Connect with us

OPINION

The price of defeat: The US fled Afghanistan a year ago, but the real consequences are yet to come

Published

on



A year ago, the US suffered its most dramatic military defeat of the 21st century, so far

The Americans were preparing to pull their troops out of Afghanistan for months, but the operation still turned out to be a disaster. Footage of young Afghans clinging to Lockheed C-5 Galaxy cargo planes at Kabul Airport went viral all over the world. And although it seems these images have vanished from mainstream discourse, the consequences of those events are yet to come. RT asked experts what President Joe Biden’s first and most important foreign policy decision cost his administration.

Fleeing on camera

The Cold War was full of symbols. One of the most striking of these was footage of US military personnel pushing helicopters off the landing deck of the destroyer USS Kirk in the Mekong Gulf in 1975. The helicopters had been operated by pilots taking part in the US military mission in South Vietnam who were removing diplomatic staff from a besieged Saigon, along with their families. They no longer planned to return to the burning capital, so the expensive aircraft were sunk in the South China Sea.

While the helicopters on the deck of the Kirk were a striking, albeit isolated, case of such an incident being caught on camera, the multi-day flight of thousands of people fearing the Islamist dictatorship of the Taliban, who were rapidly taking control of Kabul, was shown on all social networks. The situation was exacerbated by a terrorist attack in the now almost forgotten style of the aughts.

On August 26, an explosion was heard in an airport terminal building packed with refugees. Approximately 170 civilians and 13 American servicemen were killed. At the same time, the world was innundated by videos of groups of grim men in turbans sitting at tables in the government offices of the presidential palace. Kalashnikov assault rifles from all over the world, as well as American M4s and Swiss SGs, could also be seen in the frame.

George W. Bush, who started the Afghan War, promised to quickly end the scarcely comprehensible conflict launched as a response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But this did not work out for him, nor for his successors Barack Obama or Donald Trump. It was clear to both the military and politicians that it was probably impossible to do so without suffering critical losses. Trump came closest to withdrawing troops by concluding an agreement with the Taliban that was criticized in the United States, but his defeat in the presidential election prevented him from finishing the job. As a result, responsibility for the exodus of Americans from Afghanistan fell on Joseph Biden, who had already studied the problem as vice president under Obama and firmly linked his fate with this operation during the election race.

Referring to a report by the Watson Institute, a Washington Post article on the troop withdrawal noted that 71,000 civilian Afghans and Pakistanis had died in the war over 20 years. The drone strike that followed the terrorist attack at the airport claimed the lives of ten civilians but was one of the last, if the recent (August 1, 2022) elimination of Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was recognized as a terrorist, isn’t counted.

How the ambitions of a small country’s US-backed leader launched the current confrontation between Russia and the West

The agreements with the Taliban and the chaotic evacuation from Kabul were the first significant foreign policy steps of the new Democrat administration after Trump left the White House. And, most likely, they have become a time bomb for the electoral prospects of the current cabinet and the top-tier of the Democratic Party in general. At least, experts interviewed by RT hold this view.

“This was an important turning point in American history, the consequences of which will take several decades to see. In a narrower sense, the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan turned out to be the defining point of the entire policy of the Biden administration. It was a watershed moment,” Vladimir Vasiliev, chief researcher at the Institute for US and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, said in a conversation.

“First of all, it caused a split in American society and the American political elite. There was polarization in the assessment of this event on the part of both parties and their leaders. In words, and maybe in deeds, the Democrats supported this initiative. Biden took full responsibility, believing that he had ended this 20-year war, which had cost the Americans a trillion dollars,” the expert added.

According to Vasiliev, representatives of the Republican Party still consider the evacuation from Afghanistan comparable to the exit from South Vietnam and Southeast Asia in the mid-70s. In their pre-election narrative, this can still be used as justification to demand either the voluntary early resignation of the incumbent president, or even his impeachment, if a favorable political situation develops.

