NATO’s supply lines in Afghanistan

… First of all, they’re incredibly long. That makes sustaining the troops in the field there incredibly expensive. Another way of looking at that, in the present hyper-privatized era of US public life, could be: Lots of nice fat contracts and opportunities for fraud, payoffs, and payroll padding for the logistics companies! Yum, yum, yum! (For them.)
But here, basically, are the options. (A thought: Maybe we should call the present era that of the Return of Geography, rather than– or in addition to– the Return of History?):

    1. Through Pakistan.
    2. Through Russia and its former satellite-states.
    3. Through Iran.
    4. Through China.

Well, for now, you can forget about numbers 3 and 4– as far as NATO goes. Both Iran and China have decent working and economic relations with Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul. But they, um, don’t really have them with NATO.
So that leaves Pakistan– currently in a state of continuing or perhaps even escalating political turmoil… And Russia.
Oops. Our “friend” Saakashvili put a bit of a spanner in the works on that, didn’t he? Well, maybe yes, and maybe no. But evidently, as the western nations and Russia proceed with their negotiations over a more durable settlement for Georgia, NATO’s non-trivial reliance on Russia’s cooperation for the ISAF mission in Afghanistan will be another big factor in the talks, along with the reliance of Germany and much of the rest of Europe on hydrocarbons from Russia.
The NATO-Russia Council has been in existence since 2002. On this handy info page that they publish you can learn what it is they do. (Or, what it is they don’t mind you knowing about they do.) Just last March the two sides established the basis for “facilitating transit though the Russian territory of non military freight from NATO, NATO members and non-NATO ISAF contributors in support of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, in accordance with UNSCR 1386.”
I guess that’s what the Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin was referring to when he told Reuters yesterday,

    “Without Russia’s support in Afghanistan, NATO would face a new Vietnam, and this is clear to everyone. Militarily, NATO and Russia have a very good and trusting relationship.”

Translation: “Nice little supply line system we’re running there to Afghanistan. Wouldn’t want anything to happen to that now, would we?”
Rogozin expressed some (perhaps understandable?) confidence that the present, Georgia-related tensions in the NATO-Russia relationship would not last very long…

    “Now temporary decisions are being taken on the current cooperation and not about cooperation in general … These decisions are of temporary character, of regional character, not global character,” he said.
    Areas that could be affected were military naval exercises in the Far East, the Mediterranean and the Baltic region, he added. “We don’t need to ruin this cooperation now.”

He also warned that “NATO rearming Georgia after all that has happened would be… cynical and illegitimate.”
Bernhard over at Moon of Alabama has been doing some great blogging about the tough logistical challenges NATO/ISAF faces in Afghanistan. See e.g. here.
Peter Marton of the [My] State Failure Blog gave some important background as to why NATO felt the need to reach out to Russia for the supply line agreement back in March. Basically, the Taliban had just torched a convoy of 100 ISAF-bound fuel tankers as they waited at the border-crossing between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Between 40 and 50 of the tankers were reported destroyed and several people killed. He adds:

    If one counts with 44,000 liters as a possible standard payload of fuel for each tanker (I’m taking that figure from a news report about a previous attack), that’s 1,760,000 to 2,200,000 liters of fuel lost in the attack. Big fireball, big loss.

Christian, at “Ghosts of Alexander” has a handy map of the Uzbekistan rail system, which could be (or perhaps already is?) used to transport (non-military) goods for ISAF in from Europe– via Russia and Kazakhstan– to the Termez border point between Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. It looks like passenger service takes three days from Moscow to Tashkent and maybe 18 hours from Tashkent to Termez. (Ah. Helena needs to get her ferrophilia back under control here a bit.)
… Right now, the UN Security Council is starting to see some preliminary diplomacy developing around the project to reach agreement on a durable political settlement of the Georgia-Russia crisis. Basically, two drafts are circulating. Russia submitted Sarkozy’s ceasefire plan of last week– which has been signed by both sides– to win the SC’s imprimatur of support for it. A draft resolution that France submitted yesterday, that apparently has US support, expresses support for the existing ceasefire but also calls for immediate Russian withdrawal and the “return of Georgia’s forces to their bases.”
As I noted in my CSM piece, now up on the web already though it’s dated tomorrow, if there is to be an un-vetoed resolution, then it will have to represent a negotiated consensus that all the Permanent Members can support. In these negotiations, Russia is not without its own leverage in the realms of both hard and (as Kishore Mahbubani noted) soft power. Let’s see how the negotiations proceed.

