BVC
Member
+325|6704
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europ … 65335.html
Russia may help US over Afghanistan

Russia will consider allowing the United States and Nato to ship weapons across the country to Afghanistan, its foreign minister has said.

Speaking after a meeting with US diplomats, Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was "ready for the very closest and very widest co-operation on Afghanistan", adding that relations with Nato needed to be repaired.

Russia has previously allowed non-lethal supplies from European nations for Afghanistan to cross its territory, and recently said the US could follow suit.

"Non-military transit has already been granted as part of our agreements with Nato, and the United States very recently received our agreement... for delivery of their cargoes for the needs of the international forces," Lavrov said.

"Additional steps are also possible," he said in response to whether Russia would also agree to include weapons or other lethal cargo.

"What's important is that relations between Russia and Nato return to a normal course," he said, in a reference to Western criticism of Russia's military actions in Georgia last year.

US plans

Talks between Russia and Nato have resumed in recent weeks, after they were suspended in reponse to the war in Georgia.

The Nato-led force in Afghanistan is seeking alternative transit routes into the country after an increase in attacks on supply lines in Pakistan.

Lavrov's comments also come after Kyrgyzstan announced it would close a key US air base on its territory, which was used to help supply operations in Afghanistan.

They also come as Barack Obama, the US president, plans to deploy an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Neave Barker, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Moscow, said Russia's latest move "signifies a thaw in relations between Russia and Nato, and an increased level of co-operation between Moscow and the new Obama administration".

He said both Russia and US are looking for concessions from each other.

"Moscow is also acutely aware that the failure of Nato in Afghanistan could mean the destabilisation of countries to the north - those post-Soviet nations that still have strong political and economic ties with Russia," he said.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6003|Truthistan
Wow, get rid of Bush and in less than a month the big bear turns into a teddy bear???

How did W. manage to chaff the Russians that badly?... There must be story out there somewhere. Did W. poop in Putin's soup or did W. refuse to wife swap or what?

If this is a true change in the Russian US relationship it could only mean that the anger between the US and Russia must have been personal in nature, international strife doesn't thaw this fast.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|6698|Tampa Bay Florida

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Wow, get rid of Bush and in less than a month the big bear turns into a teddy bear???

How did W. manage to chaff the Russians that badly?... There must be story out there somewhere. Did W. poop in Putin's soup or did W. refuse to wife swap or what?

If this is a true change in the Russian US relationship it could only mean that the anger between the US and Russia must have been personal in nature, international strife doesn't thaw this fast.
Probably the whole "you're either with us or against us", "bring em on" bullshit..
rdx-fx
...
+955|6600
Worth remembering that;
- 30 years ago, Russia had troops in Afghanistan fighting Islamic Fundamentalists, Mujahadeen, and Osama bin Laden.

- Russia's economy was circling the drain long before the rest of the world economy took a dive.

- The story that makes the news usually has a long pre-history that doesn't get included in the telling.  Especially anything to do with international relations.

- The tenor of the middle eastern  Jihadi rhetoric has changed in focus in the last few years.  It's no longer a sideshow - it's a main event.  Give a Jihadi a suicide vest, and he's screaming rhetoric for a few minutes - Give a Jihadhi international media coverage, and he's screaming rhetoric for the rest of his life.

- Afghanistan is on Russia's near flank.  It is not in Russia's interests to have that region as an unstable melting pot of Muslim extremist training camps (Balkans, anyone?).  If it's getting cleaned up on America's dime, so much the better.

- 93% of the world's poppy fields are in Afghanistan.  The net result of those fields (Opium & derivatives) doesn't do well when combined with jobless Russians on Moscow streets.

- Russia and China got along infamously, when it was "Communism vs Capitalism".  Now, they're two nuclear-armed heavyweights sitting next door to each other.  One, the disgraced former champ - the other the rising (red) star.  Russia might be liking an Obama-led USA a little better than the Chinese enigma at their doorstep.