Cabinet nosedive

According to Reuters, Biden’s current approval rating barely reaches 40%, whereas 55% of Americans are dissatisfied with his actions. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan could be the starting point for the downfall of the Democrats. The ongoing pandemic, tensions in Asia, and an imminent economic recession are also contributing to the president’s declining popularity. Nancy Pelosi’s recent Asian tour may just have been an attempt to rectify the situation for the party.

Dmitri Trenin: How a smart Middle East strategy can help Russia play a significant role in shaping the new world order

“While before the troop withdrawal, most Americans supported Biden, maybe blindly, maybe due to inertia – Afghanistan changed everything,” Vasiliev said. “Since then, his degree of public support has fallen sharply and is now at a critically low level. And today, we could even say this trend is irreversible.”

According to available data, including an analysis by auditors from the public organization Open the Books, the US military left up to 650,000 weapons to the rapidly advancing Taliban forces. This includes 350,000 modern M4 assault rifles and obsolete M16s, 65,000 machine guns, 25,000 submachine guns, and 2,500 mortar launchers. According to the organization’s estimates, the Americans left up to 22,000 Humvees and 110 UH-60 Black Hawk combat helicopters. Even if these figures are an exaggeration (as seems to be the case), it is logical to assume that withdrawing all of America’s remaining troops within just a week after pumping the entire region with weapons for 20 years would result in precisely this outcome. Army General Austin Miller, a special forces soldier who was in charge of the troops in Afghanistan, demonstratively handed over his command before the start of the troop withdrawal and now works as an adviser in a private company.

“We can only call what happened a ‘withdrawal operation’ with a grain of salt. In fact, it was a genuine escape, with allies thrown under the bus. Afghans who worked for the Americans, mountains of weapons worth billions of dollars, helicopters, and vehicles were all abandoned – it’s hard to call this a ‘withdrawal operation,’” Yuri Rogulev, director of the Foundation for the Study of the United States of the Moscow State University, said.

“This flight marked a turning point for the Biden administration, after which its approval rating plummeted and never rebounded. After that, no matter what the White House took on, it ended up the same way – in failure. And in this sense, it is a symbolic act that lays bare all the contradictions in America’s relations with many countries and reveals its attitude towards former allies.”

Might of the Islamic Revolution: Can Iranian drones help Russia in Ukraine?

According to Vasiliev, the failure in Afghanistan put an end to the administration’s domestic political ambitions. One year on, the cabinet has been unable to implement any of the major policy initiatives in its domestic agenda. Given the circumstances, the Biden administration justified the withdrawal by saying, “We are leaving Afghanistan to focus our actions on countering Russia and China.” Despite all its “adventurism and absurdity,” this line began to be implemented and provoked the Russian side to take forceful measures.

“This goes to show that the United States can do this to any of the protégés, allies, or clients that they supported,” Rogulev said, pointing to a century-old tradition of US foreign policy. “They have abandoned Afghanistan completely. They don’t provide it with any financial support or even humanitarian aid. This is also an example for Pakistan to keep in mind.”

According to Vasiliev, the increased tensions surrounding Taiwan and US-Chinese relations are a direct consequence of the military detente in Afghanistan.

Republican revenge?

In light of the unsuccessful end of the war in Afghanistan, he questions the Democratic Party’s prospects for retaining control in both chambers of Congress in the upcoming election. “The 2020 mandate has been exhausted,” Vasiliev said.

‘Something is rotten in the state of Pakistan’: How Islamabad’s stance shapes the region

“Approval ratings are ephemeral. They can climb. But since then, we have not seen an upswing. No fluctuations. So, to say that no one noticed the setback in Afghanistan would be a mistake. I think the images of the departing plane and people falling from it are still engraved in everyone’s memory,” Rogulev noted.

Comparing this with the Vietnam flight of 1975, Rogulev makes one distinction. At that time, the US troops had been truly defeated. There was no defeat here – what happened was a demonstration of a lack of any common strategy or clear position. The fact that the troops were withdrawn was not the problem.

“But how it was carried out and the consequences it has led to, both for Afghanistan and the rest of the world – that’s what we need to talk about.”

