✍️ By: Hamia Naderi
On July 3, 2025, Russia became the first country in the world to formally recognize the Taliban government in Afghanistan, accepting the credentials of the ambassador appointed by the group. The Kremlin described this move as a “pragmatic step” aimed at promoting “regional stability.” But is this decision defensible—legally, morally, or even realistically? This article critically examines the rationale, method, and consequences of Russia’s decision.
1. The Criteria of Legitimacy: Is Mere Control Enough?
One of the fundamental flaws in Russia’s decision is its reduction of legitimacy to mere “territorial control.” The Taliban have indeed controlled Afghanistan since August 2021—but by what means? Through force of arms, terrorizing opponents, and violently suppressing dissent.
Under international law, governments are expected to have not only effective control, but also a minimal level of popular consent and compliance with human rights obligations. The Taliban meet none of these criteria.
By disregarding these standards, Russia effectively replaced legitimacy with brute force—a dangerous regression to a Machiavellian paradigm, where ethics and law yield to the sword.
2. Ignoring the Human Cost: The Price Paid by the People
Russia claims its decision helps promote “stability.” But what kind of “stability” has been achieved in Afghanistan? One secured by silencing women, closing girls’ schools, banning women from work and public life, and crushing freedom of expression.
Recognizing the Taliban means turning a blind eye to tens of thousands of human rights violations—and worse: rewarding the violators.
How can Russia, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and signatory to the UN Charter, impose such a heavy price on the Afghan people while claiming to foster “stability”? Morally, this decision is indefensible.
3. Geopolitics over Principles: Pragmatism or Opportunism?
Without doubt, the decision makes sense within the context of Russia’s regional and global rivalries: reducing U.S. influence in Afghanistan, containing the threat of ISIS-K, and safeguarding its economic and strategic interests in Central Asia and Afghanistan.
But pragmatism, when purchased at the cost of legitimizing misogyny, repression, and authoritarianism, devolves from “smart diplomacy” to “soulless opportunism.”
Russia’s move not only granted political legitimacy to the Taliban but also sent a signal to the world: if you wield enough force, the rest of the principles cease to matter.
4. Dangerous Precedent: A Model for Others
This decision, if left unchallenged by the international community, risks becoming a model for other authoritarian regimes. Other actors may conclude that power achieved through violence and oppression will ultimately be rewarded with international recognition.
This threatens not only Afghanistan but also the international system itself—one that is supposed to be grounded in rules and values rather than brute force.
Conclusion: Resisting the Normalization of Tyranny
By recognizing the Taliban, Russia has betrayed not only the Afghan people but also the principles of human rights and global justice. This decision demonstrates that in today’s global politics, brute force can still override law and ethics—but only if we remain silent.
The international community must condemn this act and demonstrate that misogyny, repression, and authoritarianism should never be accepted as “stability” or “pragmatism.”
The people of Afghanistan deserve more than the cold, heartless transactions of power politics; they deserve justice, dignity, and hope.
