• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Judy Dempsey"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Europe’s Eastern Neighborhood"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Asia",
    "Russia",
    "South Asia",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Central Asia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Europe

Russia's Concerns About Afghanistan After NATO

Russia has no intentions of getting involved again in Afghanistan. Yet Central Asian republics now fear instability on their borders as NATO’s 100,000-strong presence ends.

Link Copied
By Judy Dempsey
Published on Mar 5, 2013
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Source: New York Times

As the United States winds down its combat mission in Afghanistan, Russia is looking on, not with Schadenfreude but with extreme concern.

Russia knows what it is like to leave a country that it could not bend to its political will.

When Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the Kremlin had no inkling about how long, costly and unpopular this war would turn out to be.

By the time Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev decided to end the occupation in 1989, over 15,000 Soviet troops and over one million Afghans had died in the fighting.

Now it is President Barack Obama’s turn to bring home the remaining 68,000 troops by the end of 2014, the subject of my latest Letter from Europe.

Mr. Obama made clear in his State of the Union address that “America’s commitment to a unified and sovereign Afghanistan will endure, but the nature of our commitment will change.”

The American presence will be very small, perhaps not more than 10,000 troops. And that is what worries Russia.

Russia has no intentions of getting involved again in Afghanistan. Yet the Central Asian republics, especially Uzbekistan, now fear instability on their borders as NATO’s 100,000-strong presence ends.

“The rulers of the former Soviet republics neighboring on Afghanistan are really scared,” wrote Mikhail Rostovsky in a fascinating short analysis in Moskovsky Komsomolets, a Russian daily newspaper. “They want Russia to be beside them and hold their hands at the crucial movement.” They also want Russia to be more actively involved in Afghan affairs.

That is the last thing Russia wants. It is in no position to end the drug trade, the insurgency and the corruption, which NATO could not stop. It has no intention of putting its own footprint on the country again.

With the security vacuum left by NATO’s withdrawal, Russia’s only hope, whether naïve or not, is a new and more stable Afghan government.

“The best that can be hoped for is the emergence of a new regime in Kabul, less committed to universal values but on the other hand, more firmly standing on its own feet,” Mr. Rostovsky wrote. What an irony of history that NATO now must be wishing the same.

This article was originally published in the New York Times. 

About the Author

Judy Dempsey

Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Europe Needs to Hear What America is Saying

      Judy Dempsey

  • Commentary
    Babiš’s Victory in Czechia Is Not a Turning Point for European Populists

      Judy Dempsey

Judy Dempsey
Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Judy Dempsey
SecurityAsiaRussiaSouth AsiaAfghanistanCentral Asia

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • people watching smoke rising at sunrise from rooftops
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Bombing Campaigns Do Not Bring About Democracy. Nor Does Regime Change Without a Plan.

    Just look at Iraq in 1991.

      Marwan Muasher

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Baku Proceeds With Caution as Ethnic Azeris Join Protests in Neighboring Iran

    Baku may allow radical nationalists to publicly discuss “reunification” with Azeri Iranians, but the president and key officials prefer not to comment publicly on the protests in Iran.

      Bashir Kitachaev

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran’s Woes Aren’t Only Domestic

    The country’s leadership is increasingly uneasy about multiple challenges from the Levant to the South Caucasus.

      Armenak Tokmajyan

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    From Prague With a Shove

    In an interview, Daniela Richterova speaks about her book on Czechoslovakia’s Cold War ties to Palestinian groups and others.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Beirut Can Do More on Tom Barrack’s Proposal

    In addressing Hezbollah’s disarmament, the Lebanese state must start by increasing its own leverage.

      Michael Young

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.