A good skeptical look at the story from the dutch anti-Putin site, so its interesting to see them go against their obvious bias to debunk this story;
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/07/03/the-talibangate-claims-about-russian-bounties-still-dont-add-up-a70772Most notably, this story lacks any coherent motive. What's supposed to be the reason Russia would take such an aggressive and escalatory risk? Its not going to have any substantial impact on our middle east foreign policy, we're leaving Afghanistan either way, Trump was openly negotiating that since before this was alleged. As "revenge" for the deaths of Russian mercenaries in Syria makes no sense, because that was US troops defending themselves from an attack and Russia's own fuck-up in deconfliction, and it wouldn't be tit-for-tat retaliation to target US citizens instead of US proxies anyway. And those exact same GRU units were already known to have sat back and
not authorized any conflicts with the US in Syria, and nobody in Russian leadership seemed to even give a shit about that incident, no protestation, if anything it was more of a mea culpa from the Kremlin. So we've got a claim of Russia making an extremely dangerous escalation with the US at a time and way that doesn't whatsoever serve their geopolitical interests, with a risk of backfiring that would absolutely harm their geopolitical interests.
And then the New York Times claimed this was evidence by
bank transfers to Afghans that were recorded in major international bankswait. Did anyone stop to think for even one second when they printed that followup?
Why the
fuck would a secret Russian GRU program that needs to be hidden from the eyes of the US to not backfire, send their money through official channels with documentation in entities accessible to the US government?
That's abundant reason to doubt this story, not to confirm it. Think logically for christssake. Why wouldn't they just send the money through secret channels? They're already openly sending the Taliban weapons, they could just throw cash into those same containers.
Theres a far more rational and obvious explanation for Russia sending the Taliban cash: They're buying geopolitical influence. They're bribing tribal leaders and building connections to establish a foothold in the power vacuum that will exist after the US withdrawal:
Quote
Moscow had greeted the U.S.-Taliban agreement paving the way for a withdrawal of American forces with satisfaction. They were happy to see Washington draw down its commitments across the Middle East, not least as it gives the Russians a chance to play a more substantial role on the cheap.
The Russians need to limit and monitor the Afghan heroin trade (Russia has the highest per-capita consumption in the world). They are also desperate to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a source of transnational jihadism spreading into Central Asia and thence Russia.
To this end, they have identified Islamic State, and specifically its resurgent local branch, Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K), as the main threat. They maintain relationships with the Taliban especially because they see them as a useful counter to IS-K, and seek to develop networks of other allies across the country for both military and intelligence-gathering reasons.
These hard-nosed Afghan warlords do not cooperate with Moscow out of altruism or good-neighborliness. In today’s Afghanistan — just as the British and the Russians found during the “Great Game” of the nineteenth century — alliances are bought with blood, arms, and cash. Certainly, the U.S. has not shied away from such pragmatic behavior.
The Russians are already supplying the Taliban weapons. Let’s suppose they have a wider program to establish networks of contacts and proxies in-country, one that involves direct payments as well as the involvement of a hawala-broker. If sending a suitcase of dollars to a warlord in the hills around Kandahar, for example, they will want to make sure it gets to its destination. This sounds like a job for the tough throat-slitters of Unit 29155.
(Besides, the Taliban’s involvement in the opium trade means it is, to quote The New York Times, “awash with cash” — finding large sums in one of their headquarters is hardly a surprise.)
Russia has obvious geopolitical interests in ex-soviet occupied Afghanistan combined with no aversion to corruption and an established supply line.
The New York Times thinks that a money trail the Russians aren't even bothering to obfuscate let alone cover up, is somehow proof of a secret conspiracy to kill Americans in order to get revenge for the deaths of pawns the Russians truly never gave one solitary shit about in the first place.