Presentation1

The erstwhile Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979, and remained there until 15 February 1989. In the bargain, Soviet Union ended up losing its political identity and disintegrated for good, perhaps because the invasion was seen as a blatant violation of Afghanistan’s sovereignty. Nearly all nations joined hands led by the United States (US), and its allies, and supported the Afghan Mujahedeen’s resistance. Pakistan not only played the role of a frontline state against Soviet occupation but also became the training, logistics lifeline of the freedom struggle. 

On the other hand, the US entered Afghanistan in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks to fight the Global War on Terror (GWOT). This entry was supported and legitimised by global powers and institutions. The US and NATO forces stayed in Afghanistan with full military presence for over 20 years and left on 15 August 2021, only to leave the war-ravaged country again to the same government led by Taliban, which is still not recognised by the international community.

While the US was still looking for an excuse on its failures in Afghanistan, Russia decided to enter Ukraine, in an effort to extend its perimeters to block NATO forces on its doorsteps. For years, the Kremlin had been pushing against NATO expansion, particularly against Ukraine joining the military alliance seen as a genuine security threat. It is evident now that Ukraine was Russia’s red line.

The Russo-Ukrainian war is now entering its third month, with large-scale devastation and casualties. The Western world is supporting Ukraine morally, militarily, and financially. On the other hand, the global economy has been hit hard due to this new war in Europe, primarily because Russia controls energy supplies to a number of European countries. The country remains the biggest exporter of crude oil and earns nearly USD 123 billion a year. Moreover, it is not only a major supplier of just oil and gas, but also wheat, metals, and fertilizers, as well.

The US and other European partners have imposed compelling sanctions on Russia and its major exporting companies due to its imposed war on Ukraine. This has had serious implications for the Russian economy, and hence forced President Putin to insist on receiving Russian Rubles in exchange for gas exports to European countries. After initial reluctance, ‘most of the gas importers have already opened their account in rubles with Gazprom,’ Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi told a press conference. He said that ‘Germany’s top gas importer had already paid in rubles. Like Italy, Germany is a massive consumer of Russian gas,’ according to a recent Bloomberg report. Another report suggests, that ‘a total of twenty European companies have opened accounts, with another 14 clients asking for the paperwork needed to set them up.’

Moreover, both Russia and Ukraine are the biggest exporters of food grain to a number of countries across the globe. For instance, Egypt was the biggest importer of Ukrainian wheat last year alongside Lebanon, and Pakistan. Ukraine produces about 7% of the world’s wheat as well as sunflowers, corn, soybeans, and barley in large exportable quantities, particularly to North African countries.

Likewise, Russia produces and exports massive quantities of wheat, sugar beets, milk, potatoes, cereals, and chicken. Moreover, several European countries entirely rely on gas from Russia, including North Macedonia, Moldova, Belarus, Norway, Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to the Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC) report, ‘the top exports of Russia are Crude Petroleum ($74.4B), Refined Petroleum ($48B), Petroleum Gas ($19.7B), Gold ($18.7B), and Coal Briquettes ($14.5B), exporting mostly to China ($49.3B), United Kingdom ($25.3B), Netherlands ($22.5B), Belarus ($15.8B), and Germany ($14.2B).’ The BBC reports that ‘In 2019, Russia accounted for 41% of the EU’s natural gas imports.

Historically, a prolonged military campaign usually proves counterproductive for the initiator. Vietnam War for the US, first Afghan war for the Soviets, second Afghan war for the US are ample proof of this argument. Russia must not lose sight of history and avoid prolonging its Ukrainian campaign before it proves to be another Afghanistan for the global power.

Dr Zia Ul Haque Shamsi is the author of ‘Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan’ and ‘South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace.’ He is presently working as Director (Peace and Conflict Studies) at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be contacted at: [email protected]  


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »