Viktor Orban Urges Ceasefire In The Russia-Ukraine War

 

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban travelled to Ukraine to promote a ceasefire. Prime Minister Oban has not visited Ukraine since the conflict broke out in 2022. There have been attempts to make peace, but all have failed. President Volodymyr Zelensky has constantly asked for more aid from the European Union. One topic that was mentioned in the meeting was the ethnic Hungarians that reside in Ukraine. Tension exists with the Roma and ethnic Russian population. The discussion was related to the rights of the 100,000 Hungarians. Other bilateral matters were mentioned. After visiting Ukraine, Prime Minister Orban went to the Russian Federation. This did draw criticism from some EU countries, but seeking peace or an end to the war should not be condemned. Talking with President Vladimir Putin would help deescalate tensions. There is a possibility that these meetings will not produce any results. Hungary's motivations are not all altruistic. Seeking a ceasefire may be a means of preemptively stopping the chance of Ukrainian  refugees entering Hungary. Prime Minister Orban does not favor immigration to his country. When the war ends,  other EU nations are going to seek more influence in Ukraine. Hungary might be seeking to invest in Ukraine. Details and motivations remain unclear. If Viktor Orban was able to obtain a peace settlement that would elevate Hungary's diplomatic status. 

NATO Expansion Continues

 

NATO continues to expand with the addition of Finland. While the majority of the expansion has happened in Eastern Europe, now it has gone to Scandinavia. The justification for this addition to the military alliance is due to the Russia-Ukraine War. NATO expansion was one of the reasons the conflict broke out there. Sweden might also follow Finland in membership. The error is that this makes Europe more militarized and also contributes to the arms trade. Numerous corporations make profit from the military build-up and conflict in Europe. The failure of the West and Russia to reach a consensus has resulted in destabilization. The Russian Federation has no intent to invade Finland and Sweden. The Soviet Union lost a war to Finland. This was during the rule of Joseph Stalin and it demonstrates that Finland is more than capable of its own defense. Russia would not attack Finland considering its involvement in Ukraine. The invasion on the behalf of Russian militias in the Donbas has resulted in the opposite effect. More ate supporting NATO expansion, when the real objective is not security. NATO is being used as an armed force for regime change. Russia could in the distant future fall to a Yugoslavia style military intervention. Russia has another means of confronting this. Belarus overtime will be armed to counter the Baltic states and Ukraine. Finland's addition comes at a time when Europe is more tense than ever. The price of membership could have negative effects on the internal politics of Finland and its economy. 

Russia Intends To Place Tactical Nuclear Weapons In Belarus

 

The Russian Federation intends to place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Building up the military strength of Belarus was one plan to counter NATO expansion. The option was available if or when Ukraine becomes part of the military alliance. The second option was to intervene in Ukraine's civil war and secure the Donbas. Now it appears that a hybrid of both plans will be used. Without the INF Treaty, nuclear weapons production will increase. Finland comes closer to NATO membership, Russia wants to counter the new members with Belarus. Eastern Europe is becoming more militarized. Tension and fear only creates a more unstable atmosphere. The proliferation of nuclear weapons next to a war zone could cause further escalation. Tactical nuclear weapons are short range and to not have the capability of obliterating entire cities. These types of nuclear weapons are not subject to the same treaties as strategic nuclear weapons. The United States also has tactical nuclear weapons present on the soil of its NATO allies. Knowing this the possibility of a nuclear war becomes more likely. This is the first time Russia has sought to deploy nuclear weapons outside its borders since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. The decision might have been adopted in response to the ICC warrant for President Vladmir Putin and the continued shipment of arms from EU countries. Whatever the result will be, Eastern Europe has become a zone of proxy war. 