27 thoughts on “NATO’s supply lines in Afghanistan”

  1. If you think supply lines to Afghanistan are bad, look at natural gas, which will start to supplant oil in the next few years. Most of the reserves are in Russia, Iran and Qatar. Apart from LNG, the pipelines to Europe must all move through Russia, Turkey, and Georgia. Europe would do well to firm up mature relationships with all suppliers and distribution channels now, before the crunch hits.
    If Europe finally realizes which side its bread is buttered on, and turns to the east, the US role becomes ever more marginal. More than anything, I think this is what totally spooks the former oilmen occupying the White House. But it’s also pretty obvious that Europe does not have much choice. Plus, having brought powerful rivals together into the European Union, they know how to negotiate to everyone’s advantage–everyone, that is, who wants to negotiate. It’s anybody’s guess as to when the hegemon finally realizes its best interests lie in negotiation not domination.

  2. Consensus in Georgia may take a while:
    According to kommersant.com, Russia refused to support the French resolution because it mentioned the principle of Georgian territorial integrity.
    And according to a Georgia spokesman: “Russia’s goal is geopolitical. It is trying to establish control over central Georgia to prevent the implementation of projects to transport hydrocarbons from the Caspian basin through the South Caucasus to Europe, which are already being implemented.”

  3. Maybe we should call the present era that of the Return of Geography, rather than– or in addition to– the Return of History?):
    Ahha….. How surprisingly peoples and writers saying many things calling their words as analysing the present conflicts here and there. The truth comes out or its conflicts of interest being able to say same level of power that can harm if war started??
    So Helena and all who lived and saw Iraq/Kuwait 1991 invasion should call that of the Return of Geography, rather than– or in addition to– the Return of History? or we hear also same symphony that’s different?
    Different in what?
    Ahha…. Iraq was a kid who got tortured by adult, is not that right?

  4. Again, Helena exhibits a fantastic grasp of a key military consideration, in this case logistics. Russia apparently has accommodated, and still accommodates, the movement of men and materiel for the European components of NATO to Afghanistan, and though they have stated their support is only for non-military shipments, this has apparently not been the case. All of this has been jeopardized by US meddling in Russia’s sphere of influence, and the US cessation of “business as usual.”
    Like Rodney Dangerfield, the Russians have gotten no respect. So now they are considering the placement of Iskander missile systems (highly mobile, 280km range) in Syria and in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, on Poland’s front doorstep. Russia is also cozying up to Cuba again. Could there be an early warning radar system 90 miles from Key West? And might Russia do something in Venezuela? Violations of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ syndrome cuts both ways.

  6. Oops. Our “friend” Saakashvili put a bit of a spanner in the works on that, didn’t he? Well, maybe yes, and maybe no.
    Yes he did.
    Kazakhstan: An Energy Shift
    Stratfor Today » August 21, 2008 | 2152 GMT
    Summary
    Kazakhstan is considering pumping its oil through Russian pipelines rather than sending it via tanker to Azerbaijan for transport through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. This announcement seems to indicate that Kazakhstan — the Central Asian state most vulnerable to Russia — is giving up on diversifying its energy transportation routes and is looking to Russia, and also China, for options.
    Analysis
    Kazakhstan will consider pumping its oil through Russian pipelines as an alternative to shipping via tanker to Azerbaijan for transport through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, Turkish daily Referans reported Aug. 21. Kazakhstan currently ships up to 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) via tanker across the Caspian Sea to the BTC, filling half the capacity of that pipeline. According to Stratfor sources in the region, the move could be an initial indication of a larger decision by Kazakhstan to give up on the BTC altogether.
    It therefore seems that Kazakhstan is choosing to reorient its energy toward Russia, at least in the short term. Alternatives to Russia — particularly China — will still be available, but the hope to diversify energy shipments via the Georgian corridor toward the Western markets appears to be dashed.

  7. If Europe finally realizes which side its bread is buttered on, and turns to the east
    europe has already turned east -gazprom has been partnering with european companies since it was first privatized. as it happens they’re also partnered with chevron.
    there’s never been a ‘hegemon’ in energy and there never will be. russia needs western buyers as much as the west needs the gas. maybe more, since russia’s offtake is trapped inland whereas europe can always import more lng.

  8. To John H,
    Interesting remarks .. one could add that by invading Iraq and by bullying Iran, the US is pushing EU toward the Russians even more.
    For one, French oil companies had big and large contracts with the Iraqi before the US invasion; this was offering an alternative to Russian oil, at least in the South of the EU.
    For second, it would have been interesting for the EU to have gaz flowing from Iran through Turkey and to the Mediterranean sea. But since the US is putting Iran under sanctions and bullying its allies to support these sanctions, Iran has now chosen to make deals with Russia : thus another possibility to avoid the Russian energy encerclement in the EU has now seemingly disappeared ..
    Gosh, what kind of ally is the US for Europe nowadays ? What kind of advantage are we getting from it, appart of the right to provide troops to Afghnistan and to get killed instead of the Americans who begun this war ?

