NATO swapping Ukraine, Georgia for Afghanistan supply lines, Iran cooperation?
posted at 10:30 am on March 15, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
It looks like NATO’s sweet-talking to Georgia and Ukraine may have provided an opening for alternate lines of communication through Russia into Afghanistan. NATO diplomats deny it, but the proposal for Russian cooperation on troop transports into the war against the Taliban won’t come for free, and Russia wants nothing more than its buffer states between NATO and their frontier. Both sides may have more on the table than that, too:
NATO said on Saturday it was nearing a deal to use Russian land and airspace to supply its security forces in Afghanistan, but Western diplomats denied any trade-off with Moscow to keep Ukraine and Georgia out of NATO.
A NATO spokesman said the alliance was negotiating accords on land and air corridors to transport troops and equipment, which could be announced when President Vladimir Putin attends a NATO summit next month.
Diplomats said a NATO-Russia council meeting on Monday would discuss a “package of deliverables” also including the possible leasing of Russian planes and trains, Russian training for Afghan helicopter pilots and counter-narcotics assistance at a centre near Moscow.
“Discussions are under way. There is no deal done. We are working towards an agreement at the Bucharest summit,” NATO spokesman James Appathurai said of an April 2-4 meeting in the Romanian capital.
The issue may find a resolution more quickly than that. Condoleezza Rice will meet with Russian diplomats on Monday on a wide range of issues, including cooperation on Afghanistan and Iran. Meanwhile, NATO sources have already begun to downplay any significant move towards admission for Georgia and Ukraine. For the latter, they cite a lack of popular support in Ukraine for the sudden lack of enthusiasm, and for the former their “heavy-handed treatment of opposition protests last year.”
Would such an effort be worth it? Absolutely, and for a reason that Reuters never mentions: Pakistan. Right now, our lines of communication into Afghanistan rely almost entirely on the nuclear-armed Islamic nation. The weakening of Pervez Musharraf has put those supply lines at risk and threaten the entire mission. We rely on overflights of Pakistani airspace to supply our troops, as well as some efforts through Uzbekistan. If we lost the overflight privileges, the NATO effort against the Taliban and al-Qaeda would be doomed.
The question will be at what price we buy reliable routes. Vladimir Putin wants NATO to keep its hands off Georgia and Ukraine, for starters. While that won’t be much of a loss for us, Putin may also demand an end to the missile defense system in Europe. That will go down hard with NATO, and won’t likely come without better cooperation from Russia on Iran. It could set up a wide-ranging horse trade with Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, one that could rearrange much of the politics in eastern Europe and the Caucasus.
We need to build back-up plans for supporting the mission in Afghanistan, and that’s especially true if our relationship with Pakistan sours. This looks like an attempt to rebuild an alliance with Moscow that may set some teeth grinding, but in the long run might — might — provide us with a more rational partner and one with less risk.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
“Putin may also demand an end to the missile defense system in Europe.”
And that’s the real kicker, ain’t it?
The Sov … ooops, I mean, the Russians … are more concerned about us having a DEFENSIVE system then they are about Iran having an OFFENSIVE capability, even though Russia is a target of (Chechyen) islamic militants. Chechnya, Iraq, The P.I., A-stan, Kashmir, etc, why don’t the Ruskies understand that to the islamos, this is all the same war? And the Chicoms too.
Tony737 on March 15, 2008 at 10:53 AM
You mean the missile defense system in Europe is actually against Russia, as Russia has been claiming all along?
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Er, no, Freevillage. I’m not sure how you got that from what I wrote. Putin may not like it, but he’s not really the big missile threat, which everyone except you and Putin understand.
Ed Morrissey on March 15, 2008 at 11:01 AM
Oh, nothing like a good mix of utter ignorance and condescension.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 11:08 AM
I have long held the belief that the attacks on the United States by Islamic fanatics are really an attack on the United States by some one else with Islam merely supplying the foot soldiers, and with Islam suffering the consequences.
rockhauler on March 15, 2008 at 11:12 AM
In this specific post I emphasize that this is NOT my opinion. I agree with you. However, I think even if you disagree with someone it’s important to understand their point of view.
The majority of people in Russia remember who helped mujahadeens including Bin Laden fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Also, during the war in Chechnya all they heard from the West were complaints about human rights abuses by the Russian forces.
Iraq was widely viewed as a secular dictatorship. Radical islamists have become stronger in Iraq as a direct consequence if the US involvement.
The conclusion they draw is that the US isn’t sincere about the war on radical Islam. They think the US will do anything including direct support of terrorists where it’s convenient.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 11:19 AM
This is a most puzzling question. Why global complacency about Islam–even from paranoid dictatorships? Even if we are wrong to say that Islam wants war–which I doubt, but let’s pretend for minute–many muslims fighting several wars under the same banner should evoke the natural paranoia of dictatorships.