Rogulev believes that the troop withdrawal has weakened America’s position in the Middle East. “The general image of the United States as a country that can bring something positive has disappeared in the region.”

According to Vasiliev, an investigation into the matter still lies ahead, after which there will be a big shakeup in the US State Department. “This is a problem that has been kind of put off,” he said. “So far, no one has been held accountable.”

“The Republicans tried to initiate this through Congress, but only a special bipartisan commission can identify the people responsible and give a real assessment. And as of today, there’s been none. It’s like the collapse of the Soviet Union – there is the fact that it happened, but everyone has to figure out why for themselves.”

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


OPINION

Disgraced ex-PM Liz Truss seeks to ruin any hopes for normal UK-China ties

Published

on



The former premier’s Taiwan trip is nothing but a provocation for Beijing to lash out at London, sinking any constructive dialogue

Liz Truss will always be remembered as a disastrous prime minister who spent only a month in office and was outlasted by a head of lettuce.

Her disastrous budget plans sent shudders through the UK economy, eliciting criticism from the British people, MPs and foreign leaders alike. Her ideology-driven political decisions found little sympathy with the public, which repaid her with abysmal approval ratings.

You’d think someone like that would have little credibility as a political adviser, but that apparently isn’t the case. Taiwan, which frequently pays washed-up Western right-wing fanatics to come and visit them as a political stunt, invited Liz Truss to Taipei on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Truss then gave a hawkish speech where she called for an end to all cooperation and dialogue with Beijing and the preparation of Russia-style sanctions in the event of a Taiwan conflict. She also repeated her suggestion of an “Economic NATO” – despite a track record that makes her the last person you’d want to listen to for economic advice.

‘Economic NATO’ needed to counter China – Truss

Since her brief stay in Downing Street, she has rebranded herself as a full-time anti-China hawk, and now uses her party position and credentials as a former prime minister to try to undermine her successor’s attempts to carefully edge back towards engagement with China. Truss was always a fantasist, a pro-Brexit zealot who embraced a confrontational stance during her time as foreign secretary.

However, as you can imagine, all you need to do to reinvent yourself these days is to become a China basher. It doesn’t matter how much of a joke you otherwise might be. Hence, the UK media made sure that her stay and words in Taiwan were given widespread coverage without the context of her political failures. The UK government has already distanced itself from her trip – a fact that Beijing should take careful notice of (and no doubt has).

The British Conservative Party has always been rife with that sort of factionalism. While the opposition Labour Party tends to hard-line suppress the more ideological wing of its MPs (hence the purge of the left-wing Corbynite faction), Tory ideologues have long held power as a “disruptive” force on the government itself, undermining its foreign policy. It’s a fracture which emerged during the Margaret Thatcher era, where following the breakdown of the “post-war consensus” of economic pragmatism, ideology gained ascendency in the party and soon manifested into Euroscepticism.

This tug of war lasted 30 years, making it harder for Conservative prime ministers to maintain a working relationship with the EU, and eventually culminating in Brexit itself. Once that was out of the way, these ideologues found a new target: China. While Truss has opportunistically jumped on this bandwagon, former arch-Brexiter Iain Duncan Smith had already made himself the UK’s Sinophobe-in-chief. Their common goal is simply to undermine stable ties with Beijing and provoke conflict by spurring on backbench rebellions, making them a challenge for the government to handle.

Taiwan predicts timeline for conflict with China

Consequently, while Truss may be a national laughingstock thanks to her disastrous tenure as prime minister, this new role she is taking on enables her to cause disruption on this issue. Taiwan, of course, knows this, because its entire foreign policy is premised on trying to undermine the ties of other countries’ relationships with Beijing by spending large amounts of money on inviting figures such as Truss. The timing of the trip was deliberate, coming immediately after the British foreign secretary’s engagement with a senior Chinese official following the coronation of King Charles III.

Taipei hopes that Beijing’s backlash over the Truss visit will target the UK government as a whole and punish the country. China has a record for being abrasive like this, having done so with the Czech Republic in the past and not winning any friends there as a result. If Truss is therefore allowed to dictate the flow of UK-China relations, she wins. Besides her, the UK has never been provocative on Taiwan at a senior level such as with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s visit last year for the US.