Tensions in Kosovo

 

Kosovo has seen an increase of tensions between the Serbian and Albanian populations. The NATO intervention in 1999 cased instability in the Balkans. Serbia was attempting to stop a separatist movement active in Kosovo. The end of Yugoslavia came about through civil war and ethnic cleansing. NATO has been present in Kosovo since 1999. Kosovo then announced it was an independent nation nine years later. A NATO force remained. Kosovo could  morph into a puppet state of  the NATO alliance. Serbia declared the 2008 declaration of independence as illegal. The majority of European Union members recognize Kosovo. The Serbs living in Kosovo are concerned about poor treatment from an Albanian majority. Kosovo some Serbs believe is still a part of Serbia. Prime Minister Albin Kurti called for a larger NATO led peacekeeping force. The motivation of the EU is to undermine Serbia's Russian alliance. These two nations have close relations and the conflict in Ukraine strengthened them. The attempt for Kosovo  to get complete international recognition is part of the reason for recent tensions. Then the occupation of the Kosovo Force adds to the complications. The NATO led peacekeeping force has done little to stabilize the Balkans. The process of Balkanization has not stopped. President Aleksandar Vucic expressed his support for Serbs in Kosovo. Being the president of Serbia he views them as citizens of the country. The Brussels Agreement is at risk of collapse. Since 2013 both Serbia and Kosovo agreed to normalize relations. Ethnic conflict and NATO could disrupt the peace.  

The Russian Mobilization

 

Russian mobilization marks a turning point in the war. Ukraine could be engulfed by the Russian Federation if a peace settlement is not reached. NATO expansion is what instigated the conflict, yet few European leaders want to address the issue. The reaction inside the Russian Federation has been a growing  anti-war movement. Germany, France, and the UK ignore these protests and instead demonize the Russian population. Russia at the start of the invasion did not use their full military capability. Now there is a desire to do so. The only way for the conflict to end is to make Ukraine neutral and halt NATO expansion in Eastern Europe. Russia can easily halt all energy sales to Europe in response to arming Ukraine. Germany, France, and the UK are facing an energy crisis . Without gas and oil  the European economy is in peril. The weapons and money being shipped are not fully accounted for. Allegations have been made a majority of the weapons Ukraine requested have not reached them. The invasion was at first not about conquest. It was to aid the militias in the east. That might change if further escalation continues. The only way Russia could lose is if every NATO county attacked with the United States. These actions could trigger a nuclear exchange. A direct conflict between the United States and Russia would result in nuclear war. Russian mobilization does not mean the country is struggling. Russia is pushing to end the conflict in a few months. The intent of  NATO is to extend the conflict for several years to weaken Russia. This cannot happen if the Ukrainian military cannot defend against more forces entering its territory. The mobilization phase shows that the Russia-Ukraine war is going to get more violent.  

Finland And Sweden Are Seeking NATO Membership

 

Finland and Sweden are seeking to be members of NATO. There reasons are based on the events surrounding the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If NATO expansion was one of the reasons for the outbreak of war, this only increases chances of a larger European conflict. NATO's purpose was for defense against the Soviet Union. Since 1997, more countries have been added to the alliance, even though the Soviet Union no longer existed. Expansion indirectly implies in the future NATO will one day seek a war with the Russian Federation. Finland joining NATO  is more surprising. Finland was able to win a war against the Soviet Union. The Russo-Finnish War (1939-1940)  resulted in Russian defeat. During World War II Finland fought with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union in the War of Continuation (1941-1944). Finland then made a separate peace and fought against Germany. Finland and Russia eventually signed a peace treaty in 1947. The two countries continued to have good relations. There is no reason to assume that Finland cannot defend itself. Sweden through most of the 20th century to early 2lst century has been a neutral European nation. The nation has valued diplomacy, rather than armed conflict. Turkey has objected to adding these two countries to NATO. Europe is becoming more militarized, which will cause instability. Russia has condemned the actions of Finland and Sweden, but has limited options. Attacking the Nordic countries would complicate matters. The only solution would be to arm Belarus as a counter to new NATO members. This enables President Alexander Lukashenko to become more important to Russia. Europe might become a larger warzone beyond Ukraine, if NATO keeps expanding.  Strategic  diplomacy is needed to prevent further escalation. 