I suggest the reason is doesn’t is the human brain tends to operate with the “One True Threat”. Nothing else is a danger but the “One True Threat”. For example, the One True Threat for the anti-semitic conspiracy theorist is the Jewish banking cabal that controls everything. The left has packaged the idea of the United States as the One True Threat, and leftist ideologies still hold considerable sway in Russia and China. Thus, nothing but the United States threatens those countries–even when muslims conduct jihad in schools and kill hundreds of innocent children.
You see the One True Threat Syndrome working here at Hot Air. Many people who I think understand Islam correctly take it is the One True Threat. They treat environmental issues like the Russians do Islam. They spend their time mocking Al Gore’s concern about Global Climate Change. I don’t know if Al Gore is right or wrong, but it is an issue that needs being brought up. And if GCC is wrong, it’s going to be something else if we continue to destroy the world’s ecosystems. The culmination of the Islam-aware One True Threat Syndrome is Mark Steyn’s extraordinarily insane idea of conducting a breeding war against the muslim savages. The prize for winning such a war is to live on a planet that may or may not be habitable for the species homo sapien.
Maybe, it is too depressing to deal with more than one threat to our existence.
thuja on March 15, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Looks to me like there is a perfectly good supply route available through Iran to Afghanistan but we would have to fight our way through.
In general I think this is a good idea. The relationship with Russia is, I believe, going to swing back and forth and it has probably started to swing back in the direction of thawing relations. Now it probably won’t swing back to as warm of relations as we had at one point in the past but my hope is that over time it will stabilize.
Friendly relations between NATO and Russia also must scare the living crap out of Iran.
crosspatch on March 15, 2008 at 11:58 AM
And freevillage, Russia does not want a NATO defense system for many reasons but mainly because it makes them more immune to intimidation. And a defensive system isn’t “aimed” at anyone, it is simply a shield. It is designed to protect one’s self, it is not a weapon designed to be used “against” anyone. That makes the comment “You mean the missile defense system in Europe is actually against Russia” seem somewhat nonsensical to me.
I think Russia does not want the RADAR units to be placed in Eastern Europe because it would put Russia under surveillance deep behind her borders. THAT is I think the issue. It isn’t the anti-missile weapons system per se, it is the RADAR system that must support it that Russia doesn’t want. Hence their offer to allow us to use RADAR data from one of their own stations instead.
crosspatch on March 15, 2008 at 12:04 PM
Well, it may seem nonsensical until you actually consider what type of missiles are installed and how difficult it would be to modify them. Also, have you asked yourself the following question? Bush administration has done away with some treaties signed with the Soviet Union. Why were those treaties signed at the time? How come they are no longer needed?
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
“Radical islamists have become stronger in Iraq as a direct consequence if the US involvement.” – f.v.
Let me fix that for ya …
Radical islamists have become *DEADER* in Iraq as a direct consequence if the US involvement.
American school buses, highrise buildings, pizza shops, power plants, ice cream parlors, bridges, commercial airliners, tittie bars, football stadiums, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, have become safer as a direct consequence if the US involvement in Iraq.
Tony737 on March 15, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Plus consider what MAD actually entails. If the US attacks first, Russia can respond and inflict the US unacceptable damage. A popular belief is that once thousands of missiles are launched from either side, the response will be of the same magnitude. It’s not necessarily true.
For instance, Russia may not have enough time to launch all of its missiles while American missiles are still in the air. Since the attack will surely be primarily on Russian military bases, it means the few survived missiles will be tasked to retaliate. In this scenario, the defense system in Europe actually may become an adequate protection against Russia.
Meaning, implementing the defense system in Europe gives the US extra incentive to strike first. Now, Ed who apparently doesn’t know much about the subject, may think this is some crazy stuff that onnly I and Putin are thinking about. This type of apocalyptic scenarios is what everybody talks about when at issue are wars with infinite costs.
All those treaties aimed at controlling the arms race weren’t written by idiots.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Freevillage, I fail to understand why a system that is capable of defending against Russian missiles (as well as any other) is a bad thing. I still don’t “get” your apparently belief that it i somehow a good thing to allow Russian missiles to reach Europe unmolested.
crosspatch on March 15, 2008 at 12:31 PM
OK, so the entire basis for security in the World (against the nuclear war) in the last 50 years has been Mutually Assured Destruction. You would like to change all that. Fine.
