Taliban and Russia – USA Gov Policy

Russia continues to expand its international influence. After allying with China and Iran, cementing its relations with Syria and growing closer to Turkey, it now seeks to regain a position of significant power in Afghanistan.

As 2016 drew to a close, reports the Times of India, Russia, China, and Pakistan held a meeting in Moscow to discuss ways to work with the Taliban. Iran is also said to be working with the group.

One major topic of the gathering was a proposal to remove top Taliban leaders from UN sanctions.

A study by The Diplomat noted that “On December 8, 2016, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, Alexander Mantyskiy, announced that the Russian government had made a diplomatic outreach to the Taliban’s leaders… A senior Taliban official told Reuters in early December that Russia’s relationship with the Taliban began in 2007, as Moscow shared the Taliban’s objective of forcing all U.S. troops to swiftly withdraw from Afghanistan.

“The official end of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2014 did not cause Russia to distance itself from the Taliban…Critics of Russian foreign policy argue that Putin’s outreach to the Taliban is a cynical ploy to undermine the legitimacy of President Ashraf Ghani’s U.S.-backed government. Some Afghan policymakers and General John Nicholson, a leading U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, have publicly given credibility to this contention…Citing a high-level Taliban official The Daily Beast reported in October 2015 that Moscow also encouraged Tajik intelligence operatives to facilitate the shipment of Russian arms to the Taliban. This revelation, if true, would flagrantly contradict Russia’s pledge to uphold the international arms embargo against the Taliban…If the Taliban continues to recapture territory in southern Afghanistan and make a push for control of Kabul, Russia will be uniquely placed to have a decisive role in shaping Afghanistan’s political future.”

Since its launch in 1998, more than 16 million men were treated successfully and were able to resume their active brand viagra pfizer http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=248 sexual life. Instead of being dad, he is also a husband, a son-in-law, a brother-in-law loved this levitra without prescription and there are many more relations to maintain. cialis 40 mg It follows same execution to reduce the symptoms of erectile dysfunction which is also known by the name of Carl Hammerschlag. Overall this has to do viagra in italy a lot with this. According to Reuters, “Afghan and American officials are increasingly worried that any deepening of ties between Russia and Taliban militants fighting to topple the government in Kabul could complicate an already precarious security situation…a series of recent meetings they say has taken place in Moscow and Tajikistan has made Afghan intelligence and defence officials nervous about more direct support including weapons or funding. A senior Afghan security official called Russian support for the Taliban a ‘dangerous new trend’, an analysis echoed by …General John Nicholson. He…said Moscow was lending legitimacy to the Taliban.

A Voice of America report also quotes General Nicholson as stating that “Russia has overtly lent legitimacy to the Taliban.” As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government has previously noted, the same could have been said about former President Obama, who negotiated with the Taliban in contradiction of long-established U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

For its part, the Taliban has acknowledged its ties to both Russia and Iran, according to the Anadolu Agency

“The Afghan Taliban group has acknowledged its ties with Moscow and Tehran, projecting them as proof of their legitimacy and their supposed diplomatic success. In a series of messages shared on their official website on Thursday, the militant group said: ‘It is joyous to see that the regional countries have also understood that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan [the name the Afghan Taliban use for themselves] is a political and military force’…[in November], Alexander Mantytskiy, Russian ambassador to Afghanistan, and Zamir Kabulov, special representative of Russia in Afghanistan-Pakistan, caused uproar here when they acknowledged ties between the Taliban and Russia….Afghan lawmakers were also increasingly becoming skeptical about the intentions of Moscow and Tehran. “Afghan officials in western Farah province have accused Iran of equipping and harboring the Taliban. Similar concerns have been raised by security officials in restive northern Kunduz province that borders Tajikistan. Kunduz briefly fell to the Taliban earlier this year, and Afghan officials claimed to have confiscated Russian arms from the Taliban after reclaiming it…Moscow had hosted Chinese and Pakistani officials for a trilateral conference on Afghanistan, without any representation from the Kabul government.”

The Taliban’s list of atrocities is on par or even exceeds that of any terrorist organization on the planet. Its massive list of crimes has been cataloged by organizations such as Amnesty International.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.