Pick all, some, or none of the above.  Many interesting developments going on recently with no clear-cut visible cause.
Vax
Member
+42|5860|Flyover country
^good points imo
The islamic terrorism thing has actually been something the Russians have common cause with US policy on, at least in part. They have had their own war with them in the form of Chechen militants/ terrorists (remember Beslan school massacre)
Pretty sure there have been afghanistan trained 'jihadists' involved   
When Basayev was killed I recall Bush had some words of praise about it, though it isn't for sure the Russians actually got him, he is dead either way 
Bushes main sticking points with Putin were probably Iraq, and the missile shield programs.
And also as mentioned in the article the war in Georgia chilled everything, I guess that's blown over by now (?)
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6114|eXtreme to the maX
How did W. manage to chaff the Russians that badly?... There must be story out there somewhere. Did W. poop in Putin's soup or did W. refuse to wife swap or what?
Breaking missile 'defense shields' in Europe, inciting the Georgians to rebel, continued nuclear testing - just off the top of my head.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6395

Dilbert_X wrote:

Breaking missile 'defense shields' in Europe, inciting the Georgians to rebel, continued nuclear testing - just off the top of my head.
The first two I expected, but where did the third one come from?
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6414|North Carolina
I think it might have something to do with the Kyrgyzstan thing.

See, if Russia gets rid of their cooperation with us, then we have to deal directly with Russia instead.  So, Russia basically lessens our influence over there while forcing us to pay them at the same time for their own cooperation.

It's pretty clever, actually.
Vax
Member
+42|5860|Flyover country

Turquoise wrote:

I think it might have something to do with the Kyrgyzstan thing.

See, if Russia gets rid of their cooperation with us, then we have to deal directly with Russia instead.  So, Russia basically lessens our influence over there while forcing us to pay them at the same time for their own cooperation.

It's pretty clever, actually.
Makes sense. 

Get things set on their terms instead of the US military operating out of the satellite countries where Moscow wants to keep it's influence.. ?.. 

Still an interesting development, and yes I imagine the administration change (.) has something to do with it


I'm sure that the irony of all this is not lost on anyone here

Russia,  possibly facilitating US/nato intervention against islamic militants there now -- vs 20 years ago...
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6818|Nårvei

Turquoise wrote:

I think it might have something to do with the Kyrgyzstan thing.

See, if Russia gets rid of their cooperation with us, then we have to deal directly with Russia instead.  So, Russia basically lessens our influence over there while forcing us to pay them at the same time for their own cooperation.

It's pretty clever, actually.
This definately has to do with the Kyrgyzstan thing, like I pointed out last week or earlier this week this was their intension all along and it will come with a pricetag ... what the pricetag will be is yet to be known but as mentioned that Georgia and Ukraina does not become NATO members might be it ... that and scrapping the missile shield plans for Europe ... or both.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6419|'Murka

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Breaking missile 'defense shields' in Europe, inciting the Georgians to rebel, continued nuclear testing - just off the top of my head.
The first two I expected, but where did the third one come from?
The first one is the only one that actually happened, btw.

As to the OP: It's not just "weapons"--in fact, the vast majority of the logistics support that would use Russia does not involve weapons at all. Gotta love AJ's spin on things.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Lai
Member
+186|6159

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Wow, get rid of Bush and in less than a month the big bear turns into a teddy bear???
See it as the big bear mucking the little donkey now the elephant is gone. He'll eat the donkey when it is fat enough.

Turquoise wrote:

I think it might have something to do with the Kyrgyzstan thing.

See, if Russia gets rid of their cooperation with us, then we have to deal directly with Russia instead.  So, Russia basically lessens our influence over there while forcing us to pay them at the same time for their own cooperation.

It's pretty clever, actually.
and that



FEOS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Breaking missile 'defense shields' in Europe, inciting the Georgians to rebel, continued nuclear testing - just off the top of my head.
The first two I expected, but where did the third one come from?
The first one is the only one that actually happened, btw.

As to the OP: It's not just "weapons"--in fact, the vast majority of the logistics support that would use Russia does not involve weapons at all. Gotta love AJ's spin on things.
So handing the Georgians (ditching their AK's) new US and German made weapons a few months prior to Georgia's impending assault on South Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely coincidental as well as multiple visits to Georgia made by western officials during that time?
Masques
Black Panzer Party
+184|6731|Eastern PA
Since the price of oil has taken a nose dive in recent months (combined with the world economy in the shitter), Russia is also hard up for cash. Providing logistical support for the US and/or NATO is also a good way to earn some fast cash from the only somewhat-broke western nations.
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|5758|شمال
lulz...US and Co. FAIL?
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6770

Beduin wrote:

lulz...US and Co. FAIL?
huh?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6419|'Murka

Lai wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:


The first two I expected, but where did the third one come from?
The first one is the only one that actually happened, btw.

