Main purpose of NATO invasion of Afghanistan was to re-create the Drug production, effectively destroyed by Taliban. NATO (=USA) actions are directed to kill young population of Russia and nearest countries. This is a war against Russia, through the drugs. We and all countries, interested in destroying of the drug international threat, must stop hearing fairytales of americans. We must destroy the poppie fields right now, NO MATTER OF AMERICAN BLA BLA BLA. This is a threat to our national security. NATO and americans are financing terrorists and ordering to continue the destabilisation in Afghanistan, to justify its staying there. The same with doing nothing to resolve the economic consequances of invasion. Boycott the USA and UK, main drug lords in human history.

Igor is absolutely right. I wrote many times to RT about this subject: Drugs are weapons of mass destruction. They destroy a country from the inside, and as I said before American greedy cynical decisions-maker want to control Russia's huge natural resources and nothing will make them change their mind. Mr Medvedev is too weak and easer to seduce. Consequently they will not stop the pressure and use all the sneaky ways possible to reach their goal. For the sake of your people, media and associations must force the Russian leadership to face this obvious reality. Burning those poppy fields all over Afghanistan will take a few hours Luckily and even cynically, we can see in that crazy world that the equilibrium is respected because some Sud-American countries and other corrupted US citizen make a lot money destroying American youths in return...Like it happen in Vietnam the damages caused to US veteran-soldiers having been in Irak and Afghanistan will be horrible. So be it because those creeps US leaders don't give a dam about peoples; most of all their own (When living in Denver Colorado 1970-72, I saw some victims of drugs' abuse in the US armies; a shame for a civilized nation)...Sorry Future Generations; nobody care about you, only money has value ! Sincerely... Jean-Claude Meslin

Yes, forcing producers to lose their earnings would turn them to the Taliban, so the U.S will not do that. The U.S. and Russia have to find ways to make drug production unprofitable, so farmers decide it is not worth sowing opium. 1/ If there are alternative crops which can be more profitable for farmers than opium, perhaps corn now that there is so much demand? 2/ If direct burning of their crops is dangerous, establishing controls and limits for their exports of drugs so the product doesn´t reach the foreign markets and the price falls inside Afghanistan making it less profitable. Burning crops and punishment is what the Taliban did successfuly in 2002 almost ending with drug production. The truth is that Islamists both in Afghanistan and Somalia were efficient providing order and administration. It is logical most Afghans and Somalians appreciate the Islamists much more than the Americans who just brought crime, death and violence.

Ivanov is confusing "global" profits of the drug trade with production in Afghanistan - the two are not the same. The market determines the price for heroin, not production. He says that the value of the trade in Afghanistan is 65 billion (this is the global estimate, not strictly for Afghanistan) and then makes an illogical leap to production. Does Ivanov realize that production increased by over 200 percent when the Soviets were in Afghanistan and that when he says that NATO is responsible for the increase he is referencing a false baseline when production dropped to near zero. Production levels in some years leading up to the Soviet withdrawal were equally as high as they are now during NATO's tenure in Afghanistan.

Ivanov's statements in this article are an indication that he does not understand the value chain of heroin. The 65 billion dollar figure is referenced as the "retail" value of heroin in consuming countries. As illicit heroin moves through the value chain it commands more profits. Comparatively, the 150 M dollar figure is of much greater value at the retail level -- most likely that same amount of drugs commands in the billions at the retail level. Interdiction efforts in Afghanistan potentially can greatly reduce the value of heroin at the retail level in consuming markets. Disrupting 150 M dollars worth of drugs in Afghanistan means that the retail disrution is much greater, probably in the tens of billions.

Perhaps the best way would be for the U.S. and NATO allies to buy the whole opium production paying 10% more than market prices, and once all the opium is in the hands of the NATO, burning all of it. Why should frmers sell their production to drug cartels if they receive more from NATO. This way farmers wouldn´t turn against the Government and NATO, as they can continue earning a life, and at the same time all the production is destroyed. For the Russian Government it would be profitable to participate in the operation. A condition should be that money doesn´t end in Taliban hands. The problem is that it can promote more opium production and fraud, so at the same time NATO should tell farmers that if they produce other products like corn or wheat, they will receive a higher compensation....

At the same time it is essential a dramatic action on the consumer side (treatment and prevention) because if the consumer base is not reduced, drug dealers will look for new providers of heroine in Pakistan, India and Iran...So treatment, commercial adds for students in TV, radio and internet showing for example how pretty girls become ugly after years of heroine consumption...Schools and parents will play the most important role.

Oh Lordy! Troops should not be there at all. Isn't this suppose to be the job of the Afghanistan govt?

Always the best cotennt from these prodigious writers.

If you want to buy a car, you will have to receive the loans. Moreover, my father always uses a college loan, which seems to be really fast.