Russia opening new front for NATO in Afghanistan -- immense pressure on pakistan

[maqsad]

This move was very possibly made to snub and pressure Pakistan. Perhaps even as a step towards larger scale attacks on Pakistan's western provinces. Obviously NATO and especially the US have not felt comfortable depending on Pakistan 100% for logistical support because pakistan can shut that off any time. On the other hand, this can also allow the Pakistan govt freedom to stop supplying the US in order to make the pakistani public happy. Russia will make more money on this now and Pakistan will make less money. Who knows what this will lead to in a few years.

Russian bid to replace Pakistan as supply route: War in Afghanistan



By Anwar Iqbal
​

WASHINGTON, April 1: At the Nato summit, which begins in Bucharest on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to offer an alternative route for supplying US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

The proposal, if accepted, will change the course of the war in Afghanistan and will also have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan as Nato’s 43,000 troops in Afghanistan rely heavily on supplies transported via Pakistan.

Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Russian and Nato diplomats have already held a series of “productive and successful” talks on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land.

The plan, however, could later be expanded to include ammunition and light weapons as well, the sources said.

Russia’s new ambassador to Nato Dmitri Rogozin played a key role in selling this plan to the members of this US-led alliance, telling them that this will be a reliable alternative route free of violence and political troubles.

While America’s European allies have shown great interest in the proposal, the Americans are still reluctant as they do not want to bring Russia back to a region from where it was forcibly ousted in 1989, after battling Afghan freedom fighters (now Al Qaeda and Taliban militants) for almost 10 years.

Despite Washington’s reluctance, the Nato has held intensive talks with Russian officials on the precise routes to be used and hopes to reach agreement at this week’s summit in Bucharest.

If approved by the summit, the supplies can begin as soon as Nato wants as the Russians already have a functioning route passing through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Under the proposed agreement, Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a military alliance of former Soviet republics, will jointly guarantee an interrupted supply of essential goods to the Nato forces.

Western diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Nato sees the proposed route as a good alternative for supplies going through Pakistan which faces political uncertainty and may not be a reliable route for long.

The Pakistan route, according to these sources, passes through the Taliban-infested tribal zone and has become increasingly dangerous. Last Sunday, militants blew up a convoy of 36 oil tankers meant for US forces in Afghanistan.

Russian diplomats promoting their proposal also have underlined a so-called “crisis of trust” between the United States and Pakistan, where the new government plans to engage militants in a dialogue opposed by Washington.

They also argue that Russia has always had a strong interest in seeing the Nato mission in Afghanistan succeed because Moscow wants to prevent Muslim extremists enter the former Soviet republics.

But there are others in Washington who warn that an attempt to disassociate Pakistan from any plan for Afghanistan may have dangerous consequences.

In an article published on the eve of the Nato summit, Karl F. Inderfurth, a former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, describes Pakistan as “one country that can make or break (Nato’s) mission” in Afghanistan.

He notes that Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has promised to visit Islamabad as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place.

“After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce Nato’s Afghan mission,” says Mr Inderfurth while backing the proposed visit.

Mr Inderfurth urges Nato leaders to work on a “new compact” that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan’s political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralise regional and great power rivalries.

To attain this, he proposed an UN-sponsored, a high-level conference of all Afghanistan’s neighbours and concerned major powers for talks on a multilateral accord that addresses Pakistan’s concerns about developments in Afghanistan.

The proposed accord should recognise Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan, pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, recognise Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state and establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan.

Mr Inderfurth also warns that any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests.

Instead, he urges working with Pakistan’s new leadership to integrate the tribal region into the Pakistani political system and provide substantial assistance to build up their economy and social infrastructure.

 

[fatman17]

let NATO try this new initiative - then only they will realise the importance of Pakistan in the conflict area.

 

[EagleEyes]

It is not going to work out. What Pakistan offers and does, can not be replaced by any one.

 

[su-47]

It is not going to work out. What Pakistan offers and does, can not be replaced by any one.

maybe not everything can be replaced, but certain parts can be replaced. the russians can offer what NATO believes to be a cheaper, or safer route

 

[Cheetah786]

WASHINGTON, April 1: At the Nato summit, which begins in Bucharest on Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to offer an alternative route for supplying US and Nato troops in Afghanistan.

The proposal, if accepted, will change the course of the war in Afghanistan and will also have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan as Nato’s 43,000 troops in Afghanistan rely heavily on supplies transported via Pakistan.

Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Russian and Nato diplomats have already held a series of “productive and successful” talks on a plan that would allow non-military material – such as clothing, food and petrol – to cross Russia by land.

The plan, however, could later be expanded to include ammunition and light weapons as well, the sources said.

Russia’s new ambassador to Nato Dmitri Rogozin played a key role in selling this plan to the members of this US-led alliance, telling them that this will be a reliable alternative route free of violence and political troubles.

While America’s European allies have shown great interest in the proposal, the Americans are still reluctant as they do not want to bring Russia back to a region from where it was forcibly ousted in 1989, after battling Afghan freedom fighters (now Al Qaeda and Taliban militants) for almost 10 years.

Despite Washington’s reluctance, the Nato has held intensive talks with Russian officials on the precise routes to be used and hopes to reach agreement at this week’s summit in Bucharest.

If approved by the summit, the supplies can begin as soon as Nato wants as the Russians already have a functioning route passing through Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

Under the proposed agreement, Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a military alliance of former Soviet republics, will jointly guarantee an interrupted supply of essential goods to the Nato forces.

Western diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that Nato sees the proposed route as a good alternative for supplies going through Pakistan which faces political uncertainty and may not be a reliable route for long.

The Pakistan route, according to these sources, passes through the Taliban-infested tribal zone and has become increasingly dangerous. Last Sunday, militants blew up a convoy of 36 oil tankers meant for US forces in Afghanistan.

Russian diplomats promoting their proposal also have underlined a so-called “crisis of trust” between the United States and Pakistan, where the new government plans to engage militants in a dialogue opposed by Washington.

They also argue that Russia has always had a strong interest in seeing the Nato mission in Afghanistan succeed because Moscow wants to prevent Muslim extremists enter the former Soviet republics.

But there are others in Washington who warn that an attempt to disassociate Pakistan from any plan for Afghanistan may have dangerous consequences.

In an article published on the eve of the Nato summit, Karl F. Inderfurth, a former US assistant secretary of state for South and Central Asian affairs, describes Pakistan as “one country that can make or break (Nato’s) mission” in Afghanistan.

He notes that Nato’s Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has promised to visit Islamabad as soon as the new Pakistan government is in place.

“After Bucharest there is no better destination to reinforce Nato’s Afghan mission,” says Mr Inderfurth while backing the proposed visit.

Mr Inderfurth urges Nato leaders to work on a “new compact” that addresses Afghanistan and Pakistan’s political, economic and security concerns and seeks to neutralise regional and great power rivalries.

To attain this, he proposed an UN-sponsored, a high-level conference of all Afghanistan’s neighbours and concerned major powers for talks on a multilateral accord that addresses Pakistan’s concerns about developments in Afghanistan.

The proposed accord should recognise Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan, pledge non-interference in Afghanistan’s internal affairs, recognise Afghanistan as a permanently neutral state and establish a comprehensive international regime to remove obstacles to the flow of trade across Afghanistan.

Mr Inderfurth also warns that any large-scale outside military intervention in Pakistan’s tribal areas would be disastrous for the Pakistani state and US interests.

Instead, he urges working with Pakistan’s new leadership to integrate the tribal region into the Pakistani political system and provide substantial assistance to build up their economy and social infrastructure.
Russian bid to replace Pakistan as supply route: War in Afghanistan -DAWN - Top Stories; April 02, 2008

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

the kuffar will invite each other to partake in killing muslims. yet, we will be helpless although large in number. subhanallah, Rasulullah was right.

 

[Neo]

Russia doesn't share border with Afghanistan, any supplies will have to go thru Uzbekistan, Turmenistan or Tajikistan.

I don't see how that's feasible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't see NATO going in for this so long as the "Missile Shield" remains contentious. The Russians have also gained notoriety from their actions related to cutting off energy supplies over disputes, so its going to be an extremely reluctant switch, if it takes place.

My guess is that, at the most, some small scale resupplying might take place through Russia for NATO in the North (it allows for NATO to show that it values Russia and leaves the door open for future large scale resupplies if the need ever arose), but barring a drastic outright refusal for logistical support from Pakistan (extremely unlikely, though permission for UAV attacks might be refused), so this initiative is not going to amount to much.

On a related note, I am hopeful that the upcoming infrastructure linking Gawadar to Afghanistan will start being utilized as a shorter resupply route.

 

[Energon]

I don't see NATO going in for this so long as the "Missile Shield" remains contentious. The Russians have also gained notoriety from their actions related to cutting off energy supplies over disputes, so its going to be an extremely reluctant switch, if it takes place.

My guess is that, at the most, some small scale resupplying might take place through Russia for NATO in the North (it allows for NATO to show that it values Russia and leaves the door open for future large scale resupplies if the need ever arose), but barring a drastic outright refusal for logistical support from Pakistan (extremely unlikely, though permission for UAV attacks might be refused), so this initiative is not going to amount to much.

On a related note, I am hopeful that the upcoming infrastructure linking Gawadar to Afghanistan will start being utilized as a shorter resupply route.

It's possible that Russia's offer to facilitate a supply route is a diplomatic tool to deal with the missile shield issue (a really retarded issue at that from the US point of view).

Perhaps this is for the best. It will take pressure off the Pakistan government for being perceived as collaborators by the local populace and it will save us the costs of having to indulge in large scale monetary and material support programs with Pakistan since Russia doesn't need anything more than payment for their services and diplomatic leverage.

Having said that though, I don't think the NATO strikes on Pakistani soil are going to stop any time soon.

 

[fatman17]

Russia doesn't share border with Afghanistan, any supplies will have to go thru Uzbekistan, Turmenistan or Tajikistan.

I don't see how that's feasible.

thru tajikistan where NATO countries have rights to use military bases.

 

[Janbaz]

Russia doesn't share border with Afghanistan, any supplies will have to go thru Uzbekistan, Turmenistan or Tajikistan.

I don't see how that's feasible

True and the regions near the Afghan border of Turkmenistan are desolate and barren with little infrastructure...........Somewhat true with Uzbekistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It's possible that Russia's offer to facilitate a supply route is a diplomatic tool to deal with the missile shield issue (a really retarded issue at that from the US point of view).

Perhaps this is for the best. It will take pressure off the Pakistan government for being perceived as collaborators by the local populace and it will save us the costs of having to indulge in large scale monetary and material support programs with Pakistan since Russia doesn't need anything more than payment for their services and diplomatic leverage.

Having said that though, I don't think the NATO strikes on Pakistani soil are going to stop any time soon.

Rerouting through Russia will be a small scale affair, given the international climate, and the unlikelihood of any Pakistani government refusing logistical support. Resupplies through Pakistan will continue since it is an established, convenient and far shorter route.

In terms of taking pressure of the GoP, that pressure is primarily related to NATO attacks on Pakistani soil, not so much the logistical support, so this move will have no major impact in that sense on Pakistani sentiment.

The majority of the US "aid" to Pakistan remains reimbursement for expenses incurred in providing logistical support and troop deployments. Given that rerouting supplies through Russia is going to be more expensive given the distance, logistical complexity and number of countries involved, I do not see US expenses incurred by switching going down, but rather increasing.

The remainder of the US "aid" to Pakistan (economic support) does not amount to enough to really be of concern, either to Pakistan or to the US. I would argue though that the US has no choice but to try and maintain some sort of relationship with Pakistan, because NATO is unlikely to deploy significantly more troops, and without the 80,000 or so Pakistani FC/Army the border is even less manageable. Even if the US continues and escalates aerial attacks, it is barely going to make a dent in either AQ or Taliban capabilities, while the increased collateral damage will cause a surge in anti-US sentiment and further polarization of the region.

Wide scale unilateral attacks on Pakistani soil, against the wishes of the GoP and the Pakistani people, are a surefire way for the situation to deteriorate to unmanageable levels.

Success in Afghanistan will not be achieved without Pakistan (or massive NATO troop increases). The question is how the incoming administration will view the situation, and whether the new GoP has success with its "negotiating approach", and if it doesn't, what it chooses to do.

I do think the US needs to back off attacks in FATA till the GoP has had a chance to try its new approach, otherwise not only will the initiative fail, but the responsibility for the failure will be placed squarely on the US, for "sabotaging" the "peace effort" through attacks.

Already there is a lot of suspicion and talk over the attacks on Mullah Nazir's (a pro Govt. Taliban leader) assets by the US. Hopefully US commanders and decision makers will show a little less bullheadedness, and more flexibility, in dealing with a changing situation than they showed in Iraq.

 

[blain2]

maybe not everything can be replaced, but certain parts can be replaced. the russians can offer what NATO believes to be a cheaper, or safer route

It may be safer in some sense but it is not cheaper and it has long term strategic implications for US interests in the region.

 

[IceCold]

If this happens, it will benefit pakistan in two ways.
1) we will have less US pressure in this case for cooperation in WOT
2) US as well as NATO will pretty much soon realize pakistan's worth and they will come back.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If this happens, it will benefit pakistan in two ways.
1) we will have less US pressure in this case for cooperation in WOT
2) US as well as NATO will pretty much soon realize pakistan's worth and they will come back.

The pressure on Pakistan isn't on the logistics side, its from the "military ops." perspective. Military ops., whether conducted by the PA or NATO, are what the majority of the opposition in Pakistan is to.

Changing the supply routes is not going to neither relieve the pressure on Pakistan to act militarily, nor is it going to reduce opposition to unilateral NATO attacks on Pakistani soil.

As far as "coming back" is concerned, why should we reject cooperation in the first place? What does Pakistan gain by playing hardball here? Don't forget that the Taliban have had no qualms about attacking Pakistani interests, so if we withdraw and then have to go back in, we will have to deal with a much stronger and entrenched enemy, since all the gains so far will have been lost.

Continuing cooperation is the way to go, and convincing the US to allow the new Govt. to attempt a different tact, without withdrawing the military.