So Russia is getting back into Afghanistan, at least a little bit back.  It is interesting that the US is supporting Russian arms going into Afghanistan to oppose the resurgent Taliban and remnant elements of al-Qaeda.  However, in this article by a veteran diplomat from India, it is apparent the US is frustrated by the inability of NATO member nations to step up to the plate with appropriate manpower to reconsolidate control.

What is more interesting is what this all means for Russia as it slowly continues its reassertion of power and influence in its near abroad.  Not only is it challenging Georgia (over Abkhazia) and Ukraine over joining NATO, it continues to opppose US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and continues insinuating itself with Central Asian states.  According to the author, this is all part and parcel of their efforts to maintain influence in their neighborhood. 

As a sidebar related to diplomacy in general,  note this section referring to a prominent Russian commentator:

"We [Russia] and the Western countries have diametrically opposite definitions of success in our policy toward the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries. For Russia, success lies in strengthening of integration ties, rapprochement with its neighbors and a strengthening of cooperation. For the West, on the contrary, success means a distancing of these countries from Russia, a reorientation to external centers of power aimed at preventing 'a rebirth of the Russian empire'. When political goals are so diametrically opposed, it is impossible to speak of a common agenda."

What is striking in that statement is how it attacks in a fundamental way the notion that if we merely "engage" we can find solutions.  This may be true in certain circumstances, but clearly, when goals are "diametrically opposed", engagement can't paper over the differences.  For those like Senator Obama, this needs to be well understood.