Thus, rather than causing a crisis, China should wait until the upcoming Taiwan elections take place and hope that the more pro-China Kuomintang Party (KMT), which once governed the whole country, will take power and stabilize cross-strait ties again. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) thrives off creating crises, as does the US with its military deployments, and amidst it all there is no intention for cool heads to prevail. While Pelosi was a blatant violation and huge provocation of the One China policy and US commitment to it, the Truss trip is an opportunistic PR stunt by a washed-up has-been who almost ran her country into the ground in a month. Ignore, move on and forget.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.

You can share this story on social media:

PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME

SUITABLE MUSIC FOR YOGA LOVERS

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


Continue Reading

OPINION

India facing challenge to steer SCO agenda away from Western-dominated frameworks

Published

on



The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is looking at ways to address the most pressing global issues without being a disruptive influence

The upcoming Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit promises to be a watershed moment in the bloc’s history, coming amid unprecedented global challenges and new, emergent tensions.

While the SCO Foreign Ministers meeting, which took place on May 4 and 5, was tasked with preparing the agenda for the July 3-4 summit in New Delhi, there is still much work to do to ensure that India’s chairmanship will be a success.

The West has broken virtually all links with Russia because of the Ukraine conflict. Western sanctions against Russia are unprecedented in scope, carrying significant ramifications also for the developing world, including the economic disruptions caused by the weaponization of the US dollar. The European security architecture is in tatters. For the West to seek Russia’s strategic defeat while the country possesses formidable military and material resources makes no sense. Risking a potential nuclear conflict in particular is totally irresponsible.

The European Union has lost its already limited capacity to play an independent role, especially with Germany losing clout and Brussels appropriating more power. The doors of dialogue and diplomacy are being kept closed as NATO seeks military advantage over Russia, and uses Ukraine as a proxy.

At the other end of Eurasia, US-China tensions are rising over Taiwan, regional maritime disputes, strengthening of US-centered regional alliances and NATO overtures to Japan and South Korea. The US and the EU are warning China against supplying lethal arms to Russia under pain of sanctions, even as they seek China’s support in persuading Russia to end its military intervention in Ukraine, and this in the background of the high-level dialogue between the US and China having virtually broken down.

Can Eurasia’s rising political bloc show a united front against the West’s encroachment?

Both Russia and China, the principal pillars of the SCO, are at loggerheads with the West to different degrees, and the summit agenda will inevitably reflect this reality. The SCO represents a building block of multipolarity within the global system at the political, economic and security levels, a goal reiterated at the Foreign Ministers’ meeting.

While the other SCO members have robust links to both Russia and China, their connections with India are not as strong, despite mutual goodwill and shared interests. This is largely due to a lack of contiguity and direct access to Central Asia. With Iran and Belarus joining as full members, the SCO will achieve greater Eurasian depth. Both of these countries have been politically and economically targeted by the West. The SCO Foreign Ministers meeting also agreed on May 5 to grant dialogue partner status to Kuwait, the Maldives, Myanmar and the UAE, in addition to the nine existing dialogue partners. The growing interest demonstrates the appeal of the SCO as a grouping of non-Western countries that provide an alternative platform for nations to pursue their interests outside the Western-dominated international system.

Association with the SCO increases their margin to maneuver, primarily at the political and economic levels. Diplomatic support, hedging against Western sanctions, access to non-Western development banks, benefits from connectivity projects and infrastructure development, cooperation against terrorism, extremism and separatism, are obvious advantages.

India has taken its current presidency of the SCO seriously, organizing and hosting more than 100 meetings and events, including 15 ministerial level meetings. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has also stressed the great importance for India of developing multifaceted cooperation. He introduced the term ‘SECURE’ SCO on the basis of Security, Economic Development, Connectivity, Unity, Respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, and Environmental protection.

