and, boy, are we entering this territory fast, the next stop--a thought-crime. But at least it is good that someone of some standing admitted that they've not "seen any physical evidence", for Orwellian reality it will suffice.
At a news conference with Defense Secretary Jim Mattis at his side, Gen.
John Nicholson, the American commander in Afghanistan, wouldn't provide
specifics about Russia's role in Afghanistan. But said he would "not
refute" that Moscow's involvement includes giving weapons to the
Taliban.
I already wrote about this nonsense here. But Mattis response was pure gold:
"We'll engage with Russia diplomatically," Mattis said. "We'll do so
where we can, but we're going to have to confront Russia where what
they're doing is contrary to international law or denying the
sovereignty of other countries."
It all begins to look and sound like bad joke or... a descent into a complete madness. But if one to follow the logic (or lack thereof) of this whole panopticon one may recall what General Gromov and Dmitry Rogozin wanted from US in 2010:
I have some news for Mattis: US lost the war in Afghanistan (but he knows it, he is a smart man) and the US will not do anything anymore other than provide some support for current Kabul government on the battlefield which increasingly begins to be dominated by Taliban. The task of stabilizing the region will fall largely to Russia and Russia doesn't give a crap about "human rights" and "democracy" in Afghanistan. Not any more. If it will take a grim dictator and fundamentalist to tame Afghan violence and drugs--so be it. But if Russia would have really supplied Taliban with weapons I can guarantee that the "evidence" (same level of "reliability" as evidence of Russia tampering with US elections) would have been presented long ago and the operational situation in Afghanistan would have been much much worse than it is today. Nothing lasts forever and we observe today how US global military-political power fades--it is an objective process and the only things which can be done about it is to:
1. Arrest it or slow it down; 2. Provide for more or less "soft" landing, which means avoiding global conflict. United States is faced with the necessity to leave Afghanistan now, US resources turned out to be finite--a 20 trillion dollar debt is a dramatic testament to this. Trump Administration already now is faced with hugely difficult choices which it has to make in order to avoid a global conflict and with it the end of the United States. After the tragedy of 9/11 the United States received an unprecedented political capital and mandate, she also received an enormous sympathy and support. She squandered this capital and now has to live with the consequences. In the end, it was not Russian idea to arm mujaheddin and let the genie out of the bottle. One reaps what he sows.
"Freedom-fighters"
P.S. Taliban is identified in Russia's law as a "terrorist organization". The only contacts Russia has with Taliban are related either to the terms of surrender (changing sides) or to warnings about not doing completely stupid things.
OK, let's speak in broadsides, especially since I am not going to say anything what most of us don't know already: US (and NATO) lost the war in Afghanistan. Not a single political objective was attained there and the country (Afghanistan) remains what it was for the last 37 years--a war zone. Enter NATO's Supreme Allied Commander General Scaparrotti with yet another, completely loony, allegations that Russia is "supplying" Taliban. The immediate question is: supplying with what? Obviously, NATO's big honcho ended up not receiving the memo that Taliban is considered a terrorist organization in Russia and, unlike the United States, Russia has a superb record in fighting terrorism not playing with it. But the key to this stupefying lie is, probably, in this phrase:
In a statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, Scaparrotti said Moscow was "perhaps" supplying the Taliban. In
February General John Nicholson, the US commander of NATO forces in
Afghanistan, testified that Russia is encouraging the Taliban and
providing them with diplomatic cover in a bid to undermine US influence
and defeat NATO.
By now, anything coming from the top echelons of power in US and NATO, especially with such clarifications as "perhaps", "possibly" or "likely", regarding Russia should be treated only as a case of total paranoia which makes McCarthyism tamed in comparison. But I have to return to the same question: supplying with what? What is "encouraging", what does it describe, how is Russia "encouraging" Taliban? To do what?
Don't expect an answer. like a Russian "Hacking", or Russians' finally disposing, in a most brutal manner, of Bambi and Minnie Mouse, there is none. US and NATO have been defeated in Afghanistan already and it will fall to Russia, who anticipated the loss of a "coalition" there as early as 2012, when discussing this scenario, to defend her own borders and clean up the mess which NATO (US) left in Afghanistan. Obviously Scaparrotti forgets how Russia helped "coalition" to fight this very Taliban. But really, who needs to remember this--US and NATO are so wonderful and great that anyone who provided a strategic help to them has to feel privileged to do so and keep their mouth shut. I think Scaparrotti and others need to take a really good course in this area's history and learn how, first, Tsarist Russia, then Bolsheviks, then Soviet Union and now modern Russia fought and continue to fight this scourge (greatly facilitated by the US) for centuries. When Commander of the Soviet 40th Army speaks openly in NYT that:
He means it and, then again, Russia does not negotiate with terrorists but she, when needed, will contact them--to convey a message or else... But there is one very important message in all this little "presentation" by Scaparrotti to the Senate Armed Services Committee--inability to deal with reality together with a very short memory. But we knew this all along, didn't we?
P.S. Per Russian influence growing in Afghanistan, hell, USSR has built half of Afghanistan's infrastructure, from hydroelectric dams to Kabul's Polytechnic University.