The Russia-Ukraine Conflict , NATO Expansion, and The European Union

 Conflict has broken out between Ukraine and Russia. Ukraine has been in a state of civil war ever since 2014. The overthrow of the Viktor Yanukoych presidency caused certain provinces to seek independence. Ukraine is divided between east and west. The western section of the country favors the European Union and NATO. The eastern section of the country is in alignment with the Russian  Federation. The Donbass region has a large number of ethnic Russians. This part of Ukraine has been attempting to break away. Both Donetsk and Luhansk  were recognized as independent countries by Russia. This sparked outrage from the US, France, and the UK. The root of the conflict goes back further than the West aiding the removal of the Yanukoych presidency. An agreement was made between Russia and NATO that the military alliance would not expand. NATO has been getting closer to Russian borders over the past two decades. Although NATO was meant to be an defensive military alliance it has been involved in the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and Afghanistan. Some analysts have questioned why this alliance remains even when the Cold War is over. There are economic and political reasons that NATO remains. Eastern Europe is a lucrative market for arms manufacturers. The European Union has a vision of a politically integrated  Europe, regardless of what individual European states want. An east and west divide still stops this design for supranationalism from happening. Russia want to have influence in eastern Europe. To counter this NATO added more countries to the alliance. Ukraine is now caught in a state of civil war and being partition between two world powers. The United States and Russia are challenging one another for control of Ukraine.  Reckless action has made the situation escalate into a new conflict. Observers have called this a Russian invasion, but it is a country intervening in a civil war. Russians were assisting militias and armed groups prior to 2022. The risk is that a European conflict could spread throughout the continent and the world. 

         The Russia-Ukraine conflict origins go back eight  years ago.  The Russian involvement in Ukraine started with the annexation of Crimea. This was done in a  less violent manner, by means of a referendum. The majority of the population is Russian so the results worked in Russia favor. This was the Russian Federation's response to the removal of Vikor Yanukoych. Seeing as a legitimate government was deposed, some chose to take up arms against the new administration. Protests had gripped the country with debates about trade deals with the EU. The Association Agreement was thus rejected. Yanukoych favored Russia, which was why his presidency was targeted by other European powers. Soon armed factions began emerging. Ethnic Russians in the east began fighting the Ukrainians in the west. President Vladimir Putin began aiding rebels groups in the Donbas. Those in the east feared the Maidan revolution . Ukraine if it got closer to the EU could harm their financial situation, considering the area had significant economic ties to Russia. This caused tensions to build between Kyiv and Moscow. The United States was also arming Ukraine against the rebels. The country had become a battleground for a war of proxy between two world powers. Among the armed groups extremist elements were emerging.  The Azov Battalion has been identified as a neo-Nazi organization which has been involved in combat. Ukraine slipped into civil war, which was a justification made by more powerful countries to intervene. President Petro Poroshenko was not willing to negotiate a peace with the Donbas.   

The causalities were increasing and it appeared that neither of the waring parties were closer to victory. A peace settlement was needed to prevent Ukraine from breaking in two. The Minsk agreements were designed to end the civil war in Ukraine. The Minsk II in 2015 was a cease-fire more so than a peace treaty. Under a Poroshenko presidency, peace may not have been possible. This was due to his suspicion  of Russia. The EU and US favored him over the newly elected president Volodymr Zelensky. The comedian was not expected to win, but the public wanted someone different. President Zelensky was more open to talks compared to his predecessor. The obstacles that prevented this were related to the Ukraine's possible entry into NATO and establishment of weapons systems. Russia had concerns about its borders. NATO was expanding breaking a promise not to do so. Only Belarus and Moldova are not a part of the NATO alliance on Russia's border . Sweden and Finland are not a part of the alliance. These countries tend to be neutral in foreign affairs. The reaction to NATO expansion was to recognize Donetsk and  Luhansk. From these areas a full scale invasion was launched. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict took a dramatic turn. Russia was doing a large scale military intervention. Russia is now fighting militias and the Ukrainian military. Belarus could become involved considering Russia is its close ally. Hungary is one of the few NATO members more sympathetic to Russia. The conflict if protracted might spread into neighboring states. The Russian-Ukrainian conflict started from regime change and   transforming into a civil war . The evolution to a war of proxy made it another location of US-Russia contention. The Russian Federation then chose to escalate military operations. 

