Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
China doesn't want to commit military forces as much as possible. They know their investments are a target but their domestic stability is more important. The flip side is the US and Britain which want their occupied governments to be weak and unstable which attracts more terrorism. That's one of the reasons the Taliban won in Afghanistan. There is analysis hinting that the US has ties to factions in the Taliban and will try to weaken the government.
I have no idea why would China ( out of all states) commit any troops to Afghanistan ( to whom exactly? To Taliban? To Massoud? ) They have no ties ( cultural or ethnic) to either of these people. So the Chinese approach "to wait and see" was quite predictable under the circumstances. All they want out of this "deal" is money and more money, really.
I have more questions about the Russian approach - the Russians had more stake in what was developing over there, and helping Massoud was much more in THEIR interests than letting it go.
But as I already pointed, Massoud was calling the West for help ( and he would be representing the Western interests yet again in Afghanistan,) and that's why he didn't get any viable support from the Russians via Tadjikistan.
The real reason why Taliban has won in Afghanistan, is because ( as I've said earlier) Afghanistan is the place where the Russian interests clash with the interests of the Anglo-Saxons.
And Islam wins directly because of that.
( May be it all goes back as far as the "Great Game"...
Ughh... I looked it up, and it's right there, in my face;
"The Great Game was a political and diplomatic confrontation that existed for most of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire, over Afghanistan and neighbouring territories in Central and South Asia. It also had direct consequences in Persia and British India. Britain feared that Russia planned to invade India and that this was the goal of Russia's expansion in Central Asia, while Russia feared the expansion of British interests in Central Asia.")
So there.
No wonder Great Britain gets in the picture more and more often, the closer I am looking into all this.
So once both Russians and Anglo-Saxons stepped back from the "battle field" in Afghanistan for a number of reasons, not aiming guns at each other, one side (Taliban) prevailed ( that is if not to count Pakistan's involvement, backed ( possibly) by Great Britain as the Gravitas insinuates. ( Which might be true or not.)
But it's not the end of it I suspect, because I see one more crack in the picture. That is one more old feud between the "old Persians" and the Arabs that conquered those lands long time ago.
There is a reason you see, why Iran is not happy about the latest arrangements, watching the power of the Gulf States ( read the Saudis and their Sunni Islam,) growing in the area.
Quote:
Master List Of Official Russia Claims That Proved To Be Bogus
The Director of National Intelligence releases a report, and the press rushes to kick the football again.
“Bountygate.” In July of 2020, according to “officials briefed on the matter,” the New York Times reported, and the Washington Post “confirmed,” that “a Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan.”
It’s impossible to overstate how head over heels the politicians and press alike went with this story. It became instantly election-year fodder, with Kamala Harris saying of Trump, “He let Putin get away with placing bounties on the heads of our troops.” Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth instantly called for hearings into the matter, making the inevitable Russiagate tie-in. “First, Donald Trump encouraged Russia to interfere in our democracy, and they did,” she said. “Now, Russia is secretly paying militants to kill U.S. troops. Trump has known for months but apparently done nothing to stop them.”
[/quote]
Too much of crazy stuff to go through, honestly.
I already expressed my opinion on the whole "Ukrainegate" thing, and as for Andrej Derkach being the "FSB operative?"
I don't think of him as a "spy," but rather a person, whom proverbial "Boshirov and Petrov" just looked at, and decided right away "that's our long lost twin bro," and simply passed him information to read aloud.
Why wouldn't they?
He is the Eastern Ukrainian, and Eastern Ukraine is Russian turf.
So the information that they passed to him was actually true, as much as *some people in Washington* were trying to claim otherwise, since it was hitting their interests directly in their desire to unseat Trump.
Thousands of protesters marched today in the different cities of Afghanistan in support of Pandsher rebels and slogans against Pakistan, accusing it of being the "main enemy of Afghanistan." ( The military actions apparently are not over in Pandsher, and Talibs didn't let German journalists from "Bild" to get through in Pandsher. )
There were armed protests in the cities of Gazni and Faria.
Also, women are protesting in Mazar-i-Sharif, ( northern capital/second biggest city in Afghanistan,) demanding to include them in the government.
I have no idea why would China ( out of all states) commit any troops to Afghanistan ( to whom exactly? To Taliban? To Massoud? ) They have no ties ( cultural or ethnic) to either of these people. So the Chinese approach "to wait and see" was quite predictable under the circumstances. All they want out of this "deal" is money and more money, really.
They have a major naval base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and have security contractors in the continent due to their investments. Russia was planning naval bases in a number of locations, but every one of them underwent a war.
Russia is more wait-and-see. Taliban has already named China their most important partner. China was expected to foil US attempts to use financing leverage.
They have a major naval base in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and have security contractors in the continent due to their investments. Russia was planning naval bases in a number of locations, but every one of them underwent a war.
Russia is more wait-and-see. Taliban has already named China their most important partner. China was expected to foil US attempts to use financing leverage.
