Russia’s Afghanistan Strategy

{
  "authors": [
    "Julia Gurganus"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "russia",
  "programs": [
    "Russia and Eurasia"
  ],
  "projects": [
    "The Return of Global Russia: A Reassessment of the Kremlin’s International Agenda"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "United States",
    "Afghanistan",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Russia’s Afghanistan Strategy

Over the last couple of years, the gap between the Russian and U.S. strategies in Afghanistan has grown. Russia increasingly believes that the U.S. approach isn’t working and is convinced that it must be prepared to deal with an unstable Afghanistan on its own.

By Julia Gurganus

Published on Jan 2, 2018

Program

Russia and Eurasia

The Russia and Eurasia Program continues Carnegie’s long tradition of independent research on major political, societal, and security trends in and U.S. policy toward a region that has been upended by Russia’s war against Ukraine. Leaders regularly turn to our work for clear-eyed, relevant analyses on the region to inform their policy decisions.

Learn More

Project

The Return of Global Russia: A Reassessment of the Kremlin’s International Agenda

The Kremlin’s activist foreign policy is expanding Russian global influence at a time when the United States and other Western countries are increasingly divided or consumed by domestic problems. The Return of Global Russia project will examine the Kremlin’s ambitions to become a player in far-flung parts of the world where its influence has long been written off, the tools it is relying upon to challenge the liberal international order, and practical Western policy options for how and when to respond to this new challenge.

Learn More

Source: Foreign Affairs

For the last decade and a half, Russia and the United States have had largely similar aims in Afghanistan: preventing chaos and the reemergence of a safe haven for terrorists. That convergence has allowed the two countries to work together. But beneath the surface, there are important differences. Although both want stability, they define it in very different ways. The U.S. approach is founded on creating a strong central government in Kabul and a well-equipped and well-trained national security force; Russia, meanwhile, works with a wide range of actors, some of which compete directly with the government in Kabul. Moscow has even reached out to the Taliban, legitimizing a group that continues to threaten the security of both the Afghan government and U.S. and NATO forces.

Read Full Text

This article was originally published in Foreign Affairs.

About the Author

Julia Gurganus

Former Nonresident Scholar, Russia and Eurasia Program

Julia Gurganus was a nonresident scholar with the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Her research focus is on trends in Russian foreign policy and Russia-U.S. relations.

Recent Work

Paper
Russia’s Global Ambitions in Perspective
- Julia Gurganus, Eugene Rumer
Article
Russia: Playing a Geopolitical Game in Latin America
- Julia Gurganus

Foreign Policy United States Afghanistan Russia

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 Endowment for International Peace

Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Russian Oil Sector Battered but Not Broken by Ukrainian Air Attacks
If it proves impossible for the Russian authorities to avoid a gasoline deficit, the question then becomes how they will organize the distribution of a scarce resource.
Sergey Vakulenko
Commentary
Carnegie Politika
Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes
This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.
Galiya Ibragimova
Commentary
Emissary
The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the Past
By burying disagreements in imprecision, the new deal risks same fate as its predecessors.
James M. Acton
Commentary
Emissary
Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?
The United States and Israel may have unwittingly revived the Islamic Republic’s “zombie regime.”
Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
Commentary
Emissary
The Overlooked Link Between Disaster Response at Home and U.S. Power Abroad
Natural disasters are no longer local incidents but sources of systemic risk that threaten vital infrastructure and the economy—and public support for international engagement.
Leonardo Martinez-Diaz

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Russian Oil Sector Battered but Not Broken by Ukrainian Air Attacks

If it proves impossible for the Russian authorities to avoid a gasoline deficit, the question then becomes how they will organize the distribution of a scarce resource.

Sergey Vakulenko

Commentary

Carnegie Politika

Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes

This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.

Galiya Ibragimova

Three people standing outside a fancy building

Commentary

Emissary

The Latest Iran Deal Ignores the Lessons of the Past

By burying disagreements in imprecision, the new deal risks same fate as its predecessors.

James M. Acton

Man sitting in a chair reading a newspaper with Trump's face above the fold

Commentary

Emissary

Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?

The United States and Israel may have unwittingly revived the Islamic Republic’s “zombie regime.”

Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour

Aerial view of burned-out cars and homes

Commentary

Emissary

The Overlooked Link Between Disaster Response at Home and U.S. Power Abroad

Natural disasters are no longer local incidents but sources of systemic risk that threaten vital infrastructure and the economy—and public support for international engagement.

Leonardo Martinez-Diaz