Why Moscow’s Taliban outreach unnerves Pakistan

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently described the Moscow Format consultations on Afghanistan as "the most representative platform for developing a region-wide consensus." Despite this claim, the anniversary meeting held last month failed to produce a joint final statement, exposing significant disagreements between participants, particularly between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The forum, established in 2016, brings together Afghanistan, Central Asian states, India, Iran, China, and Pakistan, along with guest delegations including Belarus and Egypt. While the Moscow Format continues to function as a recognized framework for discussing Afghanistan-related issues, the inability to agree on a final document highlights deeper diplomatic challenges.

Diplomatic Breakdown

The failure to reach consensus stems from disagreement between Kabul and Islamabad over how to describe terrorist activity emanating from Afghan territory. This year, heightened tensions between the two nations made them particularly sensitive to any phrasing that might be interpreted as taking sides in their bilateral standoff.

Russian officials have defended the lack of a final communique, suggesting that while adoption of such a document is desirable from a protocol standpoint, it is not an absolute requirement for the format. However, the absence of a joint statement has had repercussions beyond the forum itself, particularly in Russia-Pakistan bilateral relations.

Pakistani Concerns

Until recently, concerns within Pakistan's ruling circles about Moscow's growing closeness with Kabul were largely confined to diplomatic circles. In October, however, dissatisfaction spilled into the public domain with several leading Pakistani outlets publishing critical commentary.

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 further, suggesting 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." These reactions reflect deep-seated historical narratives that continue to shape Pakistan's strategic thinking.

Historical Mistrust

The concept of the 'Great Game' resurfaces whenever discussing Moscow's dealings with Kabul. While this term has become somewhat diluted through overuse, it remains essential for understanding Pakistan's reaction to Russia's policy toward Afghanistan. Pakistan's elites view Russia both as an important power center and a potentially useful partner, but old colonial notions about Russian expansionism persist.

Three main issues underpin Pakistan's concerns: the refusal of Afghan governments to recognize the Durand Line as the official border; the porous nature of that border as a source of terrorist activity; and fear that third powers might exacerbate these problems. In Pakistan's strategic imagination, this role is often assigned to India, but Moscow can also be cast in this role during periods of acute crisis.

Divergent Perceptions

Russia defends its engagement with the Taliban on two main grounds: the current authorities in Kabul are seen as the most reliable partner for counterterrorism, and they have shown willingness to curb drug trafficking. However, these arguments carry little weight in Islamabad, which has long had ready-made counterarguments.

The fundamental issue appears to be differing perceptions. In Moscow's strategic worldview, Afghanistan belongs to Central Asia and is treated primarily as an actor affecting dynamics north of its borders. The Taliban's policy toward Pakistan is barely discussed, and Afghanistan plays almost no role in Russia's broader foreign policy planning for South Asia.

Despite these challenges, Russia-Pakistan relations need not inevitably deteriorate into hostility over Afghanistan. Such an outcome would benefit no one and could undermine regional cooperation frameworks. The first step toward avoiding this scenario may be recognizing how differently the parties can perceive the same problems and accepting that development and peace are indispensable for global progress.