LibriumArcana.Games

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 3:13 pm**

Kazakhstan has said it will allow the United States to ship non-military cargo via its territory to Afghanistan.

The foreign ministry said it had given its consent to the transportation of "material for civilian use" by land.

Kazakhstan does not border Afghanistan, but shares frontiers with three other Central Asian countries which do.

The move comes after Kyrgyzstan said it would close the only US base in Central Asia at Manas, which the Pentagon has described as hugely important.

The Kyrgyz government asked parliament to give the US six months' notice to leave the Manas base, after Russia promised Kyrgyzstan $2bn (Â£1.4bn) in aid. A parliamentary vote is expected this week

BBC

Moscow says it has agreed to a US request to ship non-military supplies for its troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory.

Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was waiting for the US to provide details of the shipments before giving specific permission.

A transit agreement was signed last year, but not put into practice.

Earlier this week, Kyrgyzstan said it would close a key US air base that supports operations in Afghanistan.

However, Tajikistan is reported to have agreed on Friday to allow Nato non-military supplies through its territory.

Correspondents say Nato has become increasingly concerned about the security of its overland supply routes through Pakistan.

Vital base

The Manas base in Kyrgyzstan - the last US facility in Central Asia - is vital for Nato operations in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Richard Galpin.

Russia has long opposed the presence of American military forces in Central Asia.

Moscow is thought to have offered a huge financial package to the Kyrgyz government this week to persuade it to shut the base down.

However, Kyrgyzstan says its plan to close the base, which parliament will vote on next week, is not linked to a $2bn (Â£1.3bn) Russian aid package.

Nonmilitary supplies, i.e. food, and medical. Maybe gas if they're feeling generous, whether or not vehicle gas is a military supply tends to shift around based on the situation and the definer. Definitely no bullets or troops. Frankly I've never seen the point in separating military supplies from non-military supplies and figured it was a political dodge to send in food while claiming you were placing a place under sanctions. Food is the most important supply item in the world from a military view (and every other view as well). Soldiers who haven't eaten aren't fighting anyone.

That said, food and meds will only flow along these routes as long as Russia, now in command of Kazakhstan's military and police forces, lets it flow. That means Obama and us just found ourselves in a infinitely weaker position to influence events in Central Asia. I was fairly confident about turning Afghan around until our supply lines were placed on a Russian chopping block.

Now we may want to rethink things.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 4:22 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:
That said, food and meds will only flow along these routes as long as Russia, now in command of Kazakhstan's military and police forces, lets it flow. That means Obama and us just found ourselves in a infinitely weaker position to influence events in Central Asia. I was fairly confident about turning Afghan around until our supply lines were placed on a Russian chopping block.

Now we may want to rethink things.

The only part of Kazakhstan's military that is under Russian control is the part they've contributed to the rapid reaction force that hasn't even been formed yet. The big bad Russian bear had to bribe them to get them to remove the US base. Chill.

This isn't that unexpected. NATO has been expanding all around Russia after the 90s, into places that it was explicitly promised that it wouldn't go. Russia isn't as weak anymore, we aren't as strong, and no one likes being surrounded by an alliance that pretty much only exists to oppose your country. Poke the bear with a stick often enough and the bear will bite back. Buying a third rate dictator with oil money isn't exactly the most original of tricks, but it works.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:07 pm**

The only part of Kazakhstan's military that is under Russian control is the part they've contributed to the rapid reaction force that hasn't even been formed yet. The big bad Russian bear had to bribe them to get them to remove the US base. Chill.

The base was in Kyrgyz not Kazakhstan. Different countries different situations, same general area though. Also ever since the war in the 90s, Kazakhstan's government takes orders from Moscow. Krygryz not so much. So no. I'm not chilling. Our supply route is now at the mercy of Russia, which will have it's own condinations and desires for the mission. The statement stands, we may want to rethink because I'm not sold at all that what Russia wants in Afghan and what we want can be ironed out or that either side is open to compromise. Never bloody mind what the Afghans themselves will think and want not being very fond of Russians themselves (although I don't think the Russian Army will be rolling in, there would be no damn point).

This isn't that unexpected. NATO has been expanding all around Russia after the 90s, into places that it was explicitly promised that it wouldn't go

Where exactly do you mean? The Ukraine? If you mean Eastern Europe it was bluntly a given that would happen. As for Afghanistan and Central Asia, Putin expressly invited us in after 911. Sadly our leadership was about as inept as a Saturday morning cartoon villain and stomped all over Russia's many long tender toes in the region. So now Putin is wanting his own controls on what we can and cannot do and what our goals will be.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:29 pm**

frigidmagi wrote:[

This isn't that unexpected. NATO has been expanding all around Russia after the 90s, into places that it was explicitly promised that it wouldn't go
Where exactly do you mean? The Ukraine? If you mean Eastern Europe it was bluntly a given that would happen. As for Afghanistan and Central Asia, Putin expressly invited us in after 911. Sadly our leadership was about as inept as a Saturday morning cartoon villain and stomped all over Russia's many long tender toes in the region. So now Putin is wanting his own controls on what we can and cannot do and what our goals will be.

All the former soviet republics were promised out of the picture and Russia got us pushing in the Ukraine and Georgia. Central Asia was friendly for basing post 9/11 until we started pushing missile defence and NATO into Russia's backyard. They were never happy about former Warsaw pact members being members, although they couldn't stop it.

The situation as it stands is that they see NATO as anti-Russian, us as liars when we talk about our intentions with regards to NATO's expansion and cooperation because that's what we've done, and that their period of weakness lead to an erosion of national power during which they were taken advantage of both domestically and by foreign forces. This doesn't mean Putin isn't a power hungry dictator, but we haven't been applying much in the way of carrot to make the Russians play nice.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 5:36 pm**

All the former soviet republics were promised out of the picture and Russia got us pushing in the Ukraine and Georgia.

Okay you mean the Ukraine and Georgia, anywhere else or just there?

Central Asia was friendly for basing post 9/11 until we started pushing missile defence and NATO into Russia's backyard.

Not just that, we also started pushing at the Central Asian governments themselves who bluntly are made up of crooks or butchers or an unholy combination of the two. I don't think the Russians would have minded up pushing for some reform in those areas, but we were explicit on not only pushing for reform but trying to push them away from Moscow.

This doesn't mean Putin isn't a power hungry dictator, but we haven't been applying much in the way of carrot to make the Russians play nice.

I'm pretty sure I covered that with calling our former government inept and the bit about stomping all over Russia's toes.

Posted: **Mon Feb 09, 2009 6:32 pm**

The Baltics as well. Yes, they have a good reason to want protection from Russia. I'm not saying going there is forbidden, but considering the US's reactions to Cuba some seriously nasty backlash from looking at them sideways should be expected.

As a sidenote, I heard this from Edi on SD.net, regarding his time in the Finnish military. A staff sergeant said "we train for attacks from every direction, but if we're attacked from any direction but the east, the enemy flanked us."

LibriumArcana.Games

Russia and Kazakhstan offer some supply routes.

#1 Russia and Kazakhstan offer some supply routes.

#2 Re: Russia and Kazakhstan offer some supply routes.

#3

#4

#5

#6