Commentary: Could Russia Extend Its Standoff With NATO To Afghanistan?

 By Muhammad Tahir

 Prague (August 28, 2008)- It may have been a pure coincidence, but on July 7, almost one month to the day before Russian tanks entered Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia, Ariana, a local television channel in Afghanistan, hosted an interesting talk show that focused on Russia's role in Afghanistan.

At that time there was no indication of an imminent Georgian-Russian war; neither could one imagine that the fragile relationship between Russia and the West, particularly NATO, could deteriorate so fast.

The connection between the Georgia-Russia conflict and a talk show on an Afghan satellite channel may not be immediately clear. It lies in an opinion expressed by one of the participants in the debate.

Discussing Russia's strategy vis-a-vis Afghanistan, Afghan parliamentarian Ahmed Behzad said that "Moscow seems determined to fight terrorism and considers it a peril to its borders. Therefore it seems that Russia will continue to cooperate with NATO in Afghanistan in the short term. But the question is: will Moscow accept the suppression and eradication of terrorism in a country in its own backyard where NATO's influence is strong?"

According to Mr Behzad, the answer is no. And a comment by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in the wake of the escalating NATO-Russia tensions over Georgia – another country that leans towards the West – indicates that Behzad may be right.

Russia has responded to the sustained diplomatic attack occasioned by its incursion into Georgia and President Dmitry Medvedev's subsequent decision on August 26 to recognize the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent with threats to use all means available against the West and NATO. No doubt, due to its geographic location, Afghanistan is among them.

Lavrov implied that Russia might extend its standoff with NATO to Afghanistan, possibly by suspending an agreement reached in April under which NATO may use Russian airspace to transport supplies to NATO forces in Afghanistan. Commenting on NATO's stated decision to review its relationship with Moscow, Lavrov warned that "the fate of NATO is being decided in Afghanistan. You are not going to halt the Afghanistan transit, are you?"

At this stage, however, Lavrov's comment is open to interpretation. In all probability, he is keeping this bullet in reserve, ready for Moscow to fire if and when NATO takes further measures to support Georgia that are deemed to be detrimental to Russia's interests.

But this would be a heavy bullet which NATO commanders in Afghanistan would find very difficult to survive, since due to the increasing turmoil in Pakistan and in eastern and southern Afghanistan, they are desperately in need of an alternative supply route.

In March, for example, 36 tankers carrying fuel supplies for NATO forces were set on fire in the tribal region of Pakistan.  In April, four U.S. helicopter engines worth $13 million went missing on the way from Kabul to Pakistan, and last week, militants killed 10 French soldiers, all on the same highway 30 miles from Kabul.

This is the route by which the NATO forces receive 70 percent of their much-needed fuel, food, water and equipment. Since the signing of the April agreement,  the rest has been flown in through the "northern corridor," via Russian airspace and U.S. bases in Central Asia.

At present, NATO is allowed to use this route only to transport non-military supplies, and would have to request permission and conclude additional agreements with Central Asian countries in order to extend the use of this route to transport military equipment to Afghanistan. This is where Russia is in a strong position: it can exert its influence on the Central Asian states to dictate whether or not such agreements are signed.

Russian Ambassador to Kabul Zamir Kabulov believes that since Russia suspended its military cooperation with NATO last week over NATO's support for Georgia, the agreement on the transit route is de facto invalid. He did not, however, say whether Russia has already decided to ban NATO from flying over Russian territory, nor if not, whether and when it intends to do so.

This is a very serious issue. So far there is no indication that Russia seriously intends to impose such a ban, but if it does, it is indubitably in a position to damage NATO in Afghanistan. Given its influence over the Central Asian states, not only could it block NATO's transit route through the northern corridor, but it could also coerce those states to favor Moscow over NATO in subsequent dealings. As a result, if the security situation in the tribal region of Pakistan and Afghanistan continues to deteriorate, there is a real possibility the NATO mission will fail.

As a result of the agreement signed last week between Poland and the U.S. to establish a missile-defence system, Ukraine's moves to increase restrictions over the Russian naval base on its territory, and the possibility of a NATO military presence in Georgia, Russia today feels under pressure and is therefore acting hastily, out of anger and desperation. Lashing out at the West at this stage could simply be a desperate reaction to that pressure, aimed solely at short-term gains.

Afghanistan is important to Russia for two reasons.  First, by banning the transit of supplies through its airspace, Russia could hurt NATO; second, Moscow may want NATO to fail in Afghanistan in order to prevent the establishment of another hostile military base in its backyard.

Should Moscow extend its conflict with NATO to Afghanistan, it should still not forget the long-term costs, at least on the Afghan front. The immediate victims of increased instability in Afghanistan would be the Central Asian states, where Islamic militancy is already on the rise.

Source- RFE/RL, but views expressed in this commentary are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.