Why Moscow’s Taliban outreach unnerves Pakistan — RT World News

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, speaking at the Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security last week, called the Moscow Format consultations on Afghanistan “the most representative platform for developing a region-wide consensus.”

It is hard to argue with the central point of the foreign minister’s remark. The Moscow Format really is broad-based, bringing together not only Afghanistan and the Central Asian states, but also India, Iran, China, and Pakistan, as well as guest delegations such as Belarus and Egypt.

Yet while few doubt the forum’s representative character, the question of whether it can actually produce a region-wide consensus is much more complicated. At its anniversary meeting last month (the format has been in place since 2016) the participants could not even agree on a joint final statement.

Moscow still appears to believe that the platform remains effective. The consultations are held regularly, and there is an exchange of views. As for the communique, in the view of Russian officials, while adoption of a final document is desirable from a protocol standpoint, it is not an absolute requirement for such a format. However one looks at it, the host side can hardly be blamed for the lack of a final communique. The real issues lie deeper.

The failure to come up with a statement stems from disagreement between Kabul and Islamabad over how to describe terrorist activity emanating from Afghan territory. At the previous meeting, the same wording was agreed upon without objections. But this year circumstances worked against Moscow. As armed tensions between Afghanistan and Pakistan escalated, both sides were far more sensitive to any phrasing that in current circumstances might be interpreted as an attack on their position in the bilateral standoff.The absence of a joint statement is unlikely to have a major impact on the future of the forum itself. The Moscow Format will continue to function as one of the recognized frameworks for discussing Afghanistan-related issues.

However, the fact that the recent meeting ended without a communique could have a bigger impact on Russia-Pakistan bilateral ties. Until recently, concerns within Pakistan’s ruling circles about Moscow’s growing closeness with Kabul were largely confined to tight-lipped diplomats and a narrow circle of experts. In October, however, dissatisfaction with the outcome of the Moscow Format spilled into the public domain with a number of leading Pakistani outlets publishing critical commentary. 

An editorial by influential newspaper The Dawn, for example, noted that while many other third parties, including Qatar, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and China – have tried to mediate between Pakistan and Afghanistan, “Russia is the only state that recognizes the Taliban regime” and hence could “be engaged” to “try and give the peace process another chance.”

The Tribune newspaper went even further, suggesting in its report on the talks in Moscow that “what raised eyebrows in diplomatic circles was Moscow’s apparent effort to play down the regime’s links with terrorist activities, prompting speculation that changing regional dynamics may be pushing Russia closer to Kabul.” 

The roots of such reactions in Islamabad, of course, go back not months or years, but decades.

Old narratives, ground realities

The idea of the ‘Great Game’ inevitably resurfaces whenever discussion turns to Moscow’s dealings with Kabul and the wider region. Repeated use of the term in historical, geopolitical, and geoeconomic debates has diluted its meaning, turning it into something of a buzzword. Yet it remains essential for understanding Pakistan’s reaction to Russia’s policy toward Afghanistan.

To say that Pakistan’s elites have simply inherited the British colonial idea of Russia as an inherently expansionist power would be an oversimplification. Islamabad and Rawalpindi have their own strategic culture and their own worldview, in which Moscow is seen both as an important power center and as a potentially useful partner. But when it comes to Afghanistan, old colonial notions still tend to surface – particularly the belief that Russia seeks to expand its influence in Kabul in order to gain access to the ‘warm waters’ of the Indian Ocean (even though this myth conveniently ignores the fact that Russia already has maritime access).

This narrative shaped perceptions throughout much of the second half of the 20th century, especially during the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan, and it has resurfaced in recent years, particularly after the Taliban was recognized as the official Afghan government.

One can point out endlessly that such assumptions bear little relation to reality. Yet century-old narratives are often more durable than arguments grounded in facts. The persistence of this perception is directly linked to the depth of the problems Pakistan faces in its relationship with Afghanistan.

First, Islamabad has never been able to reconcile itself to the refusal of every Afghan government to recognize the Durand Line, dating back to 1893, the time of British colonial rule in the region, as the official border. (Pakistan does recognize it.)

Second, from the point of view of Islamabad, the porous nature of that border is the main source of terrorist activity in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan provinces, which remains the core national security challenge for Pakistan. According to Islamabad’s official line, militants from Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan and Baluch separatist movements are able to operate only because they can find sanctuary inside Afghanistan. (The Taliban authorities deny harboring the TTP, arguing that the insurgency is a homegrown domestic issue for Pakistan.) 

Finally, and most importantly, Pakistan fears that some third power might aggravate these two problems — by encouraging Afghan claims on the border and by indirectly supporting anti-Islamabad elements. In Pakistan’s strategic imagination, that role is usually assigned to New Delhi, but in moments of acute crisis – as in the 1970s and 1980s – Moscow can also be cast in the same role.

Breaching the differences

Allowing the situation to drift to that point is hardly in Moscow’s interests – or in the interests of anyone else in the region. That is why Russian officials and experts continue trying to explain their own reading of events to their Pakistani counterparts.

At the official level, Moscow defends its rapidly expanding engagement with the Taliban on two main grounds. First, the current authorities in Kabul are seen as the most reliable partner for counterterrorism. The Taliban have consolidated enough coercive power to prevent a return to full-scale civil war and to establish a relatively stable grip over the country. For the Russian leadership, that makes them a necessary interlocutor in coordinating efforts against ISIS-Khorasan, whose activities threaten not only Russia but also its partners in Central Asia. Second, the authorities in Kabul have shown a willingness to curb drug trafficking, something reflected in data pointing to a decline in opiate production.

The difficulty is that neither argument carries much weight in Pakistan. On the contrary, Islamabad has long had ready-made counterarguments to both. Hance, the conversations end with a counter-question: “Why are our concerns not being taken into account?”

The answer, once again, seems to lie in differing perceptions – this time on the Russian side. In Moscow’s strategic worldview, the development of ties with Kabul and the problems between Pakistan and Afghanistan are seen as two different tracks.

The clearest illustration of this is Russia’s own geographical mindset. In Moscow’s view, Afghanistan belongs to Central Asia and is typically treated only as an actor or object affecting the dynamics north of its borders. The Taliban’s policy toward Pakistan is barely discussed. Kabul’s ties with other South Asian countries are also largely ignored. As a result, Afghanistan plays almost no role in Russia’s broader foreign policy planning for South Asia. For observers from the subcontinent, this is surprising, but it reflects a long-established pattern in Russia’s foreign policy theory as well as practice.

Broader vision

None of this means that Russia-Pakistan relations are doomed to crash against a wall of mutual misunderstanding and distrust over Afghanistan. Admittedly, Moscow and Islamabad are currently moving in different directions. Russia’s cooperation with Kabul is likely to continue and may well expand into new areas, while the military standoff between Afghanistan and Pakistan is likely to persist for the foreseeable future, with harmful effects on the lives of people along the border.

Even so, divergent approaches to Kabul need not lead inevitably to hostility between Russia and Pakistan. Such an outcome would run counter not only to Moscow’s and Islamabad’s own interests but also to those of other regional actors. It could deprive both countries of the benefits of bilateral cooperation and even paralyze the work of the Moscow Format and other regional mechanisms, including the SCO. That would benefit no one.

The first step toward avoiding such a scenario could be to let old, familiar narratives give way to new ways of thinking – ones that recognize how fundamentally differently the parties can perceive the same problem, and that are ready to accept development and peace as indispensable for global progress.