The West is going to try to strangle the Afghan economy any way it can. China is going to step in to help. Afghanistan is a key component of the BRI project because of its resource wealth in rare earths, sandstone/silicates and other materials for goods such as concrete and other construction materials.
I suspect the going will be hard for the new rulers of Afghanistan and the misery for the people will continue.
No one knows what is happening in the Panshir valley in truth. They are fighting still apparently. Pakistan may have bombed Taliban forces.
The leaders of the Panjshir tribes were never in the country during the supposed armed resistance. They knew it was just a bluff.
Tajikistan seems to have become a sanctuary for retreating Afghan warlords. But will it become a base for mounting anti-Taliban resistance? Unlikely. Russia’s stance will be crucial. Admittedly, Moscow played a dubious role fuelling the Panjshir revolt. But Taliban and Pakistan are in a forgiving mood, and the good thing is that Russia always knows which side of the bread is buttered.
The Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is already toying with the idea of accepting the Taliban’s special invite for the announcement of their government. One happy solution would be that Moscow provide a lavish decadent life in exile for these immensely rich Afghan warlords, and thereby generate some equity vis-a-vis the Taliban. It is a familiar Russian tactic in the Central Asian steppes.
Russia’s main dilemma, however, remains: If the Taliban stabilise the situation in northern Afghanistan and tighten up border security, the threat perceptions in Central Asia, which currently borders on xenophobia, would recede. Now, Russia’s grip over Central Asian states is directly linked to its role as provider of security. The more secure those countries feel, the less will be their dependence on Moscow.
Quite obviously, the Taliban are savvy enough to understand all this. Therefore, a consolidation of the Taliban’s grip on northern Afghanistan is to be expected. Taliban knows that this is China’s concern too.
Like Russia, the United States is also hyping up the spectre of civil war in Afghanistan. Both are stakeholders, in a manner of speaking, in a civil war, since their interference in Afghanistan is dependent on unstable conditions. However, unlike Russia and the US, Iran’s unhappiness with the Taliban’s assault on Panjshir is authentic — based on its ethnic and cultural affinities with the Afghan Sunni Tajiks who account for somewhere between 25-30 percent of the population.
However, Iran’s core constituency is the Hazara Shia and Taliban will accommodate its concerns. Any expectation that Iran may gang up with Russia to fuel an anti-Taliban resistance will remain a pipe dream. Iran has huge stakes in Afghanistan’s stability. Border security is a core concern.
Above all, Taliban is no longer an adversary for Tehran, which is already looking for economic opportunities in Afghanistan. Connectivity through northern Afghanistan to Uzbekistan and Central Asia is a strategic project, as its partnership with China is poised to expand by leaps and bounds once the 25-year, $400 billion economic pact gets activated. Above all, Tehran shares China’s geopolitical concerns, especially to keep the Americans out of Afghanistan. Iran is becoming a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization mechanism and it now has added leverage to give traction to dealings with the Taliban government.
Indeed, the US is frantic that other countries (except lackeys like the UK or Australia and Canada) may eventually begin to deal with the Taliban government. Washington wants to prevent that happening by hyping up scaremongering and scripting false narratives casting the Taliban government in poor light. Up to a point, this may work, but a strategy based on negativism is an inherently flawed one.
Without doubt, Taliban have the ISIS in its crosshairs. But, arguably, if the extent of state patronage that ISIS enjoyed is no longer available, it may cease to be a magnet for radical Afghan elements. Again, with the end of foreign occupation, Afghanistan is done with ‘jihad’. Taliban has shown the skill to assimilate extremist elements if they are reconcilable as well as the ruthlessness to eliminate recalcitrant troublemakers.
Removing all conceivable alibi for foreign intervention will be a top priority for Taliban leadership. But Taliban is not a revanchist movement. In the Taliban folklore, what took place was a national liberation struggle to rid the motherland of colonization. Importantly, the trajectory of the Taliban’s relationship with China is linked to its success in curbing the terrorist groups. And Taliban attributes the highest importance to China’s goodwill and all-round support.
I really wonder how everyday Afghan women are going to react to the extreme feminists (3rd wave types) if any are there.
I don't believe so.
It's a totally different world when it comes to men/women relations there.
To me the women there come across as more capricious, commanding and demanding ( if given an opportunity,) but they thrive on seduction - it's a natural thing for them.
If women feel their seductive power, they are unlikely to be contenders for the "men's role."
I mean look even at Russia - that's the whole different world in this respect too...
I sure as hell have no interest in what some British mp has to say. The whole country is currently being raped, repeatedly. Britain has raped the country too starting long ago.
In a society that is on the edge of chaos, where order is barely being kept such things are going to happen. I might add that's what the MPs of Britain most likely want.
I get real cynical about the Brits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) They have no ties ( cultural or ethnic) to either of these people. So the Chinese approach "to wait and see" was quite predictable under the circumstances. All they want out of this "deal" is money and more money, really. 
