• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Petr Topychkanov"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

The West Should Not Reject Russia’s Assistance in Afghanistan

If common sense prevails and the West resumes its cooperation with Russia, the consolidated response to security threats in Afghanistan will be far more effective than the current disjointed efforts by various countries.

Link Copied
By Petr Topychkanov
Published on Oct 14, 2014
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai officially became the president of Afghanistan on September 29. The Security and Defense Cooperation Agreement, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, was signed the next day. The agreement permits a limited U.S. troop presence on Afghan territory over a period of ten years. Kabul has promised to provide the troops with access to military facilities in Kabul, Bagram, Mazar-i-Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, Helmand, Gardez, Jalalabad, and Shindand. A similar agreement between NATO and Afghanistan was signed the same day.

The transfer of power in Kabul and the signing of the agreements with the United States and NATO again raise the question of security cooperation between Russia, Afghanistan, and its Western partners. Alexander Grushko, Russia’s permanent representative to NATO, said in an August interview that Russia remains interested in bilateral assistance to Afghanistan. However, Russia’s cooperation with the U.S. and NATO on Afghanistan was effectively frozen by the West in April. Expressing the official position of the Russian Federation, Ambassador Grushko called this decision counterproductive.

It is difficult to disagree with this assessment. Such a method of punishing Russia for the annexation of Crimea deprives the United States and NATO of the opportunity to more effectively strengthen Afghanistan’s defense capabilities and counteract the threats of terrorism and drug trafficking. Refusing Russia’s assistance in Afghanistan looks incredibly wasteful given the withdrawal of coalition troops from the country as well as the need to commit substantial resources to combatting the threat of ISIS in the Middle East and stemming the spread of the Ebola virus in Africa.

Russia’s cooperation with the West is crucial in securing Afghanistan’s peaceful future. Russia supplies the Afghan air force with helicopters, provides for their maintenance, and trains the country’s technical specialists. It also participates in counteracting drug production and trafficking and ensures the transit of U.S. and NATO military and civilian cargo through Russian territory. In September 2013, Russia and Afghanistan launched a joint initiative on border security.

The Ukrainian crisis will not be resolved in the foreseeable future, and Moscow is certainly not planning to reconsider its decision to annex Crimea. Therefore, the United States and NATO must revisit their decision to curtail cooperation with Russia, including on Afghanistan. Afghanistan should not be made into a hostage of the situation in Eastern Europe.

At this time, Washington and Brussels are confident that they can manage without Russia’s participation in solving Afghanistan’s security problems. Ahmadzai’s coming to power and the signing of the cooperation agreements only boosted their confidence; the West has ostensibly created favorable conditions for itself in Afghanistan, obviating the need to consider other external powers.

Many in Russia, Afghanistan, and other countries in the region do not share this view. First, despite the resolution of the political standoff between the two presidential candidates, the political situation in Afghanistan remains volatile. To ensure the regime’s survival, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai will have to balance between the interests of various forces inside the country, including the anti-Western factions, and external forces—Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran, India, and the Central Asian republics.

Second, whether the West likes it or not, Russia has long participated in multilateral and bilateral assistance projects in Afghanistan. The most promising recent example is the negotiations between Russia, Afghanistan, and India, and the resulting agreement on the India-sponsored export of Russian weapons to Afghanistan.

If the United States and NATO continue to refrain from cooperating with Russia on Afghanistan, Russia will maintain its assistance through bilateral agreements with Kabul, multilateral agreements with regional powers, and international organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The assistance Russia and other regional powers render to Afghanistan will continue to increase irrespective of Kabul’s cooperation with Washington and Brussels.

If common sense prevails and the West resumes its cooperation with Russia, the consolidated response to security threats in Afghanistan will be far more effective than the current disjointed efforts by various countries. A coordinated policy formulated by external powers would also contribute to Afghanistan’s political stability. The lack of such a policy will only lead to the escalation of internal political strife and Kabul’s weakness in face of security threats.

About the Author

Petr Topychkanov

Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center

Topychkanov was a fellow in the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Nonproliferation Program.

    Recent Work

  • Report
    Entanglement: Chinese and Russian Perspectives on Non-nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Risks
      • +3

      James M. Acton, Alexey Arbatov, Vladimir Dvorkin, …

  • In The Media
    Iranian and Russian Perspectives on the Global System

      Petr Topychkanov

Petr Topychkanov
Former Fellow, Nonproliferation Program, Moscow Center
Petr Topychkanov
SecurityForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesSouth AsiaAfghanistanRussiaEastern EuropeUkraineWestern Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Does the EU Have a Germany Problem?

    Are Germany’s economic, industrial, and political struggles becoming a liability for the EU’s ability to rise to the geopolitical moment?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

  • Le Pen France Far Right
    Article
    How Europe’s 2027 Elections Could Test EU Governance

    Radical-right parties are expected to do well in upcoming elections in four of the EU's biggest member states. If successful, they could prevent the union from addressing key challenges ahead.

      Stefan Lehne

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from Ceuta

    The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.

      Richard Youngs

  • Carney Canada EU Trump
    Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is Canada Leading a Third Way?

    Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has twice inspired praise for standing up to U.S. President Donald Trump: at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos and on Canada-U.S. trade negotiations. Is Carney showing a third way better than the EU has in dealing with the Trump administration?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.