The Snake Eats it's Tail?

The head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan alleges that Russia is providing arms to the Taliban.
If true, then we've come full circle; the U.S. supported the mujahedin against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.
It makes sense; no clue if it's true:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43500299

In any case it does not make one optimistic about a quick wind up of America's longest war.

Not really sure what Russia would have to gain from Taliban controlled Afghanistan. Weird if true.

Afghanistan is where Empires go to turn power into corpses.

That Russia for probably years has viewed this as a good way to blunt the might of the USA is almost a certainty. And there are probably others, as - why not?

There's a good chance Pakistan (who only gets subsidies as long as there's a problem to correct), China (ensures the nutters go West from their turbulent provinces and keeps the USA's focus away from reef building.

Giving weapons to jihadists is probably the cheapest and least risky way of attacking your enemies. And by doing it in Afghanistan it forces the USA to fight at the end of an extremely long logistics road which only adds to the cost. In Syria there is Israel's extremely efficient - not to mention ruthless - intelligence network which will destroy any weaponry they find and view collateral damage as something that happens. Who will help the Yanks up the mountains? The locals??!?

Equally, none of the other players want America to "win" or "loose" since then they'd leave - and many of the more zealous fighters will start looking for the next battleground. A nice long stalemate where the aid is carefully balanced to what the USA does to ensure lots of time, money and materiel is wasted or at least tied down.

~:smoking:

It need not even be government action. There are any number of arms suppliers in the 'stans and elsewhere who will supply arms to those who will pay. Russia has had corruption problems for years, and some of the former Soviet territories are even worse.

All Russia need do is make little or no effort to stop it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

It need not even be government action. There are any number of arms suppliers in the 'stans and elsewhere who will supply arms to those who will pay. Russia has had corruption problems for years, and some of the former Soviet territories are even worse.

All Russia need do is make little or no effort to stop it...

---

If true (and it probably is) it's nice to see budding entrepreneurs getting a "leg up" in Russia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Afghanistan is where Empires go to turn power into corpses.

That Russia for probably years has viewed this as a good way to blunt the might of the USA is almost a certainty. And there are probably others, as - why not?

There's a good chance Pakistan (who only gets subsidies as long as there's a problem to correct), China (ensures the nutters go West from their turbulent provinces and keeps the USA's focus away from reef building.

Giving weapons to jihadists is probably the cheapest and least risky way of attacking your enemies. And by doing it in Afghanistan it forces the USA to fight at the end of an extremely long logistics road which only adds to the cost. In Syria there is Israel's extremely efficient - not to mention ruthless - intelligence network which will destroy any weaponry they find and view collateral damage as something that happens. Who will help the Yanks up the mountains? The locals??!?

Equally, none of the other players want America to "win" or "loose" since then they'd leave - and many of the more zealous fighters will start looking for the next battleground. A nice long stalemate where the aid is carefully balanced to what the USA does to ensure lots of time, money and materiel is wasted or at least tied down.

~:smoking:

---

Why would China feel more comfortable with the United States maintaining forward bases and supply lines on their western borders?

Because in these bases they're constantly getting shot at, getting their equipment and morale eroded by the day and need to negotiate with Pakistan or Russia to get supplies in. They are not an asset, they are a cost - everyone knows they are there. If they wanted to get intel they'd use satellites and aircraft / drones which were far more hidden and easier to run.

Better that than naval bases in the Pacific.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Because in these bases they're constantly getting shot at, getting their equipment and morale eroded by the day and need to negotiate with Pakistan or Russia to get supplies in. They are not an asset, they are a cost - everyone knows they are there. If they wanted to get intel they'd use satellites and aircraft / drones which were far more hidden and easier to run.

Better that than naval bases in the Pacific.

~:smoking:

---

As I understand it, some of those bases in the 'stans etc. are where the drones are based. The ones in the 'stans were always most useful as air staging bases. They weren't positioned to be able to support ground forces in number.

From what I have read about China and the old Silk Road, China's attempts to assert hegemony over the old route are mostly economic and diplomatic. Having someone else assist the physical protection/enhance stability at no cost to China is not likely to perturb them. They do NOT see the region shifting to USA satrapy status, and anything else still leaves China's econ/diplo expansion more or less intact.