Afghan government collapse.

[WMS]

How many countries will recognize a Taliban-led Afghanistan?

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

[WMS]

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Reasonable chance that there is - at least for a time - a bizarre echo of Afghanistan's situation after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, with Pakistan taking the place of the Raj and setting Afghanistan's foreign policy for it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah, as long as Pakistan was providing aid and support to the Taliban the 2% chance of things working out was cut in half.

Once we evacuate everyone we should evacuate - as many Afghans as we can - and leave entirely, can we at least cut off all aid to those treacherous Pakistani snakes?

[WMS]

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Reasonable chance that there is - at least for a time - a bizarre echo of Afghanistan's situation after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, with Pakistan taking the place of the Raj and setting Afghanistan's foreign policy for it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah, as long as Pakistan was providing aid and support to the Taliban the 2% chance of things working out was cut in half.

Once we evacuate everyone we should evacuate - as many Afghans as we can - and leave entirely, can we at least cut off all aid to those treacherous Pakistani snakes?

Pakistan's position is more or less delicate management of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations (a good offense is the best defense) through any means it feels are necessary, even if that means getting one's hands messy and doing things that might look hard to justify to an outward observer.
Not that I expected anything besides misinformed views from most Americans on this issue.
Reality tends to be nuanced. Pakistan is in a tough neighborhood. I suggest you read up on the history of the Durand Line and consider the difficulties Pakistan's geography presents.

Hold on there, are you justifying the actions of the Pakistani government as a whole and the ISI in particular in Afghanistan? Because they have indirectly and directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and many, many more Afghanis of all stripes. Those are the actions of a hostile power, not one the U.S. should be giving aid to.
I know damn well about Pakistani geography issues. There were plenty of articles about Pakistani needs for strategic depth versus India as well as the artificial nature of the border with Afghanistan. I can see their desire for a friendly power in Afghanistan.
But Pakistan didn’t have to choose to support the most brutal and extreme Afghani factions, now did they? They chose to support Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and then the Taliban. They chose to give aid and refuge to both the Taliban and Al-Qaida. They chose to send their own military against Ahmad Shah Massoud, the one Afghani leader who actually wanted something better for the Afghani people.
As long as the U.S. was dependent on the logistical supply chain through Pakistan little could be done about any of this. But that’s coming to an end.
So why in the hell should the U.S. give a penny to Pakistan after they leave the region? They’re not even our ally, but China’s!
A lot of people on this forum want the U.S. to cut ties with Saudi Arabia. There’s at least as good of a case to do so with Pakistan.

[WMS]

Interesting.

https://twitter.com/AsYouNotWish/status/1426845547583795202

Its because of

https://www.news18.com/news/world/russia-says-taliban-promised-safety-of-embassy-in-afghanistans-kabul-4088771.html

"Russia Says Taliban Promised Safety of Embassy in Afghanistan's Kabul"

How many countries will recognize a Taliban-led Afghanistan?

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Yup.

[WMS]

Interesting.

https://twitter.com/AsYouNotWish/status/1426845547583795202

Its because of

https://www.news18.com/news/world/russia-says-taliban-promised-safety-of-embassy-in-afghanistans-kabul-4088771.html

"Russia Says Taliban Promised Safety of Embassy in Afghanistan's Kabul"

How many countries will recognize a Taliban-led Afghanistan?

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Yup.

While I think I agree with the rest, I'm not sure about Syria. The bulk of remaining rebel groups in Idlib are very Taliban friendly and will probably recognize the new government. Assad meanwhile does not want to legitimize Sunni Islamist insurgencies. The anti-American/anti-imperialist screw you probably won't be enough to get over that hurdle.

That’s an interesting question for the Syrian regime to answer. While I lean toward them doing what Russia wants them to I can see your point.

Oh yeah, from that article jaichind linked: “Tass quoted Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Taliban's political office, as saying that the organisation has good relations with Russia”

I seem to recall a certain group of posters who mocked anyone claiming that Russia was supporting the Taliban

[WMS]

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Reasonable chance that there is - at least for a time - a bizarre echo of Afghanistan's situation after the Second Anglo-Afghan War, with Pakistan taking the place of the Raj and setting Afghanistan's foreign policy for it.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Yeah, as long as Pakistan was providing aid and support to the Taliban the 2% chance of things working out was cut in half.

Once we evacuate everyone we should evacuate - as many Afghans as we can - and leave entirely, can we at least cut off all aid to those treacherous Pakistani snakes?

