Bagram Absurdity*
*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.
Maxim Yusin on Trump’s idea of regaining U.S. control over Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan
In an interview with RIA Novosti, Zamir Kabulov, Russia’s special presidential envoy for Afghanistan, said the U.S. is unlikely to invade Afghanistan just to take over Bagram Air Base. Earlier, President Donald Trump warned that serious consequences could follow if Afghanistan does not return the Bagram base to the U.S. He expects the base to be handed over to Washington immediately. Afghan officials sharply rejected U.S. threats. Kommersant FM columnist Maxim Yusin calls this idea one of the most absurd ideas of Trump’s presidency.
Eight months into Trump’s return to the White House, the world has already grown used to his eccentric ideas and stopped being surprised by them. Yet even against this backdrop, his demand of the “return” of the Bagram base to Washington stands out.
First, Trump’s choice of words is striking. In a social media post, he insisted that Afghanistan must hand the base back “to those that built it.” By that logic, the White House seems more concerned with Russian interests than American ones, since the Bagram base was actually built by Soviet engineers in the 1950s, during King Mohammad Zahir Shah's reign.
Second, even if by some miracle the Taliban in Kabul agreed to turn over their main air base to the U.S, it would quickly become a nightmare for the Pentagon in terms of costs, logistics, security arrangements and potential terrorist attacks. Military experts have estimated that at least 10,000 troops would be needed just to operate and secure the facility. How would Washington handle troop deployment, supply, and rotation? Would it once again need to negotiate with Russia to use the “staging base” in Ulyanovsk, as it did in 2001 when George W. Bush launched war against the Taliban? Back then, U.S.–Russia relations were completely different.
Third, U.S. media reports say that Washington at one point held quiet talks with the Taliban about the possibility of using Bagram. But after Trump’s public ultimatum, those chances are slim. In the East and beyond, leaders cannot lose face by yielding to public pressure. Quiet backroom deals may still be possible, but once “megaphone diplomacy” starts, it almost always destroys any chance of compromise. A similar situation occurred when Trump demanded that India stop buying Russian oil — an episode that appears to have taught him little.
Fourth, let’s take Trump’s threat at face value — his warning of “bad things” if the Taliban refuses. What exactly does that mean? A U.S. attempt to seize Bagram by force and hold it in hostile territory, essentially restarting the Afghan war that President Joe Biden ended? And this at a time when no reliable supply route is available: not through Russia and Central Asia to the north, nor through Pakistan to the south, given Islamabad’s shift into Beijing’s orbit since 2001.
Finally, there’s the reasoning behind Trump’s demand. As he openly wrote, the base is “an hour away” from where China makes nuclear weapons. Strictly speaking, it’s more like 2,000 kilometers (about 1,243 miles), and not to nuclear weapons sites but to Lop Nur, a former test range that no longer produces or stores warheads. But let’s leave the details aside. The point is clear: Trump wants U.S. troops back in Afghanistan to keep Chinese nuclear assets in his crosshairs. What kind of political, psychological and diplomatic backdrop does that create ahead of his planned talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping? Hardly a constructive one.
This “Bagram initiative” only complicates prospects for negotiations — on tariffs and beyond — that are crucial for America’s 47th president. At this stage, one can only sympathize with Trump’s foreign policy, military and trade advisers, who will have to deal with the consequences of his rash initiative.
Maxim Yusin on Trump’s idea of regaining U.S. control over Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan
In an interview with RIA Novosti, Zamir Kabulov, Russia’s special presidential envoy for Afghanistan, said the U.S. is unlikely to invade Afghanistan just to take over Bagram Air Base. Earlier, President Donald Trump warned that serious consequences could follow if Afghanistan does not return the Bagram base to the U.S. He expects the base to be handed over to Washington immediately. Afghan officials sharply rejected U.S. threats. Kommersant FM columnist Maxim Yusin calls this idea one of the most absurd ideas of Trump’s presidency.
Eight months into Trump’s return to the White House, the world has already grown used to his eccentric ideas and stopped being surprised by them. Yet even against this backdrop, his demand of the “return” of the Bagram base to Washington stands out.
First, Trump’s choice of words is striking. In a social media post, he insisted that Afghanistan must hand the base back “to those that built it.” By that logic, the White House seems more concerned with Russian interests than American ones, since the Bagram base was actually built by Soviet engineers in the 1950s, during King Mohammad Zahir Shah's reign.
Second, even if by some miracle the Taliban in Kabul agreed to turn over their main air base to the U.S, it would quickly become a nightmare for the Pentagon in terms of costs, logistics, security arrangements and potential terrorist attacks. Military experts have estimated that at least 10,000 troops would be needed just to operate and secure the facility. How would Washington handle troop deployment, supply, and rotation? Would it once again need to negotiate with Russia to use the “staging base” in Ulyanovsk, as it did in 2001 when George W. Bush launched war against the Taliban? Back then, U.S.–Russia relations were completely different.
Third, U.S. media reports say that Washington at one point held quiet talks with the Taliban about the possibility of using Bagram. But after Trump’s public ultimatum, those chances are slim. In the East and beyond, leaders cannot lose face by yielding to public pressure. Quiet backroom deals may still be possible, but once “megaphone diplomacy” starts, it almost always destroys any chance of compromise. A similar situation occurred when Trump demanded that India stop buying Russian oil — an episode that appears to have taught him little.
Fourth, let’s take Trump’s threat at face value — his warning of “bad things” if the Taliban refuses. What exactly does that mean? A U.S. attempt to seize Bagram by force and hold it in hostile territory, essentially restarting the Afghan war that President Joe Biden ended? And this at a time when no reliable supply route is available: not through Russia and Central Asia to the north, nor through Pakistan to the south, given Islamabad’s shift into Beijing’s orbit since 2001.
Finally, there’s the reasoning behind Trump’s demand. As he openly wrote, the base is “an hour away” from where China makes nuclear weapons. Strictly speaking, it’s more like 2,000 kilometers (about 1,243 miles), and not to nuclear weapons sites but to Lop Nur, a former test range that no longer produces or stores warheads. But let’s leave the details aside. The point is clear: Trump wants U.S. troops back in Afghanistan to keep Chinese nuclear assets in his crosshairs. What kind of political, psychological and diplomatic backdrop does that create ahead of his planned talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping? Hardly a constructive one.
This “Bagram initiative” only complicates prospects for negotiations — on tariffs and beyond — that are crucial for America’s 47th president. At this stage, one can only sympathize with Trump’s foreign policy, military and trade advisers, who will have to deal with the consequences of his rash initiative.
Previous article![]( "Trump’s Mind: What No One Knows")
Next article![]( "Can Benefits from TikTok and Taiwan Be Evaluated the Same Way?")