As SCO Chair, India initiated an unprecedented engagement with the organization’s Observers and Dialogue Partners by inviting them to participate in more than 14 socio-cultural events. Many of the events hosted by India occurred for the first time in the framework of the SCO, such as the Millet Food Festival, Film Festival, Cultural Festival, the Tourism Mart, and Conference on Shared Buddhist Heritage.

Moscow Region representatives conduct roadshows to entice Delhi and Mumbai investors

Jaishankar noted that as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and geopolitical upheavals, global supply chains had been disrupted, leading to a serious impact on delivering energy, food, and fertilizers to developing nations. He viewed these challenges as an opportunity for SCO members to address them collaboratively, noting that with more than 40% of the world’s population within the SCO, its collective decisions would surely have a global impact.

Additionally, Jaishankar highlighted the unabated menace of terrorism, and that combating it was one of the original mandates of the SCO. He drew attention to the unfolding situation in Afghanistan where the immediate priorities included providing humanitarian assistance, ensuring a truly inclusive and representative government, combating terrorism and drug trafficking and preserving the rights of women, children and minorities. This was echoed by the Chinese foreign minister.

India expressed its willingness to share its expertise and experience in the field of startups having helped cultivate over 70,000, more than 100 of which were ‘unicorns’. Last year, it proposed the creation of a Startups and Innovation working groups as well as one focused on traditional medicines, and the SCO meeting approved plans to operationalize these initiatives.

India believes that the SCO should look at reform and modernization to keep the organization relevant in a rapidly transforming world, and noted that discussions on these issues had already commenced. It also sought support for its long-standing demand to make English the SCO’s third official language, as this would enable a deeper engagement with English-speaking members and would take the SCO’s work to a global audience.

India also proposed the New Delhi Declaration as an SCO Summit Declaration at the meeting, as well as four other thematic joint statements on cooperation in de-radicalization strategies, promotion of millets, sustainable lifestyles to address climate change and digital transformation. India sought support for a timely finalization of these documents for approval at the SCO Summit.

Indian delegation wraps up successful business tour in Russia

According to Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, all participating parties considered the SCO as an important platform for joint combat against terrorism, separatism, drug trafficking, as well as cyber crimes. All favored more cooperation in such fields as transportation, energy, finance, investment, trade, the digital economy, regional connectivity, deeper cultural and people-to-people exchanges, environmental protection, climate change, sustainable development, and SCO’s strengthened cooperation with the United Nations and BRICS countries.

The meeting also offered the gathered foreign ministers an opportunity for intense bilateral meetings. For example, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met his Chinese counterpart to discuss the implementation of agreements reached between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping in March.

The SCO continues to enlarge its footprint, widen its agenda, and carve out a non-Western space in the international system, but some key points of friction remain between members especially China and India. The two countries are currently embroiled in a border dispute that has yet to be settled. Additionally, India stands in opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative due to India’s concerns about connected sovereignty issues.

The other, less important fault line, is India-Pakistan relations. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Bhutto Zardari did not help matters by making indirect jibes at India during his speech at the SCO meeting and further criticism of New Delhi in his interviews to the media. His comments elicited a sharp response by the Indian Foreign Minister, but only after the SCO meeting was completed. Pakistan is currently in the throes of a major internal crisis, which may affect its participation in the SCO summit. However, India-Pakistan differences are not germane to the SCO’s growing stature. Far more important is the Russia-India-China triangle.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.

You can share this story on social media:

PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME

SUITABLE MUSIC FOR YOGA LOVERS

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


Continue Reading

OPINION

China isn’t the biggest threat to Italy’s prosperity

Published

on



Rome is considering leaving the Belt and Road Initiative in a move which will place virtue signaling to other Western states above its own interests

Italy’s membership of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is up for renewal at the end of this year, and Western media outlets are speculating that Rome may choose to leave the pact.

Italy became the first and only G7 nation to join China’s multi-billion-dollar infrastructure vision, signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) just before a tidal wave of anti-China sentiment was unleashed on the world. Indeed, the country’s leadership was in a very different place then, with Italy being led by Giuseppe Conte of the Five Star Movement, whose populism faulted the Euro-Atlantic establishment for decimating the Italian economy through the 2008 debt crisis and the brutal austerity measures which followed. It is little wonder that Italy had decided to look eastwards.

