The Afghan endgame, & the potential players

[foxbat]

LOL at your naivety.

Look at it this way, you can sail around the world to Afghanistan, but what makes you think your assets in Afghanistan will be safe without the blessing of Pakistan?

This is not tough talk, but I'm just being realistic.

Arre.. You were talking of CAR.. I am saying that access to those can be achieved thru Iran, bypassing Pakistan and Afghanistan totally.. Hence, that argument about India's interest in Afghan endgame doesnt hold water..

What else..??

 

[fast and furious]

The russians will not make the same mistake twice. They know the worth of Pakistan after they had to pull out from Afghanistan once. Iran will not interfere with Afghanistan since they don't see the outcome to be favourable, and if you look at their pattern, they involve themselves towards the west and south.

One American base means they have absolute say in the country? They already have a few.

1)Russia
Sir Just like India and China,Russia is also a BRIC country.Given the natural resources in Afghanistan all BRIC countries want some kind of influence there.Only Brazil, given its geographical location is not a player in this region.

Same mistake with Pakistan.I think you are referring to the mujahideen episode.Sir remember there is no US backing you.
If you are counting on Chinese direct/indirect support in taking on Russia.Do that on your peril.
I am sure you have heard about Northern Alliance and who supports them.

Sir contrary to what you think no country(except perhaps US) sees war as a doorbreaker for economical success.Russia will,if/when US exits,offer pak a pie in the economic development first which I am pretty sure your leadership will accept.Though the Pak influence will be nothing like it was before(The Strategic Depth Concept).
Hint-Russia's friendly gestures towards Pakistan lately.Though not offering a strategic alliance but friendly neverthless.

Iran)
One phrase-Baloch areas in Iran.
Also, it will support Russia and vice versa.Watch out for that one.

US bases)

Sir, That base will be meant for other countries(U know which ones) and not against the Taliban.
Also, I dint know that USAF is involved inside Afghanistan these days,only heard drone strikes in Pakistani territory.


ANA)
oops no need to reply as U dint rebut that one.

 

[foxbat]

I have mentioned the Chabahar Port, & the issues with that in my original post as well.

2 points there.. First, the project to upgrade 2.5 to 6 MT has already started.. Secondly, my response is towards access to CAR.. Not afghanistan

 

[fast and furious]

The developing geopolitical picture based on current events shows that the US is getting increasingly isolated in Afghanistan, & it is possible that Iran & Russia might work with Pakistan to isolate the US further in the region.


Money is fine, but without US troops on the ground, they will not be able to hold onto the areas they currently control. Which is why we are having all these talks with the Taliban, because the US is not confident that the current Karzai regime can hold its own: it knows that the Taliban will come back to power, & their efforts to eliminate them have failed.



While the ANA has improved, it is still not strong enough to handle the threat of the Taliban & other insurgents in the country.

Valid points Bilal Bhai.

All the points you make,you are assuming/implying that US will give complete control back to the Taliban in their peace talks.I really doubt that.Cos that will make them look like complete fools.
Please dont forget US is in a better bargaining position then Taliban is.

Also refer to Post no 27.

 

[53fd]

1)Russia
Sir Just like India and China,Russia is also a BRIC country.Given the natural resources in Afghanistan all BRIC countries want some kind of influence there.Only Brazil, given its geographical location is not a player in this region.

Same mistake with Pakistan.I think you are referring to the mujahideen episode.Sir remember there is no US backing you.
If you are counting on Chinese direct/indirect support in taking on Russia.Do that on your peril.
I am sure you have heard about Northern Alliance and who supports them.

Sir contrary to what you think no country(except perhaps US) sees war as a doorbreaker for economical success.Russia will,if/when US exits,offer pak a pie in the economic development first which I am pretty sure your leadership will accept.Though the Pak influence will be nothing like it was before(The Strategic Depth Concept).
Hint-Russia's friendly gestures towards Pakistan lately.Though not offering a strategic alliance but friendly neverthless.

Iran)
One phrase-Baloch areas in Iran.
Also, it will support Russia and vice versa.Watch out for that one.

US bases)

Sir, That base will be meant for other countries(U know which ones) and not against the Taliban.
Also, I dint know that USAF is involved inside Afghanistan these days,only heard drone strikes in Pakistani territory.


ANA)
oops no need to reply as U dint rebut that one.

