NATO's Controversial Relationship in Afghanistan Research Paper

European states generally backed NATO and the U.S. In the fight against terrorism. However, the EU appeared to be skeptical a propos the principal aims of the war and highlighted the fact that they were only willing to assume responsibility for their own actions in Afghanistan, claiming that they were primarily interested in defending the concept of peace through eliminating the terrorist threat. In an attempt to support the Afghanistan intervention, the EU has focused on investing as little finances as possible concomitantly with committing an effective strategy meant to guarantee that its mission would not be impeded.

NATO authorities acknowledged the fact that Russia assistance should not be ignored and that the country played an essential role in the Afghanistan Intervention. Considering Russia's complex military system and that the country was close to the Middle Eastern strategic point, it seems natural that NATO was dedicated to have Putin join the Afghanistan war.

While the relationship between Russia and the U.S. was tensioned as a result of George W. Bush's decision to abandon the anti-ballistic missile treaty signed in 1972, matters were resolved in November 2001, at the time when George Robertson (then NATO's Secretary-General) suggested that Russia should be provided with a status of equality with the nineteen members of NATO, thus having the right of decision in regard to the various topics emerging along with plans adopted for the Afghanistan war. Putin was interested in changing the way Russia was perceived by most of the world at the time and realized that one of the most excellent methods of doing so was to support NATO and the U.S. In the struggle in opposition to terrorism and as a consequence in the Afghanistan war.

While Russia is generally perceived as an equal partner in the fight against terrorism and in the Afghanistan intervention, critics have expressed uncertainty regarding this topic. Liberal authorities in Russia are apparently inclined to believe that their country did not actually benefit from its involvement in the Afghanistan war and that the U.S. And NATO basically used it as a tool. Putin was aware that he could use the situation as a means to benefit the overall condition concerning Russia's international relationships.Even with that, he did not want to behave similar to Yeltsin or Gorbachev, who were believed by the majority of Russians to be peons in the hands of the U.S. And one of the main reasons for which their country had lost prestige in the recent years. There were several critiques coming from Russian individuals on the topic of the Afghanistan war, relating to how the U.S.'s approach was exaggerated and that the North American country was merely trying to impose its supremacy as a world superpower through behaving as a principal actor in the fight against terrorism and by denying other countries the right to get equally involved in the state of affairs.

Bibliography:

Cross, S. Russia's Relationship with the United States/NATO in the U.S.-led Global War on Terrorism, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19: 2, 175 -- 192, p. 180.

Duffy, H. The "war on terror" and the framework of international law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 133.

Sloan, S.R. NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic community: the transatlantic bargain challenged. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 267.

H. Duffy, the "war on terror" and the framework of international law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 133.

S. Cross, Russia's Relationship with the United States/NATO in the U.S.-led Global War on Terrorism, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19: 2, 175 -- 192, p. 178.

S. Cross, Russia's Relationship with the United States/NATO in the U.S.-led Global War on Terrorism, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19: 2, 175 -- 192, p. 178, p. 179.

H. Duffy, the "war on terror" and the framework of international law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 193.

H. Duffy, the "war on terror" and the framework of international law, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p. 193.

Ibid.

S.R. Sloan. NATO, the European Union, and the Atlantic community: the transatlantic bargain challenged. Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, p. 267.

S. Cross, Russia's Relationship with the United States/NATO in the U.S.-led Global War on Terrorism, the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 19: 2, 175 --….....