Afghanistan, its neighbours and non-NATO nations

[Azor]

Below are some statements made by U.S. general officers and the Secretary of Defense on Russia's involvement with the Taliban in Afghanistan over the past 12 months.

The statements reveal nothing more than diplomatic outreach and an attempt to include the Taliban in a reconciliation process. However, when the subject of direct material aid arises, there is a wall of silence.

Are the Russians arming the Taliban? Is there evidence of advanced Russian small arms being used by Taliban fighters against NATO forces? If so, is it possible that such arms were say sold to the Iranians and then transferred to the Taliban?

Thoughts?

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis on March 31, 2017:

We have seen Russian activity vis--vis the Taliban. I'm not going to say at this point if that has manifested into weapons and that sort of thing, but certainly what they're up to there in light of their other activities gives us concern.

General Mike Scaparotti, SACEUR on March 23, 2017:

I have seen the influence of Russia of late, an increased influence in terms of association and perhaps even supply to the Taliban.

General John Nicholson on February 17, 2017:

The Russian involvement this year has become more difficult. First, they have begun to publicly legitimize the Taliban. This narrative that they promote is that the Taliban are fighting Islamic State, and the Afghan Government is not fighting Islamic State, and that, therefore, there could be a spillover of this group into the region. This is a false narrative.

They also have initiated a series of meetings in Moscow to which the Afghans have not been invited for the first several meetings in which to discuss the future of Afghanistan.

...we have reports of support to the Taliban. But anything more than that, sir, I would ask to discuss in another forum.

[On Russia indirectly helping Al Qaeda by way of the Taliban]...the Taliban are the medium for many of these other terrorist groups to operate because of the convergence of these groups. So your logic is absolutely sound, sir.

...there is some classified reporting that I would request to share with you in another venue. But we are concerned about, in general, support. And I will just leave it at that.

[davidbfpo]

Elsewhere, including SWJ Blog, there have been reports on US and NATO troops returning to Afghanistan.

I wonder if anyone in those governments has considered the impact of this long awaited Afghan compromise with an opponent returning to Kabul, not a Taliban leader or faction, rather Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, once labelled "The Butcher of Kabul" of Hezb-e-Islami. A faction noted for its warfighting capability, almost exclusively along the eastern border against US troops IIRC.

The initial, September 2016 BBC item on the agreement:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37438674

The latest report, which I note does not explain if his fighters will follow him:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39802833

I know this is the Afghan way of campaigning, with fighting and talking often in parallel and it is their country. Why should we commit blood and gold to support this?

[davidbfpo]

Professor Paul Rogers asks "Will more the same, fewer in number work" or something similar and near the start:

....the war in Afghanistan is evolving into a conflict even more intense than in recent years, one that will inevitably demand far more of Donald Trump’s attention than he would like.

Citing the latest SIGAR report:

A dangerous and stubborn insurgency controls or exerts influence over areas holding about a third of the Afghan population. Heavy casualties and capability gaps limit the effectiveness of Afghan soldiers and police. Opium production stands at near record levels.

He ends with:

After 15 years of failure, more troops will be seen as the answer, with little chance of any other approach being tried. That makes three regimes toppled in the War on Terror era (the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and Gaddafi), and three countries wrecked – but still no fundamental reflection on a strategy that’s clearly failed.

Link:https://theconversation.com/deadly-kabul-bombing-heralds-a-new-western-surge-in-afghanistan-77041?

[davidbfpo]

A curious commentary from a RUSI analyst, a Pakistani, that suggests a new firmness in the Pakistani Army's stance on Afghanistan under the new Chief of Staff's leadership:https://rusi.org/commentary/pakistan...on-fewer-words

Two passages:

On the Afghan front, Bajwa’s argument seems to be that Pakistan has secured its own territory and it is not the Pakistani army’s job to secure Afghanistan, as this is up to NATO and the Afghan National Army. This may be debatable, but one conclusion is clear: Pakistan’s military leadership is no longer either apologetic or pretending to play along with any foreign narrative on Afghanistan.

(Later) ....in Afghanistan, Bajwa has brought more clarity

Really the Pakistan Army have pretended to play along with a foreign narrative? No, they have always followed their interests, even if that meant assisting killing NATO soldiers and enabling NATO to be in Afghanistan at the same time or with some temporary interruptions.

[davidbfpo]

A short website report entitled:

China Building Military Base on Afghan-Tajik Border (then adds) The plan, if it is realized, promises a deeper Chinese military involvement in Tajikistan, which is necessary as a supply corridor to Badakhshan.

Even more curious:

some media have reported that Chinese military vehicles were using Tajikistan territory to transit to Badakhshan for military patrols...Chinese patrols inside Afghanistan had ended in late 2016. It's not clear whether those patrols were ever restarted, but this base, if realized, would seem to portend much heavier traffic in the future

Link:http://www.eurasianet.org/node/86661

First time I've seen this website, so this helps:

Based in New York, EurasiaNet.org is hosted by Columbia University’s Harriman Institute, one of the leading centers in North America of scholarship concerning Eurasia.

Link:http://www.eurasianet.org/node/14733

[davidbfpo]

Mike Martin offers a short (2 mins) explanation for China's role in Afghanistan.
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxFQ...ature=youtu.be

[davidbfpo]

A long BBC World Service article that poses this question: Is Russia arming the Afghan Taliban? Which concludes:

Moscow's reappearance in Afghan affairs is largely designed to irritate the Americans.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41842285

It builds on an interview of General John Nicholson in late March 2018 and I cite it in part:

We see a narrative that's being used that grossly exaggerates the number of Isis [Islamic State group] fighters here. This narrative then is used as a justification for the Russians to legitimise the actions of the Taliban and provide some degree of support to the Taliban. We've had stories written by the Taliban that have appeared in the media about financial support provided by the enemy. We've had weapons brought to this headquarters and given to us by Afghan leaders and said, this was given by the Russians to the Taliban. We know that the Russians are involved.

(At the end) This activity really picked up in the last 18 to 24 months. Prior to that we had not seen this kind of destabilising activity by Russia here. When you look at the timing it roughly correlates to when things started to heat up in Syria. So it's interesting to note the timing of the whole thing

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-43500299