What you fail to realize is that the US is getting increasingly isolated in Afghanistan, & it is possible that Iran & Russia might work with Pakistan to isolate the US further in the region. No country likes the US presence in the region, & not even the Afghan regime. And less US presence in Afghanistan spells more trouble for India inside Afghanistan.

 

[fast and furious]

What you fail to realize is that the US is getting increasingly isolated in Afghanistan, & it is possible that Iran & Russia might work with Pakistan to isolate the US further in the region. No country like the US presence in the region, & not even the Afghan regime. And less US presence in Afghanistan spells more trouble for India inside Afghanistan.

But you just said Russia and Iran might work with Pakistan.Even with decreased US presence(assuming they get even more isolated),what makes you think Russian presence/influence will not work in India's favour.

 

[53fd]

Valid points Bilal Bhai.

All the points you make,you are assuming/implying that US will give complete control back to the Taliban in their peace talks.I really doubt that.Cos that will make them look like complete fools.
Please dont forget US is in a better bargaining position then Taliban is.

Also refer to Post no 27.

The Taliban is in a better bargaining position than the US, because the US has set a deadline for itself to exit the region, & it has compromised its position. The Taliban control most of the country as it is. Which is why the US is keen to hold 'peace talks' with the Taliban, & bring them to the table, whereas the Taliban have not been so keen & haven't shown the same willingness. And I never said they will give full control to the Taliban. This is what I said in my original post, please read it carefully:

In the Afghan endgame, Afghanistan will be sharply divided along ethnic lines: North Afghanistan will be dominated by non-Pashtun elements, whereas the South will be dominated by Pashtun elements. A deal will be brokered where the Taliban will (be allowed to) administer the regions in the South, & will be asked not to interfere in the administration by the non-Pashtun elements in the North. That is if the US plans for the Afghan endgame go according to plan, & the Taliban is convinced to join the negotiating table... As of now, the Taliban are not interested in peace talks, & the only one that is interested is the US.

---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------

But you just said Russia and Iran might work with Pakistan.Even with decreased US presence(assuming they get even more isolated),what makes you think Russian presence/influence will not work in India's favour.

Because India does not have a direct stake in Afghanistan like Russia & Pakistan do. Pakistan is the major player in Afghanistan. Russia will look after its own security first before it looks to please India, & will not want to be at odds with Pakistan, rather have it on its side.

 

[fast and furious]

The Taliban is in a better bargaining position than the US, because the US has set a deadline for itself, & it has compromised its position. The Taliban control most of the country as it is. Which is why the US is keen to hold 'peace talks' with the Taliban, & bring them to the table, whereas the Taliban have not been so keen & haven't shown the same willingness. And I never said they will give full control to the Taliban. This is what I said in my original post, please read it carefully:



---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:15 PM ----------



Because India does not have a direct stake in Afghanistan like Russia & Pakistan do. Pakistan is the major player in Afghanistan. Russia will look after its own security first before it looks to please India, & will not want to be at odds with Pakistan.

So you will take on Russia also if it tries to include India for trade in that region.We will see about that.

Sir, Russia will not please India by doing so,cos we dont want to have a base in Afghanistan or surround Pakistan.
We want trade and you will see we will get our share in that region.

 

[53fd]

So you will take on Russia also if it tries to include India for trade in that region.We will see about that.

Russia's policy with Pakistan in terms of Afghanistan is independent of its relationship with India. Just like India's relationship with the US is independent of its relationship with Iran. The main focus Russia has in terms of Afghanistan is security: the Chechen insurgency, as well as the insurgencies in the former Soviet states present a huge threat to Russia's security. Russia already has significant influence in both Asia & Europe, just look at its geography. The focus of Russia in terms of Afghanistan is its security. Hence, Russia will not use Afghanistan as proxy land against Pakistan, & will not be as influential in Afghanistan as one might think. It will definitely not replace the US's role in Afghanistan.

 

[OrionHunter]

It will be Pakistan that triumphs again. This is the reason for the frustration from the Yanks, Indians and Tajiks. Pakistan hasn't been playing the game since the 80's to lose influence so easily.

RazPak, unfortunately you haven't got the gist of Bilal's very well analyzed post. You love shooting from the hip just for the heck of increasing your post count.

Now coming down to brass tacks. How do you say that "Pakistan trumps again"? In what way? Do you have even the faintest clue as to the players who are going to jump into the ring once the Americans depart? They are all waiting like voracious vultures to get a piece of the cake. These include the Northern Alliance consisting mainly of the Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmen and others, and Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, the CIS Republics and the US of A.