         The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949 as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union. At the time, it was the Cold War and both the superpowers were struggling for geopolitical domination of the globe. Overtime, the Soviet Union could not compete economically. The Soviet system reached a point of stagnation. Pressures from the war in Afghanistan and new reforms brought about its collapse. The Soviet Union cease to exist in 1991. However, since 1992 NATO has been expanding. The pace of it increased in the 2000s. The Russian Federation is not as powerful as the Soviet Union was or the Russian Empire. NATO's role and purpose has been changed. The military alliance is designed to inflict violence against countries who resist the West. Under the cover of humanitarian intervention, countries that are not even in Europe have been attacked by NATO. There are cases in which NATO tries to change the map. Kosovo would not exist as an independent state without NATO's involvement in the break up of Yugoslavia. NATO's role is not defensive, but to use preemptive strike. The Association Agreement would have been the pathway to moving Ukraine into NATO membership. This created a paranoia in Russian political circles of a future invasion by NATO.  Russia has been invaded by France under Napoleon  ,  Germany under Wilhelm II, and then Adolf Hitler. Russia's paranoia does have some historical foundation. The fear of possible invasion was the reason for Soviet occupation of  eastern Europe. When the Cold War was over, Russia and the West realized a new framework was needed. The Founding Act was an agreement made between NATO and the Russian Federation. It called for cooperation and mutual understanding on security matters. This was introduced in 1997. The promise that NATO would not expand was not kept. The concern is that the members of the alliance will one day be involved in a war against Russia. Belarus, Sweden, Finland, and Moldova are not a part of NATO. Sweden has been neutral in terms of foreign policy. Finland might join in response to events in Ukraine. Belarus is aligned with Russia and Moldova tends to favor appears to favor a western orientation. President Maria Sandu has condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine. President Alexander Lukashenko supports Russian efforts, but indicates it wants to hold talks between Ukraine and Russia. Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orban has expressed his frustration with Russian military strikes in Ukraine. President Milos Zeman of the Czech Republic has also condemned  the war in Ukraine. Hungary and the Czech Republic were advocates for Russia in NATO. Diplomatic relations could end if the war continues. NATO will only justify its expansion and use the conflict to promote its agenda. Russia invaded thinking it would deter expansion, yet it only makes it inevitable. 

       The European Union has a political vision for the entire continent. The desire to promote certain values such as liberal democratic systems, free movement among borders, and the euro are objectives. Members have to adhere to certain stipulations. This comes at the cost of elements of national sovereignty. The European Union cannot have a competing economic and political rival. This is why the UK's exit from the EU was met with contention. Russia poses a political and economic challenge. Russia provides energy to Europe. Germany and Italy are dependent on Russian gas. The United States does not approve of Europe buying Russian gas. The desire is to have European countries make purchases from the United States. Disputes have emerged from economic competition. Russia was close to making Nord Stream 2 pipeline a lucrative business transaction. The business agreement with Germany was objected to by both the Trump and Biden administrations. The invasion of Ukraine has suspended operation. The source of conflict in Europe is related to fossil fuels and energy. The investment in renewable energy can help prevent future conflicts. Europe getting energy independence would be beneficial economically. Both Russia and the United States have leverage on Europe which can be used at anytime. Russia could have used natural gas as leverage to settle the Ukraine dispute. The problem is that Russia would lose access to buyers. More sanctions have been put on Russia as a means of opposing the invasion. The consequences of this are higher gas prices in Europe and the US. Ultimately sanctions  will harm the average citizen in America, Russia, and the rest of Europe. The Ukraine -Russia conflict will not just impact Europe, but the global economy. Stock markets react to world events. Cutting off Russia from the global economy could impact African and Asian nations that do business with  the country. Supply chain issues, inflation, and the pandemic only add to the strain on the global economy. Energy related confrontation only exacerbates a dire situation. Another dimension to the economics of the region is the arms trade. Eastern Europe has been a buyer of American weapons. Tanks, aircraft, and missiles  have been sold to eastern European countries. The United States was arming Ukraine during its civil war. This partnership will continue. A large part of the US economy rests on arms production. If the West and Russia came to a consensus, this would disrupt the arms trade. NATO countries would not buy American weapons if there was no concept of a Russian threat. Russian integration economically into Europe would challenge American influence. The European Union would never accept Russia, because it is too economically independent. Although EU countries and Russia are capitalist systems, a rivalry exists for influence in the global economy. 

       A power struggle has broken out between two versions of neo-colonial imperialism. There is the NATO-US block which wanted to mold Ukraine into another EU type of state. Russia seeks to pull Ukraine into its sphere of influence. The country was a part of the Soviet Union. Formerly colonized states struggle to break free of their mother country. African and Asian countries had this problem in the 1960s and 1970s. Ukraine has been caught in a contest of world power competition. Pressure from Russia or the United States undermines Ukraine's sovereignty. The UK and France have intervened in formerly colonized countries. Russia has replicated this model with Ukraine. The Russia-Ukraine conflict has dissolved the myth of an international rules based order. It was slowly in decline with the Iraq War. The West and  the United States wanted to present itself as a defender of human rights and democracy. When economics or  the quest for national power are factors these values are discarded. The attempt to transform Ukraine into an NATO state resulted in provocation for Russia. The extreme response  was launching an aggressive war that appears to be one of conquest. Efforts are still being made to establish a peace settlement. There is refusal to facilitate  this by the EU countries. Belarus has offered to provide a platform for Russian and Ukrainian delegations. President Volodymyr  Zelensky  has indicated he would rather have peace. Russia has not fully taken over the country. Fighting continues in major cities, which suggest the Ukrainian military  is much stronger than thought. Military aid from the UK, Germany, US, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. Peace talks will not be successful under sanctions targeting Russian companies and banks. The Biden administration was not receptive to negotiations related to NATO expansion. Since the Obama administration US-Russian relations rapidly declined. The struggle to make Ukraine under control of either the US or Russia caused the 2022 conflict. Russia prior to this was engaging in military action in Georgia. The Russo-Georgian War in 2008 followed a similar narrative as Ukraine. Russian recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This resulted in war, which Russia won. However, Georgia was not absorbed into the Russian Federation. Ukraine may not be fully conquered, but the Donbas might become part of the Russian Federation. Russia is using irredentism and NATO expansion as an excuse to wage war in Ukraine. The US and EU countries make the justification for war as being a humanitarian mission. Ukraine can be free if it rejects both power blocks. When Ukraine gains a status of neutrality it will not be part of large scale geopolitical power struggles.   

Muammar Qaddafi Calls on Libyans To Resist NATO (2011)

 

Ten years ago Muammar Qaddafi was assassinated.  Libya was in a state of civil war, however this was induced by the UK, France, US, and NATO countries. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates also contributed to regime change in Libya. Protests did occur in response to the events in Tunisia. These were peaceful  demonstrations. Armed groups and terrorist organizations not associated with protestors started violence. Libya descended in civil war and NATO began a bombing campaign. Qaddafi called on all Libyans to resist aggressive war waged by NATO. The African Union was seeking  to end the conflict with diplomacy. This was ignored by both the UN and EU. The violent destruction of a prosperous African country was planned for decades. Libya's oil resources and influence in the global south made it a target of Western powers. Qaddafi earned much respect for his contribution to anti-colonial freedom struggles and the fight against white minority rule regimes in the Southern African region. His death was a major blow to the African continent. 

The Afghan War, US Withdraw , and The Failure of Nation Building

 The Biden administration has announced its intention of US withdraw from Afghanistan. The exit of US troops will be gradual with September 11th being the set deadline. The Afghan War  has been the longest conflict in US history. The devastation will have a lasting impact of the people living in the Central Asian nation. The war was overseen by four presidential administrations and no solution was reached. This withdraw is not American troops just leaving a deteriorating country. The United States was defeated similar to the Vietnam conflict. Slowly the mendacious claims about democracy promotion and fighting terrorism have unraveled. Nation building projects do not exist for the sake of human rights. The objective is to advance a neocolonial imperialist agenda. The war in Afghanistan was presented to the public as a dire emergency that required military  force.  The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was used as a justification for humanitarian intervention into Afghanistan. The target was Al-Qaeda and governments that were providing them bases. The Taliban refused to extradite Osama Bin Laden, because they wanted evidence he was directly involved in the attacks. When this occurred the US then considered the Taliban as an enemy. Out of this grew a popular fiction. The idea that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were a giant military threat emerged. Al-Qaeda was presented as a omnipotent organization that was responsible for terrorism across the globe. Terrorist groups existed before Al-Qaeda and many were working independently from one another. Osama Bin Laden did not have complete control over these terrorist  groups in other countries. Bin Laden was more so a patron of some groups rather than a leader or fighter. The War on Terror was a justification  for the US expanding into Central Asia and the Middle East. President George W. Bush started the Afghan War and his successors continued it with the hope of pushing further into the region. Beyond just mere economic exploitation and increasing geopolitical power an idea was being experimented with. Imposing liberal democracy through military force was a neoconservative political vision for the world. Afghanistan was a testing ground for US nation building and extremist  neoconservative foreign policy. Other nations were to fall victim to America's rampage which included Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Somalia. Afghanistan had a unique situation seeing as it was the first to experience a new type of US military aggression. President Joseph Biden may not meet the indented deadline  considering the situation has become more unstable. Past  presidents have made promises of withdraw, but have vacillated. Afghanistan's internal challenges will spread across borders. 

       The war in Afghanistan has involved both NATO and US forces. Unlike Iraq, this was a multilateral military intervention. When the invasion commenced in 2001, opposition was to the conflict was not as potent. There was a lack of understanding about the country and the complexities in a wider geopolitical context. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979 to maintain the Marxist regime. Following this was a growing armed resistance. The mujahideen would fight the Soviet occupation with  aid coming from Pakistan and the United States. America's intelligence apparatus armed the groups that could become the future terrorists. The Soviet withdraw in 1989 left a power void in Afghanistan's fractured society. The country was in a state of civil war. Al-Qaeda emerged around 1988. The country provided the organization a base of operations. The Taliban was both a movement and  armed group that appeared around 1994. The most formidable adversary of the Taliban was the Northern Alliance. Ultimately, the Taliban would rule most the country by 1996. By the year 2000, the Taliban was close to controlling all  of the country. Mohammed Omar the founder and leader of the Taliban was de facto  head of state. Little is known about how much  he contributed to Osama Bin Laden's activities. At the time, the Taliban was at the height of its power and Bin Laden was losing significance in the political Islamist movement. Attempts at starting building Islamic republics in Sudan, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia were not successful. The instability in Afghanistan allowed for Osama to move freely and try once more to build a movement that could depose the secular regimes of North Africa and the Middle East.  