Pakistan's position is more or less delicate management of Afghanistan-Pakistan relations (a good offense is the best defense) through any means it feels are necessary, even if that means getting one's hands messy and doing things that might look hard to justify to an outward observer.
Not that I expected anything besides misinformed views from most Americans on this issue.
Reality tends to be nuanced. Pakistan is in a tough neighborhood. I suggest you read up on the history of the Durand Line and consider the difficulties Pakistan's geography presents.

Hold on there, are you justifying the actions of the Pakistani government as a whole and the ISI in particular in Afghanistan? Because they have indirectly and directly lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans and many, many more Afghanis of all stripes. Those are the actions of a hostile power, not one the U.S. should be giving aid to.
I know damn well about Pakistani geography issues. There were plenty of articles about Pakistani needs for strategic depth versus India as well as the artificial nature of the border with Afghanistan. I can see their desire for a friendly power in Afghanistan.
But Pakistan didn’t have to choose to support the most brutal and extreme Afghani factions, now did they? They chose to support Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and then the Taliban. They chose to give aid and refuge to both the Taliban and Al-Qaida. They chose to send their own military against Ahmad Shah Massoud, the one Afghani leader who actually wanted something better for the Afghani people.
As long as the U.S. was dependent on the logistical supply chain through Pakistan little could be done about any of this. But that’s coming to an end.
So why in the hell should the U.S. give a penny to Pakistan after they leave the region? They’re not even our ally, but China’s!
A lot of people on this forum want the U.S. to cut ties with Saudi Arabia. There’s at least as good of a case to do so with Pakistan.

I didn't say Pakistan's doings are wholly justified or even necessarily smart (their track record of doing good things for Afghanistan is no better than that of the British). But to treat Pakistan as if it is a hostile actor is oversimplifying things to an insulting degree, given the fact that either way they would have an Afghanistan that would be a uncertain place for them. Additionally, it is an utter oversimplification to say they chose to do X and Y. What's new under the sun? A lot of decisions - choices - are made by states in the belief, correct or otherwise, that it will help their strategic interests. The US has a right to make those kinds of decisions, the Russians do, the Indians and Pakistanis do, etc. And those choices need to be understood in context, in the moment. Far from all these decisions are justified but they are both a normal part of statecraft and not in and of themselves justification for such outrage.

The ISI's decisions are comparable in rationale and context to the actions taken by Chinese states over the centuries to involve themselves in the affairs of so-called barbarians. Afghanistan is a wild, untamed land, a black hole of sorts where money comes in and seems to disappear. It is among the most militarily weak corners of the globe yet among the hardest to govern. Pakistan doesn't have a choice - the Taliban and related groups will always be knocking, just as there always would be nomads menacing or harming China somehow. So they feel that trying to pick winners (so that those winners will have something to owe them hopefully) is a worthy enterprise. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer. ISI has no real obligation to put the interests of the people of Afghanistan above the interests of Pakistan or even consider it a strong factor in their decisionmaking. ISI works first and foremost for its interests and secondly for the welfare of Pakistan. The same goes for Indian intelligence agencies and Afghan ones, which probably are all involved in much the same kinds of clandestine activities. The game is innately "dirty". But what's new?

Deaths from terror attacks in Pakistan are declining and have been doing so for years, and it is clear there is some success on that front. Pakistan, much like the US, has been trying to pay down a bill it incurred for the way it saw off the Soviet threat (the greatest triumph in the history of the American-Pakistani relationship thus far). In this context Pakistan is a vital working partner that we need to cultivate, and Pakistan is an important player close to sea lanes (vital for US strategic interests) and Central Asia (an area where we need to try to counter Russian influence). We should wish Pakistan success in reducing, over time, the number of their citizenry whose lives are claimed by terrorism; they would do the same for us if asked.

I don't favor the zeroing out of aid to nations on this basis, aid is a basic thing to give to solidify a working relationship on a given issue, and nations work with each other on various things both military and civilian. Anger and high-and-mighty feelings of superiority makes for ruin in the long term and wastes resources. It reeks of the arrogance that costed us an easy win in Afghanistan, and can only harm the nation in the long run. Pakistan has its own interests, so do we, many of those overlap, but also many do not. And their intelligence agencies do try to help those interests, doing an imperfect but not completely terrible job. So do ours as well. And maintenance of those interests are key for national prosperity and thus the lot of every citizen. Is that too hard for you to understand? I hope not.

The "zero out aid for X and Y and Z" crowd either doesn't know foreign policy well, or is  careless on foreign policy, or both. Thankfully the people actually in charge are not often from their ranks.