  9. Christiane–I’m amazed that the French government still tries to do business with the US. Besides the Iraqi contracts, it is my understanding that France engaged in Gulf War I with the understanding that they would get part of the loot–lucrative Kuwaiti oil contracts. Bush I promptly cut them out of any deals shortly afterward.
    Could the Russians be worse partners?
    Apparently Sarko knows better…

  11. What we’ve seen in the last years is not, as many people claim, that Europe has become more self-assertive towards the USA than before, but the exact opposite: any real independence the Europeans may have shown towards the Americans has more or less evaporated. In 2003 there still was some opposition against USA policy; especially the French and Germans didn’t go along with the US plan to attack and occupy Iraq.
    But that period ended when the Security Council of the UN voted unanimously for Resolution 1483 (May 2003), in which the occupation of Iraq by the US and UK was legalized, while the US and the UK were officially recognized as occupying powers (forming the so called “Authority”); moreover, member states were called upon to participate in the occupation of Iraq (“Welcoming further the willingness of Member States to contribute to stability and security in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment, and other resources under the Authority”, to quote the Resolution).
    It marked the end of the United Nations as a credible supra-national organization. It has never recovered from the blow.
    Instead of growing more independent, Europe has become more Tony Blair-like than before. Chirac and Schröder, the two leaders who (at least until resolution 1483) represented an authentic European position (as opposed to basically following the Americans in whatever they do), have since been replaced by two staunch believers in American supremacy, and France and Germany are now, like the rest of the EU, more or less obedient pupils in Washington’s class.

  12. The Moment of Truth (Just like the your No.1 TV show)
    “All war is based on deception.” — Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    ” The truth about the war in Afghanistan is simple: The unelected USA-rulers (Corporations, Banks, General Electric etc) want Turkmenistan Afghanistan Pakistan-pipeline Oil profits. Otherwise the Caspian Oil profits will be under control of Iran, Russia or China.”
    ” The great Iraq War lie. The pictured 12-year-old Kuwaiti girl told the world under tears that she saw how Saddam Hussein’s soldiers took babies out of their incubators and let them die on the cold floor. In November 1990 Bush Senior told this lie to the poor soldiers. In truth she hadn’t been in Kuwait at the time. The girl was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador in Washington, USA.”
    Senator Faircloth.
    Mr. Chairman, in 1990, after the Iraqi invasion of their country, the Kuwaiti government in exile formed Citizens for a Free Kuwait. They hired the lobbying firm of Hill and Knowlton to influence public opinion in this country toward entering the conflict. Lauri Fitz-Pegado was in charge of the effort.
    She first coached a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl, identified only at the time as Naira, to testify before Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers remove Kuwaiti babies from hospital respirators. Naira claimed to be a refugee who had been working as a volunteer in a Kuwaiti hospital throughout the first few weeks of the Iraqi occupation. She said that she had seen them take babies out of the incubators, take the incubators, and leave the babies “on the cold floor to die.”
    Naira’s emotional testimony riveted human rights organizations, the news mediums, and the Nation. That incident was cited by six Members of the U.S. Senate as reasons to go to war with Iraq.
    However, it was later discovered that the girl was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. It turns out that Lauri Fitz-Pegado had concealed Naira’s real identity. Since then, reputable human rights organizations and journalists have concluded that the baby incubator story was an outright fabrication. Every study commissioned by the Kuwaiti government could not produce a shred of evidence that the ambassador’s daughter had been back in occupied Kuwait to do volunteer work in a hospital. It was a total fabrication.
    President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.
    FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. It wasn’t. The United States saw war with Japan as the means to get into war with Germany, which Americans opposed. So Roosevelt needed Japan to appear to strike first. Following an 8-step plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into the attack. Contrary to the official story, the fleet did not maintain radio silence, but sent messages intercepted and decoded by US intercept stations. Tricked by the lie of a surprise attack, Americans marched off to war.
    President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam.
    There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man’s report to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.
    Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.

  13. The simplest answer to all of the above is to come to terms with Iran. If Iran feels the Afganistan adventure is worth continuing, a modus operandi can be worked out.
    Perhaps the best outcome of Russia demanding “respect” via force is that the West will realize that Iran is more important to them than maintaining a pariah relationship with the state for the sake of Israel. After all, Iran is sitting on some of the world’s largest deposits of natural gas, and it has not passed the Europeans notice that Russia uses its natural gas supplies as a weapon.
    Helena’s talk about “spheres of influence” reminds one of Stalin and Hitler discussing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the division of Eastern Europe among them. Perhaps those countries you wish to push into someone’s “sphere” may wish to make their own decisions about whose “sphere” they are in. Take a look at So. America. This “spheres of influence” talk is akin to the 19th century Great Game thinking. Have you not noticed how quiet ex-USSR countries such as Usbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kasakhstan have been? No congratulatory messages to those Russian “peacekeepers” at all.