I don’t really want to argue this point now. Let me finish by saying this. If Ed thinks that concerns regarding a change of this scale is some crazy talk pushed by Putin and me, then he doesn’t live on the planet Earth.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Let me put this another way:
A defensive missile system is not a deterrent to massive attack because an attacker could very easily overwhelm the defensive system with more targets than it can engage. It is designed to thwart attacks of single or a few missiles as might be launched by some rogue state or lunatic general with the key to a nuke in his hand. It makes it LESS likely that such a lunch would result in a full blown nuclear war as it provides a mechanism to defuse the problem before you have a million people dead.
The system would never defend Europe if Russia decided it was going to engaged in a full blown attack. In that respect the defensive system is no threat at all to Russia.
What the Russians apparently do NOT want is powerful European RADAR units peering deep into Russian space. We have agreed to work with them on that. We have also agree to share the anti-missile technology with them so they have the potential to have the same kind of system that we have.
I think you are complaining because it is fashionable for you to do so. I believe you are parroting the “correct” rhetoric without really thinking it through yourself. Maybe you do this to be accepted by a group of friends or something. I would suggest than an alternative to knee-jerk reactionary rhetoric might be some serious thought on the subject.
crosspatch on March 15, 2008 at 12:44 PM
yeah, I still fail to see Freevillages overwheming concern that Millions of people in Europe be sitting ducks for missiles from Iran, or yes, even Russia.
Does he honestly believe that Bush is slavering at the bit to nuke every city in Russia, and is only waiting until he has a working missile shield to do so? That’s well beyond Truther level.
Vanceone on March 15, 2008 at 12:52 PM
Reminds me of a quote from the movie Thirteen Days:
We cannot trust Russia. We just can’t. And, they don’t even border Afghanistan. If anything, first, we should be reaching out to the ‘stans that do border it. You can get to Afghanistan without having to fly over Russia or Pakistan. I think a quid-pro-quo over Georgia and Ukraine is a strategic error. We need to continue to bring those countries into the Western fold. Sec. Rice’s continuing insistence that Russia has common interests with us is utterly ridiculous.
CP on March 15, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Of course Putin will demand we stop the missile defenses. This is his favorite card to play whenever the west needs some cooperation from Russia. Also, please stop feeding the troll!
kongzilla on March 15, 2008 at 1:15 PM
I think I have provided you with a fairly clear description of a scenario where the defense system becomes instrumental specifically against Russia. A scenario that I didn’t invent myself. Instead of addressing it, you started insulting me. You’ll be ignored from this point on.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 1:18 PM
There will be no such thing. Nobody in Russia will allow any land use by the American forces, and the US will not have to pay for it in any way.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 1:21 PM
1. Iran doesn’t have missiles threatening Europe.
2. Defense system will sure mean more Russian missiles targeting Europe.
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I don’t like this idea.
SouthernGent on March 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM
Iran is not a real threat to Russia because (a) such an attack would not leave Russia in a state of moral paralysis; instead Russia would either reduce its inventory of nuclear weapons by using them or else bury Iran under the bodies of hastily-called-up soldiers (just like it took Berlin); and (b) Russia would be happy to occupy and hold Iran in a way we would not, since Russia is a continental power.
Thus the Iranian missles are not a credible thread to Russia. But solidarity against her by the states on her western border is a considerable threat, because they can strangle or manipulate her economy by controlling the flow of petroleum and gas that Russia has for sale, and can greatly restrict her access to commercially valuable seaports. (The Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg remnant of East Prussia has no land access to the rest of Russia, and St. Petersburg is a warm-weather port.)
Being surrounded by states which may have unpredictable consciences is also uncomfortable. Russia stretches across eleven time zones, with access to both Europe and the Pacific. She has deep, untapped stores of mineral wealth and her peoples have long and storied histories. Such a nation should be a Power, and no self-respecting ambitious politician could think otherwise.
Physical and political geography deserve better treatment in K-12 than we give them.
njcommuter on March 15, 2008 at 2:50 PM
freevillage on March 15, 2008 at 12:10 PM
I suggest you pick up a copy of Surrender Is Not An Option by former UN Ambassador John Bolton. Here you will find a detailed account of the logic for, and necessity to end United States compliance to the ABM treaty.
As for the subject of this post, the sooner we can make Pakistan truly understand it is their best interest to play ball with us the better. The Mashariff era is over, little if anything good has come out of it!
dmann on March 15, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Considering that the Russians bombed themselves to incite the Chechnyian War – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings – they are the last country in the world I trust.
Oh yeah, lets scrap the missile defense system because we can trust them!
A Axe on March 15, 2008 at 3:48 PM
Of course, I suppose Freevillage is feeling some “Russian Solidarity” and probably still views the US as a threat to the Motherland. But from my standpoint, anything to reduce Putin’s power is all to the good.