In case you haven’t noticed, the U.S. has just suffered a major international defeat. A monumental humanitarian crisis is unfolding. And the foreign power most responsible for this is Pakistan. And you want to explain that away as just a normal day in statecraft that the U.S. shouldn’t get too upset about.

I am treating Pakistan as a hostile actor because that is exactly how they have acted. This isn’t some minor kerfluffle about some border post being moved ten feet. This isn’t some case of diplomats dueling with briefcases at dawn over the exact wording of Subparagraph 57-L in Section 66 of the Fourth Appendix of a Mohair Agreement. This is actively assisting in a U.S. strategic defeat.

You keep on talking about how Pakistani interests in Afghanistan explain their actions there. I am not disagreeing with that. I am disagreeing with the idea that the U.S. should continue to treat Pakistan the same way as if nothing has happened.

Gee, “major non-NATO allies” should, perhaps, act as allies? Is that too hard for you to understand? I hope not.

Once the U.S. is fully out of Afghanistan what interests do we have in Pakistan? What interests do we have there that justify continuing to fund a government, military, and intelligence service that hates the U.S. and acts against U.S. interests whenever possible? What is so goddamned important that the very idea of the U.S. doing anything to Pakistan is so opposed by you? That’s what countries do to each other in geopolitics in pursuit of their interests as you have gone on and on about. Why is it okay for Pakistan to act against the United States and not okay for the United States to act against Pakistan? What is driving this double standard of yours?

[WMS]

To Phil: notice I said the main “foreign” power responsible. I am sadly aware of how utterly the U.S. has botched things. The reveal of this utterly infuriating incompetence finally blew the lid off of how far down the rot went.

I’m not sure I agree that there is anything to be salvaged in this region. Central Asia was always the most remote region of the planet for the U.S. to reach. I’m not surprised we’re ultimately getting kicked out. Cutting our losses and leaving entirely seems the wisest course of action.

[WMS]

China officially recognizes the Taliban: Hua Chunying MFA spokeswoman says at a press conference that "We respect the Choice of the Afghan people"

Embassy is staying, being treated not as a regime collapse but just a regular change of Government.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2021-08-16/China-says-respects-Afghan-people-s-choice-amid-changing-situation--12LYPEBkpK8/index.html

How many countries will recognize a Taliban-led Afghanistan?

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Yup.

[WMS]

How many countries will recognize a Taliban-led Afghanistan?

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Belarus, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian puppet states, Myanmar, Syria initially and fairly quickly. Then most of the other oppressive governments out there, and some of the less scrupulous semi-democracies and democracies.

It would be nice to be wrong, but I doubt it.

Judging by the remarks of leaders in Iran and Pakistan it’s time to add them to the list.

[WMS]

On a separate note there’s one province the Taliban haven’t taken: Panjshir. The birthplace, home, and resting place of the only truly decent Afghan warlord, Ahmad Shah Massoud. I’m sure the Taliban would love to desecrate Massoud’s tomb but that might be one bridge too far even for them.

[WMS]

Russia wasn’t supporting the Taliban, eh?

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-kabul-seems-safer-under-taliban-than-it-was-under-ghani-2021-08-16/

“Speaking to Moscow's Ekho Moskvy radio station, Zhirnov said he had been impressed by the Taliban's conduct so far, describing their approach as ‘good, positive and business-like.’”
“The Taliban had promised, in line with earlier agreements, to protect Russian diplomats, he said”
“ Zamir Kabulov, President Vladimir Putin's special representative on Afghanistan, said on Monday that Moscow's long campaign to build ties with the Taliban appeared now to be paying off.
"It's not for nothing that we've been establishing contacts with the Taliban movement for the last seven years," Kabulov told Ekho Moskvy.”

[WMS]

Again, back to Afghan domestic politics themselves vs all of the other news which tends to dominate US Cabal and MSM news sources...

Reports of clashes between TB and Hazara going on in rural areas of Central Afghanistan today from multiple online Hazara accounts:

Again, although we need to be wary of potential disinformation in what is a very difficult area to get reports from (Much more difficult than urban areas within Afghanistan), these reports do not appear to be originating from Indian Intel Operations or others seeking to spread disinformation.

It is entirely plausible that local Talibs (w/o) central command and control are attempting to conduct house to house searches for weapons (as in other areas within Afghanistan) and being met with local resistance and things got a bit out of hand.