The US invasion at first used planes and drones to bomb select targets. Special forces then followed after the bombing campaigns. The Taliban fell from power, but the insurgency continued. The US-NATO forces were fighting a conventional war, while the Taliban used guerilla warfare. Afghanistan's mountainous terrain makes it perfect for this type of irregular warfare. The is not one Taliban. There are man armed branches of it throughout the country. Pakistan has been accused of aiding some sections of it on its borders. Neighboring countries have gotten more involved in Afghanistan's internal affairs. Uzbekistan provided bases to US combat soldiers during the war. Iran wanted to see the Taliban fall, because it did not want a Sunni Muslim state at its border. Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have economic interests in the country. The Afghan War gave the US an opportunity to have a larger foothold in Central Asia. This would be modeled similar to how the US has influence in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. The invasion was the start of a new decline in Russia-US relations. As it became clear that there was not plan for an exit under the Bush administration, Russia began reconfiguring its foreign policy. When President Obama was elected relations were beyond repair. Drone attacks increased and the US-NATO forces became a permanent feature. There have been discussions of withdraw for years. So far, they are nothing more than empty promises. President Trump proposed a peace deal with the Taliban, but there was not commitment to full scale withdraw. This is why some critics are skeptical of President Joseph Biden's  statements. 

        The US withdraw may not be what it appears. US-NATO combat troops could exit, but special forces and a large intelligence apparatus could remain. Air strikes and drone attacks could still continue. There is another possibility. The withdraw is an admission of defeat. The war can not be won. The conflict between 2006 to present has become a battle of attrition. The United States continued to use conventional tactics, while the Taliban adapted to the changing conditions. Ambushes, the use of IEDs, and infiltration into the armed forces kept the Taliban formidable.   Afghanistan has a long history of fighting invasions. Attempts at conquest were never really successful. Alexander the Great tried to add the country to his empire, but met intense resistance. The British Empire fought the Anglo-Afghan Wars sending troops from its Indian colony. Britain was never able to fuse the country into its empire. The Russian Empire was not able to absorb it either like other Central Asian states. History demonstrates a war with Afghanistan is no simple task.   The costs are increasing to conduct long term warfare would require a dramatic increase in taxes. 

The American public would not accept this. Growing evidence of war crimes and civilian deaths has also made the war more unpopular. The only way to win such a conflict would be to use more force and along with assistance from  neighboring states. Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan,  Iran, Tajikistan  and Kazakhstan would have to have their armies active in Afghanistan combined with the NATO-US force. This is not a realistic plan, due to the fact India and Pakistan still have contentious relations. The United States remains hostile to Iran and does not want to see its influence spread. A permanent occupation force along with a hated government makes resistance grow stronger. A military solution is not possible unless there is total war . Such brutality would further damage America's international  reputation . It has been declining since the Bush administration and changes in leadership have not improved America's image in the world. Afghanistan has become similar to America's war in Vietnam during the Cold War.  The Gulf War contributed to the US overcoming one of its worst military defeats. Born out of this was a hubris knowing it was the world's sole superpower. The Afghan War brought America back into diplomatic and political reality. America can be defeated and there will be backlash from military intervention. 

         Fighting to eliminate terrorism is not possible. Terrorism is a tactic of asymmetric warfare. Unlike trying to challenge an ideology such as fascism or communism, terrorism is not a conviction. Political Islamism does not constitute enough of a threat to harm global security. The War on Terror is a flawed concept, because it is based on the idea that one religious and ethnic group is the source of terrorism. Muslims, Arabs, and Central Asians are in the media presented as the source of terrorism. Around the world there are multiple insurgencies and terrorist organizations that are not Muslim or West Asian. The Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda has committed various acts of terrorism and they are Christians. Myanmar has multiple armed groups that it continually fights with in its borders. To that one group has a monopoly on violence and terrorism shows racist and Islamophobic thought. Afghanistan was victim to this type of attitude by western powers. This justified egregious acts of violence over the past decades. The War on Terror narrative as the Afghan War progressed  became more illogical. Osama Bin Laden was presented as an all powerful leader of a terrorist organization who extended branches across the world. He did not have control of every terrorist group that existed. Osama's influence over the internal politics of Afghanistan was more limited than previously thought. There is no indications Bin Laden was formulating policy for the Afghan government. During most of the US-NATO occupation, Osama Bin Laden was in Pakistan and was killed there in 2011. Most of the fighting in Afghanistan was done by the Taliban, not Al-Qaeda. Based on this reasoning, Pakistan should have been invaded if the purpose of the conflict was to dismantle Al-Qaeda. These action demonstrated that the War on Terror was used to legitimize wars against multiple countries. Counter-terrorism became a cover for aggressive war. 