As to the OP: It's not just "weapons"--in fact, the vast majority of the logistics support that would use Russia does not involve weapons at all. Gotta love AJ's spin on things.
So handing the Georgians (ditching their AK's) new US and German made weapons a few months prior to Georgia's impending assault on South Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely coincidental as well as multiple visits to Georgia made by western officials during that time?
That was part of Georgia's initiative to join NATO. And it wasn't just US doing that...multiple NATO countries were/are involved.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Lai
Member
+186|6159

FEOS wrote:

Lai wrote:

FEOS wrote:


The first one is the only one that actually happened, btw.

As to the OP: It's not just "weapons"--in fact, the vast majority of the logistics support that would use Russia does not involve weapons at all. Gotta love AJ's spin on things.
So handing the Georgians (ditching their AK's) new US and German made weapons a few months prior to Georgia's impending assault on South Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely coincidental as well as multiple visits to Georgia made by western officials during that time?
That was part of Georgia's initiative to join NATO. And it wasn't just US doing that...multiple NATO countries were/are involved.
EXACTLY!
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6419|'Murka

Lai wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lai wrote:


So handing the Georgians (ditching their AK's) new US and German made weapons a few months prior to Georgia's impending assault on South Ossetia and Abkhazia was completely coincidental as well as multiple visits to Georgia made by western officials during that time?
That was part of Georgia's initiative to join NATO. And it wasn't just US doing that...multiple NATO countries were/are involved.
EXACTLY!
If you're trying to say that had something to do with Georgia taking on S Ossetia...not so "exactly".

More likely, if the topic came up, it was a warning to Georgia that if they did it 1) they'd be on their own and 2) Russia would stomp a mudhole in their ass.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6114|eXtreme to the maX
George Bush personally encouraged the Georgians to take on South Ossetia and encourage them to do so.
I can find the youtube vids if you like, and always assuming I feel like sobering up.

My other comment related to the failure to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and continued nuclear weapon research, which the US signed but never intended to honour - hence pissing off the russians.
Funny, where have I heard that before?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6419|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

George Bush personally encouraged the Georgians to take on South Ossetia and encourage them to do so.
I can find the youtube vids if you like, and always assuming I feel like sobering up.
Please do.

Dilbert_X wrote:

My other comment related to the failure to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty and continued nuclear weapon research, which the US signed but never intended to honour - hence pissing off the russians.
Funny, where have I heard that before?
Ah...there's that omniscience again. Must be cool to know the inner thoughts of people you've never met.

Has the US tested any nukes in the past...oh, I don't know...sixteen years?

Since when is nuclear weapon research problematic for an existing nuclear power? Even the NPT doesn't proscribe it.

Russia will be pissed at whatever Russia wants to be pissed at. Just like any country, they will raise hell over anything they feel is in their national interests, regardless of the overall validity of the claim. Particularly regardless of whether a bunch of online gamers on their DAST forum approve or disapprove.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6114|eXtreme to the maX
Particularly regardless of whether a bunch of online gamers on their DAST forum approve or disapprove.
Well duh.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
morbid
Member
+1|5559
What's in it for Russia?

Me thinks a secret agreement for the US to stop meddling around in Georgia/Poland...
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6419|'Murka

morbid wrote:

What's in it for Russia?
$$$. Nothing else.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6784|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

morbid wrote:

What's in it for Russia?
$$$. Nothing else.
siding with US in this is a major mistake on Russia's part imho, but those in power here are so corrupt they would use any chance they get to line their pockets with bucks, especially now when oil prices have dived.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
rdx-fx
...
+955|6600

Shahter wrote:

siding with US in this is a major mistake on Russia's part imho, but those in power here are so corrupt they would use any chance they get to line their pockets with bucks, especially now when oil prices have dived.
I don't think Russia and the USA will ever actually side with each other.  Too many fundamental cultural differences.

We might be going the same direction from time to time, but we'll never be in the same boat.

Or, in Russian terms, 'We're both drinking, but not from the same bottle"

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard