Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, asserted that the Taliban, an organization banned in Russia, exercises de facto governance over Afghanistan. He suggested that the movement already wields real influence on the ground and argued that, regardless of international opinions, it cannot be ignored in practical terms. Nebenzya’s remarks at a press briefing reflected Moscow’s stance that Tehran and other regional powers should acknowledge the Taliban’s practical role, even as debates about sanctions and formal recognition continue to evolve in diplomatic circles.
At the same press briefing, Nebenzya addressed the possibility of rapid shifts in international sanctions targeting Kabul. He underscored the delicate balance between political recognition and security concerns, signaling that any reconsideration of measures would be linked to broader geopolitical maneuvering and the pursuit of workable channels for dialogue with Afghan authorities. The message suggested that Moscow favored a pragmatic, dialogue-first approach that could influence the broader regional security landscape while avoiding abrupt moves that might destabilize the region.
Earlier in June, Maria Zakharova, the official spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, spoke on the sidelines of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum about Moscow’s approach to the Taliban. She indicated that removing the Taliban from the list of undesirable organizations would stem from Russia’s objective of preserving contact with Kabul and maintaining open lines of communication. The statement highlighted Russia’s preference for engagement with Afghan authorities as part of a broader regional strategy, rather than isolating the group through punitive measures alone. The emphasis was on continuity of diplomatic contact and practical discussion over punitive isolation.
Following these comments, Russian officials announced plans to invite Afghan representatives to Moscow for a forum later in the year. The invitation was framed as part of what Moscow described as a broader effort to implement a dialogue-based format, often referred to as a Moscow format. The aim is to foster direct, practical discussions with Afghan interlocutors on security, development, and regional stability. The timing and specifics of the meetings were left to logistical arrangements, but the underlying intent was clear: to establish direct contact channels that could help shape the direction of Afghan policy and regional cooperation through constructive engagement rather than confrontation.
In related remarks, Afghan officials were cited as expressing a willingness to participate in regional exchanges and to send athletes to participate in the Friendship Games hosted in Russia. The reported readiness to engage in cultural and sports exchanges was presented as a symbolic step toward normalizing relations and building confidence between Kabul and Moscow, even as broader political and security questions remained sensitive and unresolved. Observers noted that such gestures often accompany ongoing negotiations by signaling a willingness to cooperate on specific, non-contentious areas while broader strategic questions continue to be addressed through formal diplomacy. The discussion on cultural and sports ties was framed as a pragmatic confidence-building measure, illustrating how public diplomacy and people-to-people contacts can complement high-stakes talks over security and governance.
Overall, the discussions highlighted a preference for dialogue-driven engagement that seeks to balance practical cooperation with cautious consideration of security concerns. Moscow’s approach appears to favor maintaining channels of communication with Afghan authorities, pursuing regional stability through coordinated formats, and exploring non-traditional avenues of interaction that could influence future policy directions in Afghanistan and the surrounding area. The conversations also reflect a broader strategy to keep Afghanistan within a regional security framework, integrating political dialogue, developmental collaboration, and cultural exchanges as elements of a comprehensive, yet careful, engagement plan.