There is a distinct possibility of Afghanistan being divided with Bamian as the capital of Northern Afghanistan under the Alliance (which is anti Taliban) and Kabul the capital of Southern Afghanistan under the Taliban. Now in all this, there would be jockeying for influence by the countries mentioned above. Iran would be a major player in this game as 20% of Afghanistan's population consists of Shias which Iran would use as a proxy for furthering its interests by the use of militancy or otherwise.

Having a 'friendly' Taliban at the helm in Kabul would perhaps also suit Pakistan to some extent where the security of its Western border is concerned. However, its plans to have a stake in the energy pie in Afghanistan and the CIS Republics may run into rough weather.

Another thing to note is that the US of A will not be leaving a vacuum in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has planned to keep a minimum force of 30,000 troops permanently stationed there. Where Pakistan is concerned, this is what Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had said:

"In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence. They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet."

Well, though I do not agree with him fully, but there is an element of truth in what he says.

 

[RazPaK]

RazPak, unfortunately you haven't got the gist of Bilal's very well analyzed post. You love shooting from the hip just for the heck of increasing your post count.

Now coming down to brass tacks. How do you say that "Pakistan trumps again"? In what way? Do you have even the faintest clue as to the players who are going to jump into the ring once the Americans depart? They are all waiting like voracious vultures to get a piece of the cake. These include the Northern Alliance consisting mainly of the Tajiks, Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmen and others, China, Iran, India, the CIS Republics and the US of A.

There is a distinct possibility of Afghanistan being divided with Bamian as the capital of Northern Afghanistan under the Alliance (which is anti Taliban) and Kabul the capital of Southern Afghanistan under the Taliban. Now in all this, there would be jockeying for influence by the countries mentioned above. Iran would be a major player in this game as 20% of Afghanistan's population consists of Shias which Iran would use as a proxy for furthering its interests by the use of militancy or otherwise.

Another thing to note is that the US of A will not be leaving a vacuum in Afghanistan. The Pentagon has planned to keep a minimum force of 30,000 troops permanently there. Where Pakistan is concerned, this is what Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had said:

"In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence. They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet."

Well, though I do not agree with him fully, but there is an element of truth in what he says.

I've been a member since 2010, and I don't care about post counts, thanks or any of that crap.

What you mentioned maybe true, but Uzbeks, Turkmens? LOL.

They said Iraq was going to be carved out due to religious and ethnic differences, but it is still in one piece today. The Russians know they have no influence without Pakistan's backing, same as the US knew.

Another point is that Afghanistan cannot and will not be separated simply for the fact that it's bread and basket is in Pakistan. Any further divisions would only further weaken an already weak country. Afghanistan relies on Pakistan for most things and just because India can gain access in a round about way won't change their dependecy.


I simply tell it like it is. No need to accuse me of anything. You typed all that and I can bet that most of your assumptions will turn out to be false.

At best we can agree to disagree.

 

[VCheng]

May I ask a clarification?

First you state this:

........................ But the Chabahar Port itself is operating at a very low capacity (2.5 MPTA), & is located in the Sistan-Balochistan area of Iran, which is rife with insurgency & terrorism violence.

...................... If the Baloch insurgency in Pakistan is able to be contained, & there isn't too much problem from the insurgents in Sistan Balochistan in Iran, the IP pipeline will be successful.

.............................

So why is that local terrorism a problem only for India, or am I reading that apparent contradiction incorrectly?

 

[RazPaK]

Once Iranians find out that India aids the Balouch Insurgency across the border, they will be swiftly booted out. The insurgency is a problem for Iran, just as much as it is for Pakistan.

 

[lem34]

What you fail to realize is that the US is getting increasingly isolated in Afghanistan, & it is possible that Iran & Russia might work with Pakistan to isolate the US further in the region. No country like the US presence in the region, & not even the Afghan regime. And less US presence in Afghanistan spells more trouble for India inside Afghanistan.

Iran is already working with pakistan and you can see their intent by the completion of their side of th ip pipeline and russia yes russia is not only supporting pakistans entry into sco but is helping pakistan infrastructure projects Russia endorses full SCO membership for Pakistan | World | DAWN.COM

 

[lem34]

And why cant all the countries in the neighbourhood work with afghani people to help stabalise and help the afghans. pakistan and india should work together on ipi and other pipelines. The neighbourhood has much to gain by working together with all the regional powers that is china russia the cars iran, afghan and pakistan.