Taliban takeover of Afghanistan

Mir wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

I've always been pro-NATO intervention in Afghanistan. In as far as it seemed there were really willing to build up the country and its institutions, raise education and fight fundamentalism.

I know you have a good sense of humour, but I have to ask - are you serious!?

miketheterrible wrote:

He is.  Sometimes he has great things to say.  Sometimes he goes full retard (we all do honestly). [ ]

What he doesn't realize, it was NATO and US that helped bring Afghanistan into the stone age.

Anyway, I think I understand what he is trying to say - that at least with NATO in Afghanistan, there is some prospects for Womans rights.  But that was a facades to sell the war to the masses back home.  In reality, it was still all tribalistic shit that never changed outside of the cities.

Personally, I dont care what happens to Afghanistan.  So long as they are not a bother to Russia and its southern borders, they can go on any kind of headchopping spree.  Just that they better be prepared to be completely isolated from nations that actually mean something and have value (not Pakistan, since that country is a joke).

flamming_python wrote: In as far as it seemed there were really willing to build up the country and its institutions, raise education and fight fundamentalism. That would be great for Afghanistan, but also the other countries around it. If anyone here thinks a 2nd Pakistan is in Russia's long-term interests, or of course India's - then you're very much mistaken.

Mir wrote:Let me just say - I have nothing against Americans - they are mostly down to earth and good people. However when it comes to their leadership, it's a completely different story.

miketheterrible wrote:

Mir wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

I've always been pro-NATO intervention in Afghanistan. In as far as it seemed there were really willing to build up the country and its institutions, raise education and fight fundamentalism.

I know you have a good sense of humour, but I have to ask - are you serious!?

...

PapaDragon wrote:
I supported them too at first, they had legitimate reason to go in

9/11 was a dick move and if AlQaeda wanted it to be military operation instead of a terrorist crime they would have sent all those airplanes on the Pentagon because it was a military target

Twin Towers were definitely NOT a military target

Plus Bin Laden and his shitheads were involved in wars against us back in town 90s and were paying money to US politicians to f*ck us over

Of course that supports on my end fizzled out later when it became clear that USA didn't go to Afghanistan to avenge civilians but to do other stuff instead

Sujoy wrote:
Pakistan's end game is to usurp the whole of Afghanistan to gain strategic depth against both Hindus(India) and Shias(Iran). They are half way there already thanks to the biased Durand line. Even during the heydays of NATO's occupation of Afghanistan, Pakistan kept the pot boiling by supporting various jihadi forces inside Afghanistan.

Bottom line, nation building in Afghanistan is just not possible: Pakistan won't allow that.

Sujoy wrote:
Let me just ask - then why is it that this same constituency of "mostly down to earth and good people" continues to elect one sinister government after another who for the last 7 decades have taken it upon themselves to destabilize every single nation that they define as third world?  

Clearly mostly down to earth and good people would have been extremely concerned about such misadventures sponsored by their elected government. Instead, it seems that the American electorate are quite pleased with such endeavors because it improves the financial fortunes of both their government and corporates.

JohninMK wrote: Strategic depth is yesterday's world.

I think you seriously underestimate the future Chinese influence over Pakistan in terms of economic benefit to the whole region. This is now the Chinese hinterland, they will rule it economically for decades to come. This is just the messy beginning.

Mir wrote:

flamming_python wrote:

I've always been pro-NATO intervention in Afghanistan. In as far as it seemed there were really willing to build up the country and its institutions, raise education and fight fundamentalism.

I know you have a good sense of humour, but I have to ask - are you serious!?

A corrupt American client state in Afghanistan doesn't pose a threat to anyone, and its probably better for the people of Afghanistan too.

When US and European governments raced to get their citizens and Afghan colleagues out of Kabul this week, Russia was one of very few countries not visibly alarmed by the Taliban takeover.

Russian diplomats described the new men in town as "normal guys" and argued that the capital was safer now than before. President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that the Taliban's takeover was a reality they had to work with.

It is all a far cry from the disastrous nine-year war in Afghanistan that many Russians remember from propping up Kabul's communist government in the 1980s.

Warm words for Taliban
Unlike most foreign embassies in the capital, Russia says its diplomatic mission remains open and it's had warm words for the new rulers. Ambassador Dmitry Zhirnov met a Taliban representative within 48 hours of the takeover and said he had seen no evidence of reprisals or violence.

Moscow's UN representative Vassily Nebenzia spoke of a bright future of national reconciliation, with law and order returning to the streets and of "the ending of many years of bloodshed".

