Russia becomes first country to formally recognize Taliban's latest rule in Afghanistan
The Russian Foreign Ministry announced that it had received credentials from Afghanistan's newly appointed Ambassador Gul Hassan Hassan. The official recognition of the Afghan government will foster 'productive bilateral cooperation between our countries,' the ministry said in a statement.
Afghanistan's Foreign Ministry called it a historic step, and quoted Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi as welcoming the decision as "a good example for other countries.'
The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in August 2021 following the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces. Since then, they have sought international recognition while also enforcing their strict interpretation of Islamic law.
While no country had formally recognized the Taliban administration until now, the group had engaged in high-level talks with many nations and established some diplomatic ties with countries including China and the United Arab Emirates.
Still, the Taliban government has been relatively isolated on the world stage, largely over its restrictions on women.
Although the Taliban initially promised a more moderate rule than during their first stint in power from 1996 to 2001, it started to enforce restrictions on women and girls soon after the 2021 takeover. Women are barred from most jobs and public places, including parks, baths and gyms, while girls are banned from education beyond sixth grade.
Russian officials have recently been emphasizing the need to engage with the Taliban to help stabilize Afghanistan, and lifted a ban on the Taliban group in April.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
11 hours ago
- Japan Times
In the Trump era, how much should countries really be spending on defense?
What percentage of gross domestic product should a country be spending on its defense? That question has continued to be at the center of debates on defense, with NATO allies recently committing to increase the target from 2% to 5%. The White House has since stated that 5% should be the standard for all of America's allies. Voices around the globe are arguing the pros and cons of such a target. In truth, the 'percentage of GDP' approach is a political one, not a practical one. The actual debate is far more complex and includes alliance management issues that have existed for as long as there have been military alliances. The percentage of GDP standard stems from a core issue in alliance management: How do you ensure that everyone is contributing their fair share to the security relationship? Certainly, no country wants to do all the heavy lifting in fulfilling commitments, so there must be some quantifiable measure for contributions to ensure fairness. But the reality is that no two alliances are the same. This may seem obvious for alliances defined by different treaties such as the U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea, but it also applies within multinational alliances like NATO. Poland and the Baltic states have vastly different circumstances with the Russia-Ukraine war raging next door than say, Luxembourg, which is nestled comfortably between the much larger and militarily robust nations of France and Germany. So, how does one measure contributions between countries like Luxembourg and Poland? Is it the number of military operations in which their soldiers participate? Is it the number of bases provided for allied use or the amount of money provided to alliance institutions and initiatives? These are questions with complicated answers and it is impossible to apply a universal rubric for every ally, so years ago, it became popular to use the percentage of GDP standard. In other words, a universal measure for alliance contributions would be how much a country is spending on its own defense proportional to its economy. This became a formal standard for NATO in 2014 during the Wales summit in which they declared that all NATO allies would aspire to 2% of GDP for defense spending. With the most recent summit in the Netherlands, the standard is now 5%. In principle, this seems like a fair approach. But as useful as it is as a political benchmark, this method has its flaws. First of all, what qualifies as 'defense spending' that would count on the stat sheet? Is this everything that touches the military in some way, including retirement pay, veterans administration and military recreation facilities? Is there a distinction between research and development for new capabilities and maintenance of older weapon systems? Does infrastructure construction count if it may support allied operations? Would it be fair if one country included certain items on the cost sheet that the other did not? With the new 5% standard, NATO allies are creating at least some distinction in this debate. In practice, the allies are to spend 3.5% on conventional defense spending, while 1.5% can be on defense-related expenditures. These are still broad categories that will raise some questions. For example, Italy, which only reports 1.49% of GDP spending on defense, has a long way to reach NATO's new 5% standard. Italian lawmakers have proposed solving the problem by reclassifying a new €13.5 billion ($15.9 billion) bridge between the mainland and Sicily as a defense-related expenditure because it could potentially be used for NATO operations. This is just one example of many that will surely emerge as the allies contemplate implementation of the new standard. The second issue is that the percentage of GDP approach assumes that all security alliances are predicated on the same types of tradeoffs. They are not and the utility of those tradeoffs differ based on geography and threats. Even the U.S. recognizes this, with its publication on multinational operations listing seven areas of partner-nation contributions. One is the provision of combat forces and the rest are noncombat in nature, including diplomatic support; financial support; basing, access and overflight support; logistics, lift and sustainment; stabilization and reconstruction support; and governance and ministerial support. Several of these noncombat contributions have no direct tie-ins with an ally's defense spending or even defense-related spending, but it still represents a contribution to the security relationship. So, as an observer trying to make sense of the current debate, it is important to dive deeper than simply looking at percentages. We need to understand the specific tradeoffs within each alliance and the utility that different partners bring. Where does Japan fit into this debate? In 1976, then-Prime Minister Takeo Miki institutionalized the percentage of GDP standard by declaring that he would cap defense spending at 1%. This ceiling remained in place for decades, but while Japan has since eclipsed the 1% figure, there is renewed criticism from some American policy circles. This is nothing new, as Japan has received criticism for free riding in its relationship with the United States long before the current administration. One of the core arguments is that Japan relied on America to deal with its tough security issues so that it could focus primarily on the meteoric economic rise the country enjoyed in the postwar decades. As the logic goes: Less money spent on defense meant more money for growing the economy. There are a couple of flaws in that argument. It ignores the fact that there were plenty of policy actors in the United States in the postwar years who were wary of a rearmed Japan, meaning the notion of an equal military partner in the Self-Defense Forces would have been antithetical to their preferences. Another flaw is that Japanese military contributions to the alliance was a core expectation in the security relationship. When the two countries signed their alliance treaties in 1951 and 1960, the central tradeoff was that the United States would provide for the security of Japan and, in return, Japan would provide basing and access for U.S. forces. This served both governments well. Naturally, the alliance evolved over time and with that evolution came to the realization that there needed to be newly defined roles, missions and capabilities between the two allies. Those were codified in the Japan-U.S. Guidelines on Defense Cooperation, the most recent version of which was published in April 2015. The guidelines clearly lay out the expectations that each ally has for the other, meaning that any substantive debate over defense spending really starts from there. In this case, the question is less about what percentage of GDP either ally is spending on its defense, but rather if they are resourced, trained and equipped to meet the expectations established in their negotiated guidelines. Of course, politics being politics, the percentage of GDP figure will continue to garner headlines and drive public debates. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has expressed his intent to focus those debates on meaningful issues related to readiness and capabilities. But with an ally urging Japan to do more for security and a domestic populace demanding the Ishiba administration do more for a lagging economy, success in the defense spending debate is far from guaranteed. Michael MacArthur Bosack is the special adviser for government relations at the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies. He previously served in the Japanese government as a Mansfield fellow.
The Mainichi
11 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Russia hammers Kyiv in largest missile and drone barrage since war in Ukraine began
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) -- Waves of drone and missile attacks targeted Kyiv overnight into Friday in the largest aerial attack since Russia's invasion of Ukraine began more than three years ago, injuring 23 people and inflicting severe damage across multiple districts of the capital in a seven-hour onslaught. Russia launched 550 drones and missiles across Ukraine during the night, the country's air force said. The majority were Shahed drones, but Russia also launched 11 missiles in the attack. "It was a harsh, sleepless night," Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said. Russia is escalating its long-range attacks on Ukrainian cities. Less than a week ago Russia launched its previous largest aerial assault of the war. That strategy has coincided with a new push by Russia's bigger forces along parts of the roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line, where Ukrainian troops are under severe pressure. Trump 'not happy' with Russia's attacks The attack on Kyiv began the same day a phone call took place between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy called the timing of the strikes a deliberate signal that Moscow has no intention of ending the war. Trump said he would call Zelenskyy on Friday. U.S-led international peace efforts have been fruitless so far. When asked if he made any progress with Putin on a deal to end the fighting in Ukraine, he said: "No, I didn't make any progress with him today at all." "I'm not happy about that. I'm not happy about that," Trump said of Russia's war in Ukraine. According to Yuri Ushakov, Putin's foreign affairs adviser, the Russian leader emphasized that Moscow will seek to achieve its goals in Ukraine and remove the "root causes" of the conflict. "Russia will not back down from these goals," Ushakov told reporters after the call. Putin has argued he sent troops into Ukraine in February 2022 to fend off a threat to Russia posed by Ukraine's push to join NATO and to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine, arguments rejected by Kyiv and its allies. He insisted any prospective peace deal must see Ukraine abandon its NATO bid and recognize Russia's territorial gains. Pentagon halts deliveries of air defense missiles The U.S. has paused some shipments of military aid to Ukraine, including crucial air defense missiles. Ukraine's main European backers are considering how they can help pick up the slack. Zelenskyy says plans are afoot to build up Ukraine's domestic arms industry, but scaling up will take time. Throughout the night, Associated Press journalists in Kyiv heard the constant buzzing of drones overhead and the sound of explosions and intense machine gun fire as Ukrainian forces tried to intercept the aerial assault. "Absolutely horrible and sleepless night in Kyiv," Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha wrote on social media platform X. "One of the worst so far." Ukraine's Economy Minister Yuliia Svyrydenko described "families running into metro stations, basements, underground parking garages, mass destruction in the heart of our capital." "What Kyiv endured last night, cannot be called anything but a deliberate act of terror," she wrote on X. Kyiv was the primary target of the countrywide attack. At least 14 people were hospitalized, according to Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko. Russia strikes 5 Ukrainian regions Ukrainian air defenses shot down 270 targets, including two cruise missiles. Another 208 targets were lost from radar and presumed jammed. Russia successfully hit eight locations with nine missiles and 63 drones. Debris from intercepted drones fell across at least 33 sites. In addition to the capital, the Dnipropetrovsk, Sumy, Kharkiv, Chernihiv and Kyiv regions also sustained damage, Zelenskyy said. Emergency services reported damage in at least five of the capital's 10 districts. In Solomianskyi district, a five-story residential building was partially destroyed and the roof of a seven-story building caught fire. Fires also broke out at a warehouse, a garage complex and an auto repair facility. In Sviatoshynskyi district, a strike hit a 14-story residential building, sparking a fire. Several vehicles also caught fire nearby. Blazes were also reported at non-residential facilities. In Shevchenkivskyi district, an eight-story building came under attack, with the first floor sustaining damage. Falling debris was recorded in Darnytskyi and Holosiivskyi districts. Ukraine's national railway operator, Ukrzaliznytsia, said drone strikes damaged rail infrastructure in Kyiv.
Nikkei Asia
15 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
Trump to speak with Zelenskyy after disappointing call with Putin
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. President Donald Trump said early on Friday he came away disappointed from a telephone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin because it does not appear the latter is looking to stop Russia's war against Ukraine. U.S. attempts to end Russia's war in Ukraine through diplomacy have largely stalled, and Trump has faced growing calls -- including from some Republicans -- to increase pressure on Putin to negotiate in earnest. After speaking to Putin on Thursday, Trump plans to speak to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday, he said in remarks to reporters on his return to Washington from a trip to Iowa. "I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, because I don't think he's there, and I'm very disappointed," Trump said. "I'm just saying I don't think he's looking to stop, and that's too bad." The two leaders did not discuss a recent pause in some U.S. weapons shipments to Kyiv during the nearly hour-long conversation, a summary provided by Putin aide Yuri Ushakov showed. Within hours of their concluding the call, an apparent Russian drone attack sparked a fire in an apartment building in a northern suburb of Kyiv, Ukrainian officials said, indicating little change in the trajectory of the conflict. In Kyiv itself, Reuters witnesses reported explosions and sustained heavy machine-gun fire as air defense units battled drones over the capital, while Russian shelling killed five people in the east. "I didn't make any progress with him at all," Trump told reporters on Thursday. Zelenskyy told reporters in Denmark earlier in the day that he hopes to speak to Trump as soon as Friday about the pause in some weapons shipments first disclosed this week. Speaking to reporters as he left Washington for Iowa, Trump said, "We haven't" completely paused the flow of weapons. He also blamed his predecessor, Joe Biden, for sending so many weapons that it risked weakening U.S. defenses. "We're giving weapons, but we've given so many weapons. But we are giving weapons," he said. "And we're working with them and trying to help them, but we haven't (completely stopped). You know, Biden emptied out our whole country, giving them weapons, and we have to make sure that we have enough for ourselves." The diplomatic back-and-forth comes as low stockpiles have prompted the U.S. to pause shipments of certain critical weapons to Ukraine, sources told Reuters earlier, just as it faces a Russian summer offensive and growing attacks on civilian targets. Putin, for his part, has continued to assert he will stop his invasion only if the conflict's "root causes" have been tackled, making use of Russian shorthand for the issue of NATO enlargement and Western support for Ukraine, including the rejection of any notion of Ukraine joining the NATO alliance. Russian leaders are also angling to establish greater control over political decisions made in Kyiv and other Eastern European capitals, NATO leaders have said. The pause in U.S. weapons shipments caught Ukraine off guard and has generated widespread confusion about Trump's current views on the conflict, after saying just last week he would try to free up a Patriot missile defense system for use by Kyiv. Ukrainian leaders called in the acting U.S. envoy to Kyiv on Wednesday to underline the importance of military aid from Washington, and caution that the pause in its weapons shipments would weaken Ukraine's ability to defend itself against Russia. The Pentagon's move has meant a cut in deliveries of the Patriot defense missiles that Ukraine relies on to destroy fast-moving ballistic missiles, Reuters reported on Wednesday. Ushakov, the Kremlin aide, said that while Russia was open to continuing to speak with the U.S., any peace negotiations needed to happen between Moscow and Kyiv. That comment came amid some signs that Moscow is trying to avoid a three-way format for possible peace talks. The Russians asked American diplomats to leave the room during such a meeting in Istanbul in early June, Ukrainian officials have said. Trump and Putin did not talk about a face-to-face meeting, Ushakov said.