Even 15 years on from the events of 2008, Italy’s economy still has not fully recovered. It was worth $2.4 trillion at the end of that year, but is only at $2.1 trillion now, and barely growing at all. New and concurrent economic crises have taken a toll. Italy’s current leadership no longer believes all roads lead to Rome, let alone to China’s modern-day Silk Road – rather, they lead to Washington. As pressure on the country has grown, its successive leaders, Mario Draghi and Giorgia Meloni, have sought to reset its foreign policy back to transatlantic-oriented goals, ending its rebellion against the establishment and thus contemplating quitting China’s grand initiative.

Italy may exit ‘New Silk Road’ – FT

Oddly enough, the truth remains that it is the EU and US that stand as the biggest threat to Italy’s prosperity, not China. While dumping the BRI will receive plaudits from the US-dominated commentary circles in these countries, the reality is that they offer no alternative, no plans, and no incentives to make Italy a wealthier country. It is the “sick man” of the G7, an advanced economy that has increasingly lost its competitiveness, but also one that has been thrust into decline by being a southern EU country and a net loser of Eurozone policies.

It is precisely because of the economic upheavals that the country has faced over the past 15 years and widespread political dissatisfaction, that radical and populist politics have gained ground. China was rightfully seen as an alternative, a country that could rapidly expand Italy’s exports and invest in crumbling public infrastructure. However, this has quickly become politically incorrect. Italy’s leaders argue that BRI participation has been a waste of time. However, the reality is that when Eurocrat Mario Draghi came to office, he sought to reset Italy’s foreign policy and began using new “golden powers” to veto and cancel Chinese investments in Italy on a large scale. In 2021 alone, he blocked three Chinese takeovers, including a seed and vegetable producer.

Following Draghi, Giorgia Meloni, despite her outward populism, has been even more prone to pledging Rome’s loyalty to the transatlantic cause, having decided to become vocal in support of Ukraine in its conflict with Russia and even visit Kiev. At this stage, it is very little surprise that her country is contemplating canceling participation in the BRI, something which can score political points and help dispel doubts about her loyalty to Brussels and Washington. Predictably, the mainstream media narrative readily depicts the BRI in predatory and malign terms, ignoring the obvious empirical truth that it is the EU that has saddled Italy with a national debt larger than its GDP, and not China. Of course, there is no alternative scheme or plan for Italy on offer should it leave the BRI, meaning it is cutting its nose off to spite its face.

EU defenseless against China – Berlusconi

By forfeiting its BRI membership, Italy will undoubtedly lose the opportunity to massively enhance its trade competitiveness, namely by opting out of projects such as Chinese-owned ports and railway links. As an example of this, Greece, to the southeast, has positioned itself as a “gateway to Europe” through Chinese ownership of Pireaus port and its connecting railways, which allows cargo to go up through the Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into the port and then across Europe. Italy could have competed for a share of this, but it has chosen not to, and it’s not like it will be selling anything additional to the US with its protectionist “America first” policies, is it?

In doing so, Italy has chosen to stop being a leader pursuing its own path in the world to better strengthen its global clout, but instead to be a follower, to play second fiddle to the transatlantic establishment which doesn’t see it as a particularly prominent partner to begin with. Italy joined the BRI precisely because it was sick of being a “rule taker” from Brussels, in a similar vein to what Greece has experienced. Now it appears happy again to hold up the political orthodoxy of the elitist, US-led G7. In doing so, it can kiss goodbye any hopes of becoming a powerful and influential country again anytime soon. Italy is admired mostly for its past, as opposed to what it offers to the world presently, and if its current leadership has its way, that will likely remain the case.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of TSFT.

You can share this story on social media:

PLEASANT MUSIC FOR YOUR CAFE, BAR, RESTAURANT, SWEET SHOP, HOME

SUITABLE MUSIC FOR YOGA LOVERS

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!


Continue Reading

FINANCE

POLITICS

OPINION

LIFE

Trending