May 2019: Representatives of Taliban chat with Russian presidential envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov (R)
IMAGE SOURCEGETTY IMAGES
image captionRussia's special Afghanistan envoy (R) has been talking to Taliban leaders for some years
President Putin's special envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov, even said the Taliban were easier to negotiate with than the old "puppet government" of exiled President Ashraf Ghani.

Moscow has had little time for Mr Ghani: its diplomats claimed this week he had fled with four cars and a helicopter full of cash - accusations he dismissed as lies.

Charting Russia's improving ties
Russia is not racing to recognise the Taliban as Afghanistan's rulers, but there has been an apparent softening of rhetoric. State news agency Tass this week replaced the term "terrorist" with "radical" in its reports on the Taliban.

Moscow has been building contacts with the Taliban for some time. Even though the Taliban have been on Russia's list of terrorist and banned organisations since 2003, the group's representatives have been coming to Moscow for talks since 2018.

Taliban fighters mobilise to control a crowd in Kabul on Thursday, Aug. 19, 2021.
IMAGE SOURCELOS ANGELES TIMES/GETTY
image captionRussia has not yet recognised the Taliban as Afghanistan's new government
The former Western-backed Afghan government accused Russia's presidential envoy of being an open supporter of the Taliban and of excluding the official government from three years of Moscow talks.

Mr Kabulov denied that and said they were ungrateful. But as far back as 2015 he said Russia's interests coincided with the Taliban when it came to fighting Islamic State (IS) jihadists.

That did not go unnoticed in Washington. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson accused Russia in August 2017 of supplying arms to the Taliban, a remark that Moscow rejected and described as "perplexing".

The foreign ministry in Moscow said it had "asked our American colleagues to provide evidence, but to no avail… we do not provide any support to the Taliban".

In February this year, Mr Kabulov angered the Afghan government by praising the Taliban for fulfilling its side of the Doha agreements "immaculately" while accusing Kabul of sabotaging them.

Focus on regional security
Despite its closer ties with the Taliban, Moscow is for now staying pragmatic, watching developments and not removing the group from its terror list just yet. President Putin said he hoped the Taliban would make good on its promises to restore order. "It's important not to allow terrorists to spill into neighbouring countries," he said.

The key factors shaping Russia's policy are regional stability and its own painful history in Afghanistan. It wants secure borders for its Central Asian allies and to prevent the spread of terrorism and drug trafficking.

When the US targeted the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks and set up bases in former Soviet states in the region, Russia initially welcomed the move. But relations soon grew strained.

Earlier this month Russia held military exercises in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, aimed at reassuring Central Asian countries, some of which are military allies of Moscow.

Last month Russia obtained Taliban assurances that any Afghan gains wouldn't threaten its regional allies and that they would continue to fight IS militants.

Danger lies on Kabul road to freedom
Russia's bitter memory of war
Russia stresses it has no interest in sending troops to Afghanistan, and it is not hard to see why. It fought a bloody and, many would argue, pointless war there in the latter years of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.


media captionVladimir Semochkin served in Afghanistan in 1987-1989
What began as a 1979 invasion to prop up a friendly regime lasted nine years and cost the lives of 15,000 Soviet personnel.

It turned the USSR into an international pariah, with many countries boycotting the 1980 Moscow Olympics. It became a massive burden on the crumbling Soviet economy.

While the Soviet Union installed a government in Kabul led by Babrak Karmal, the US, Pakistan, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia supplied money and arms to the mujahideen, who fought the Soviet troops and their Afghan allies.

Afghan anti-Soviet resistance fighters with their primitive arms in the eastern parts of the country.
IMAGE SOURCEAFP
image captionThe Soviets were eventually forced to leave Afghanistan after a guerrilla campaign by mujahideen
Many of those killed were teenage Soviet army conscripts, and the war drove home a realisation of just how little the Soviet authorities cared about their own people. The war is widely thought to have hastened the end of the Soviet Union, at least in part, by stirring disillusionment with its rulers.

The war ended with an ignominious military withdrawal in February 1989.

View of Soviet army soldiers as they stand on an around armoured personnel carriers during the final Soviet troop withdrawal ceremony, Kabul, Afghanistan, May 15, 1988
IMAGE SOURCEGETTY IMAGES
image captionMany Russians have painful memories of the nine years spent fighting a war in the final years of the Soviet Union
Fears for the future
Russia may have given the impression of being prepared for the Taliban's sweep to power, but some experts believe Moscow was taken by surprise as much as everyone else.

"We cannot talk about any strategy from Moscow," says Andrey Serenko from the Russian Centre for Contemporary Afghanistan Study who sees decision being made on the hoof. "Moscow is worried about being late to the reshaping of the regional architecture."

Others in Moscow are wary of what Taliban rule might bring.

Andrei Kortunov, head of the Russian International Affairs Council think tank, believes they will struggle to control the entire country, especially the north, and that could threaten Russia and its neighbours.

"Perhaps, some cells of al-Qaeda, perhaps of Isis, based in Afghanistan, would instigate some actions in Central Asia," he says.

He also fears a sharp deterioration in the Afghan economy, which could in turn prompt further instability.

Afghanistan: Final flights arriving as UK's campaign ends

The final flights bringing British troops home from Afghanistan are arriving, as the UK's 20-year military campaign ends.

The last British flight has left Kabul, and the ambassador to Afghanistan, Sir Laurie Bristow, arrived at RAF Brize Norton on Sunday morning.

Further flights are expected to arrive at the RAF base in Oxfordshire later.

More than 15,000 people, including about 2,200 children, have been evacuated by the UK since 14 August.

About 800 to 1,100 eligible Afghans, including those who worked for the UK government, and 100 to 150 British nationals were feared to be unable to make evacuation flights.

More than 1,000 UK service personnel were in Kabul at the height of the airlift operation. The final dedicated civilian evacuation flight left Kabul on Saturday.

Taxi driver, shopkeeper: UK victims of Kabul attack
Afghan fleeing to UK gives birth at 30,000 feet
'My Kabul airport disguise and how I escaped'
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Sunday that if the Taliban regime wanted diplomatic recognition and aid funding, they would have to ensure "safe passage" for those who wanted to leave.

In a joint statement with the US and more than 90 other countries, it was confirmed that the Taliban had said anyone who wished to leave the country could do so.

The statement said: "We have received assurances from the Taliban that all foreign nationals and any Afghan citizen with travel authorisation from our countries will be allowed to proceed in a safe and orderly manner to points of departure and travel outside the country."

line
At the scene: Pride and frustration as evacuation ends
Military personnel arrive at RAF Brize Norton base after being evacuated from Afghanistan
IMAGE SOURCEREUTERS
By Simon Jones, BBC reporter

At RAF Brize Norton, they're preparing for the arrival of more British troops from Afghanistan.

The vast majority of military personnel have now left the region. Dogs and equipment have been brought back too.

There's a sense of pride at the air base at how the evacuation operation has gone over the past two weeks - in hugely challenging circumstances.

But there's also frustration that some people who wanted to get out of the country have been left behind.

Some of the troops, who will now face a period in quarantine, will need support too - due to the harrowing scenes they witnessed at Kabul airport.

And although we are seeing the last major flights to the UK carrying troops from Kabul, more personnel will be brought back in smaller groups in the coming days, meaning the operation still has some time to run.

line
Vice Adm Key, chief of joint operations, said that while he "pays testament" to everything achieved by British forces over the last two weeks, "we know that there are some really sad stories of people who have desperately tried to leave that - no matter how hard our efforts - we have been unsuccessful in evacuating".

Speaking at RAF Brize Norton, Vice Adm Key said the 31 August deadline imposed by the Taliban prevented them evacuating more people "who had helped us so wonderfully and courageously over the last 20 years".

Ambassador Sir Laurie, who had been processing those fleeing the country at the airport, pledged to continue efforts to support Afghanistan from a new embassy location in Qatar.


media caption"Thousands more did get out... thousands more are still left behind"
No 10 said the youngest child evacuated was just one day old.

About 5,000 British nationals and their families were airlifted, alongside more than 8,000 Afghan former UK staff and their families and those considered at risk from the Taliban.

This number is in addition to the number of Afghans set to be resettled in the UK through a separate multi-year programme - with all arrivals coming under a new effort called Operation Warm Welcome.


media captionBoris Johnson: "It's the culmination of a mission unlike anything we've seen in our lifetimes"
In a video posted on Twitter on Sunday, Mr Johnson praised the "colossal exertions" of those involved in the evacuation operation who worked "to a remorseless deadline, in harrowing conditions".

He said that although the UK "would not have wished to leave in this way", the suffering and hardship of all the troops involved over 20 years was "not in vain".

Mir wrote:

A corrupt American client state in Afghanistan doesn't pose a threat to anyone, and its probably better for the people of Afghanistan too.

Make no mistake a corrupt American client state on your doorstep will not work out well for you. In fact it will make it much easier for them to export terror to your country.

Mir wrote:

A corrupt American client state in Afghanistan doesn't pose a threat to anyone, and its probably better for the people of Afghanistan too.

Make no mistake a corrupt American client state on your doorstep will not work out well for you. In fact it will make it much easier for them to export terror to your country.

miketheterrible wrote:It is possible the partition of Afghanistan much like Somalia with Somaliland.