It seems like lunacy to rely on Putin’s good will, like Freevillage wants us to do. “if we leave the door unlocked, they won’t break in! If we lock the door, they will think we have precious stuff and expend much more effort to break in!” So let’s disarm completely–isn’t that the ultimate end of this line of thought? Why, if we disarmed our military completely, no one would fear us, so no one would target us!
Leftist thinking completely.
Vanceone on March 15, 2008 at 3:50 PM
Did it ever occur to anybody or is it possible the missile part of this MDS is a bargaining chip? Whoever said that the radar is the real thorn for the Russians is right but not for the reasons implied. True, it will look deep into Russian airspace or could but it’s real support will be for maturing and emerging technologies. The breath of which…WOW! I don’t mean to sound flippant but there is some very cool stuff coming down the pike. And….. If the powers that be are letting us know about some of it, well….. Makes you wonder what we already have. Anybody remember Carter blowing the lid on the F-117? I believe there’s a lot more and this brouhaha is just the tip of the sword.
jerrytbg on March 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
bbl
jerrytbg on March 15, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Let’s put aside sentimentalities about democracy and our nostalgia for Reagan’s days and look at the matter practically.
An understanding with Moscow, if there’s good faith on both sides, is to be welcomed. We need their energy; they need time, decades, to undo the carnage of the last century. During their recuperation, they will want a powerful friend to help them against becoming a suburb of China, which demographically speaking is highly probable. Buti If Russia can stop thinking with the chip on its shoulder and if the US can stop being so damned-dumb for once, there could be a zone of mutual prosperity and mutual defense belting the entire Northern hemisphere. Anybody else think that sounds pretty good?
dhimwit on March 15, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Re ABM missiles in Poland: It is hard to understand Putin’s objection, other than pique at being pushed aside by the West (Poland was a Soviet satellite, remember). The ABMs are intended to deter missiles from Iran.
Freevillage’s comments about MAD are redolent of the Cold War. I thought we and the Russians had agreed to stop targeting each other’s cities and missile bases.
Ed is right: We desperately need more ways to get into the Afghan/Pakistani border regions.
With China dominating Asia, it would make sense to pull Russia along with her former provinces and satellites into NATO. Not likely, I know, but it would make sense for both Europe and Russia–and the USA.
MrLynn on March 15, 2008 at 6:09 PM
I thought the amount of nuke-missiles in submarines pushed the strategic situation towards MAD since a first strike could never take out the subs. Putin has already bragged in media reports that the Russian arsenal could overwhelm the shield. To which any rational person would reply “Duh!”
Theoretically this missile shield could be used in part of a first strike against Iran or other minimally armed nation. But not Russia.
SocklessJoe on March 15, 2008 at 8:24 PM
In the long run, ground based interceptor missles may not be the ultimate answer. I think the new airborne laser systems actually show a lot more promise. You get more shots for less money. More flexibility in deployment. It’s re-usable, etc. Trading the ground-based interceptors away might not be such a bad deal, strategically.
Of course, you can depend on the Dims to try and kill the airborne laser at every opportunity. It really sucks to be caught between malice from abroad and the stupidity of the left here at home.
trigon on March 16, 2008 at 2:16 AM
“This looks like an attempt to rebuild an alliance with Moscow that may set some teeth grinding, but in the long run might — might — provide us with a more rational partner and one with less risk.”
Next the Baltic States, then what?
Rational partner?
We need a safer entry point into Afghanistan but the West, yes, the West, will pay a heavy price.
davod on March 16, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Sorry Cap’n Ed, but FV is correct – and it is the Russians’ own fault. If the U.S. had been occupied by Soviet Russia after WW2 we would also be wanting ANY KIND of protection against it happening again. Of course we emphisize the reason for the antiballistic system is mainly for antiterrorism. But the anti-Russian reason for the Poles is equally real.
jimbo2008 on March 16, 2008 at 8:52 AM
Yes and I personally don’t think that the US would ever attack Russia. However, there’s this thing, it’s called the real world. In the real world any country including Russia is paranoid about its security. Particularly when we talk about nukes, where the costs are infinite and hence virtually any level of paranoia is justified.
As for reading John Bolton, I like the guy the same way I like Cheney. They come across as extremely intellectual people able to speak well. Unfortunately their resumes are kind of unconvincing to say the least. I’m sure my relatives would rather be alive than “free” and evaporated. Nobody wants a repetition of Iraq anywhere else in the world.
freevillage on March 16, 2008 at 10:24 AM
“As for reading John Bolton, I like the guy the same way I like Cheney. They come across as extremely intellectual people able to speak well. Unfortunately their resumes are kind of unconvincing to say the least. I’m sure my relatives would rather be alive than “free” and evaporated.”
Bolton had a practical effect in the UN and the State Department.
davod on March 16, 2008 at 12:06 PM