  14. Iran is sitting on some of the world’s largest deposits of natural gas,
    Russia now in top of list of oil producers last month the Russian production 9.2 Mbapd!!
    Iraq the only country in the world have the potential to beat that level Saudis are no longer can produce more that 8Mbapd, in fact the production is going down,
    So the fact Iran have its one problems and there is doubt that about the oil and gas estimations as per say above its not more that propaganda for self necessities to build case of war and all dirty politics same as Iraq Regime Change, WMD, …..

  15. “Without Russia’s support in Afghanistan, NATO would face a new Vietnam, and this is clear to everyone. Militarily, NATO and Russia have a very good and trusting relationship.”
    I don’t see anything of a threat in this at all. It seems pretty obviously in russian interests to have NATO held down in Afghanistan. werent’ the taliban the only government to recognize chechnya’s independence in 2000? I’m sure they prefer jihadists head there to fight german and american rather than russian troops (i’m speaking not only of chechens, but imports like ibn khattab.)
    long with the reliance of Germany and much of the rest of Europe on hydrocarbons from Russia.
    Russia relies just as much on Europe. They need hard currency and access to western markets more than they need any oil, (which at the time of writing is still inedible.) They’ve also been aggressively partnering with the largest european firms including every oil major. They understand that they need western technical competence, and access to western markets, to keep these revenues rolling in. It’s just not in their interest to threaten their close business partners and reliable, wealthy customer base in any way.

  17. BACON–Stop the fear mongering. Only the political elite in Washington is allowed to do that.
    Besides, it disturbs their sweet fantasies.

  20. Mr Bacon’s concern for the supply lines in Afghanistan are creditable.
    The real fun would of course start if the Caucuses republics are invited to join CSTO. An attack on them might threaten the US airbase at Manas.
    This seems to illustrate the valuable caution of the British aproach especially as they don’t have any spare squaddies and their oil company and its pipelines are being held hostage.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4607471.ece

  21. Mr Bacon’s concern for the supply lines in Afghanistan are creditable.
    The real fun would of course start if the Caucuses republics are invited to join CSTO. An attack on them might threaten the US airbase at Manas.
    This seems to illustrate the valuable caution of the British aproach especially as they don’t have any spare squaddies and their oil company and its pipelines are being held hostage.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4607471.ece

  23. Do you all recall Bethman Hollweg’s description in his memoirs of watching the First World War start and knowing there was nothing he could do to stop it?
    http://indopedia.org/Theobald_von_Bethmann-Hollweg.html
    Stratfor says:
    Russia is accusing the West of building up a NATO strike group in this body of water with which to threaten Russia’s hold on the Caucasus, and perhaps beyond.
    The Russians simply cannot allow an increased NATO presence in this particular body of water to remain unanswered. The Black Sea is an important buffer for what is a direct line to the Russian underbelly, the Ukrainian plains and the land bridge that extends between the Black and Caspian Seas. Russia is well-aware of its weaknesses when it comes to defending this crucial frontier. The Black Sea, and the Aegean beyond it, essentially comprises a NATO lake. Controlled by Turkey through the Dardanelles, the Turkish and U.S. naval presence combined could easily overwhelm the Russian Black Sea Fleet. The last thing Moscow wants is a U.S. naval strike force in the Black Sea threatening Moscow’s control of the Caucasus, crucial for its logistical and supply links to Russian troops in Georgia.
    And so, the Russian response is already beginning to take effect. The Black Sea Navy flagship “Moskva” sailed from Sevastopol today, and the Russians are likely to deploy more of their current — albeit limited — naval assets out of the Crimean Peninsula. Such moves are only likely to give NATO forces more cause to beef up their naval presence in the Black Sea, further contributing to the Kremlin’s sense of insecurity.
    At that point, the next logical step for the Russians is to start spending some of their three quarters of a trillion dollars in reserves on covert operations that would force the United States to split its attention.
    Please can the sensible Mr Gates repeat his assurance about no combat operations.

  25. Amid all this russia talk, lets not forget that 90% of NATO’s supply lines run through Pakistan. Political turmoil , the Pakistanis have made their support for ISAF very clear:
    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JH23Df01.html
    Ironically, this uncharacteristically clear Pakistani policy emerges as the political quagmire in the capital deepens….The new elected government is expected to be an active partner in the South Asian war theater and its military will help the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The coordination will be similar to that between Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government and NATO.

Comments are closed.