IDK: Still, considering the past Taliban history when it comes to Human Rights Abuses against the Hazaras, it is still noteworthy, since basically most of rural Afghanistan is an NRA "Gun Nut Paradise", as well as sometimes local disputes over tribal property rights, etc... make the Hatfields and McCoys look like they were handling grudges in a "civilized manner"....

https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1432377988159614978?s=20

This is in Daykundi Province (Pop 516k), which is an overwhelmingly majority Hazara region , which was split off from Uruzgan Province in 2004 (Which some of you old timers or those been following Afghanistan History and politics for awhile might recall as the potentially a childhood origin of the original Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, as well as one of his rumored locations following the US overthrow of the Taliban Government after 9/11/01.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daykundi_Province

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Omar

I had previously reported of alleged clashes between TB and Hazara militias led by Commander Abdul Ghani Alipur in Wardak Province Afghanistan about a week ago:

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=453801.msg8220748#msg8220748

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=453801.msg8222092#msg8222092

If the U.S. had an actually talented psyops crew, it could cause considerable heartburn for the Iranian regime over this. Iranians do NOT like the Taliban, particularly over the Hazara massacres, and there is a lot of popular opposition to the hardliners selling out fellow Shi’a to the Taliban. If the Iranian regime is actually helping the Taliban hunt down Hazara…well, maybe the Israelis can do something useful with this.

[WMS]

Ah, nothing but horrifying misogyny and repression in the future for Afghanistan! A Solid Win™️ for the anti-American and anti-Western Imperialism forces of the world! Made possible by support from those noted supporters of revolutionary freedom Pakistan, Russia, Iran, and China!

[WMS]

There was an United Nations Security Council Resolution on Afghanistan not too long ago.
Of note:

4. Reaffirms the importance of upholding human rights including those of women, children and minorities, encourages all parties to seek an inclusive, negotiated political settlement, with the full, equal and meaningful participation of women, that responds to the desire of Afghans to sustain and build on Afghanistan’s gains over the last twenty years in adherence to the rule of law, and underlines that all parties must respect their obligations;

The vote was 13-0-2.

Guess who abstained.

Just pointing that out.

[WMS]

I wonder what Anand Gopal has to say about this?

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/ahmad-shah-massoud-tombstone-vandalised-taliban-afghanistan-1850919-2021-09-09

[WMS]

What an extremely stupid thing to do.

Sadly, the Taliban, horrifying as they are, appear to be doing their best to piss away what goodwill they have for ending the war. Crap like this is why there’ll be yet another round of civil war in the future.

[WMS]

What an extremely stupid thing to do.

Sadly, the Taliban, horrifying as they are, appear to be doing their best to piss away what goodwill they have for ending the war. Crap like this is why there’ll be yet another round of civil war in the future.

Apple, tree, etc etc.

Not sure which exact point you’re making.

If it’s that the U.S. botched a chance to end the Afghanistan wars by not accepting the Taliban’s surrender among other failures, you are quite right - although a lot of those failures were not exactly covered well by the media and/or were covered up, which just makes it all worse.

If the point is that the Taliban were created by the U.S. that’s not accurate: that can be laid at the feet of the Pakistani ISI. The U.S., especially between 1992 and 2001, wasn’t involved enough in Afghanistan to create anything, much less an entire powerful political/ethnic/religious/military force like the Taliban. That caused its own set of problems, but not this particular one.

[WMS]

The Taliban surrender was on condition of immunity from prosecution, wasn't it?

Yes, but it might’ve been worth it to have twenty years of peace instead of war there. As much as I despise the Taliban and the ISI I don’t think there was ever a way to not have them involved short of war with Pakistan, which given that Western supply lines ran through them strikes me as a really bad idea, then and now.

I still want to remove Pakistan’s “major non-NATO ally” status though.

[WMS]

What an extremely stupid thing to do.

Sadly, the Taliban, horrifying as they are, appear to be doing their best to piss away what goodwill they have for ending the war. Crap like this is why there’ll be yet another round of civil war in the future.

Apple, tree, etc etc.

Not sure which exact point you’re making.

That despite their PR offensive that has seemingly (and predictably) taken in some gullible people, the Taliban haven't actually changed much in 25 years?

Oh missed your point entirely well I agree with you then

[WMS]

Well, on the topic of the Taliban in Panjshir:

Afghanistan crisis: Taliban kill civilians in resistance stronghold

The BBC has found that at least 20 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan's Panjshir Valley, which has seen fighting between the Taliban and opposition forces. Communications have been cut in the valley, making reporting difficult, but the BBC has evidence of Taliban killings despite promises of restraint.

[WMS]

Err, about Afghani women…

Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers have set up a ministry for the “propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice” in the building that once housed the Women’s Affairs Ministry, escorting out World Bank staffers on Saturday as part of the forced move.