     Nation building should not be an objective of foreign policy. The US applied this to its invasion of Afghanistan intending to mold it into another type of nation-state. Objectives and goals did not take into account Afghanistan is divided society among Hazara, Pashtun, Uzbek, and Tajik. A multi-ethnic society may struggle to create a single national identity. A liberal democratic system is foreign to Afghanistan. Throughout its history it has either been a monarchy, experimented with a communist  regime , and theocratic government. Democratic systems cannot be imposed by invasion. The people residing in the country must be the ones to select which type of government they will have. Otherwise, the country becomes nothing more than a puppet state. Presidential  elections have not produced the stability and peace that the majority of Afghans desire. Discord is growing and  more armed groups could emerge in the coming instability. Neoconservatives have a vision of the world in which liberal democracy will be the only system of government. To do this, authoritarian governments must be invaded. The motive goes beyond trying to just maintaining US hegemony. The desire to transform various countries. Afghanistan during the 2000s was going to be a part of the neoconservative ambition in nation building. The long lasting conflict has brought an end to nation building as a practical  policy. Considering America's growing internal problems, it should not be a model to export or imitate. The nation building projects of the West such as democracy promotion and the export of cultural values creates more conflict. The idea that a foreign power can transform another country into what it sees fit cannot work. Nation building as shown in Afghanistan projects a hubris that world powers have when associating with other countries. The United States wanted to impose a political system that Afghanistan did not want and the reaction was growing resistance. If the US remains longer the majority of the population will turn against US-NATO forces. America's nation building projects can never function in a rapidly changing international stage. 

        Complete withdraw could take decades if it actually happens. There are doubts that President Joseph Biden is willing or capable of making it happen. Based on the previous administrations, there is no indication that a change in US policy will happen. Previous presidents have made promises and all have broken them. Even if combat troops are to exit, private security contractors and mercenaries are going to be active. The US could return after a short withdraw. The concern would be growing Russian and Chinese influence in Afghanistan. Tension between the US, China, and Russia has grown and show no sign of reduction. This has spread to other areas of the world and there is no reason to think that Afghanistan would be excluded. The country's large lithium reserves make it a target for economic exploitation. If it could stabilize and make peace it could benefit from its natural resources. Regaining control if its economy and reasserting its national sovereignty  is the only way Afghanistan can improve its condition. There are going to be major consequences for the decades of war and occupation inflicted. Blowback is inevitable, but it is uncertain what could happen. The Taliban could return to power and depose the Ashraf Ghani government. Afghans do get to elect their leaders, yet all have failed in stopping the violence or developing the country. Just like former president Hamid Karazi, President Ghani seems more like a puppet leader. Afghanistan saw limited improvement in human rights, economic condition, and infrastructure during the US occupation. Generations of frustration, hopelessness, and anger can only result in an Afghan public willing to follow an authoritarian or extremist figure. Between war, occupation, and political corruption the desire for order takes precedence . Afghanistan's experiment with liberal democracy may be short lived. History will document America's war in the country as a failed attempt to impose US power on a region. The vision of nation building as a catalyst for strengthening US influence has come to an end.