Pakistan News
PAK-AFGHAN DIALOGUE: TERRORISTS VERSUS PACIFISTS
By Akhtar Hussain Sandhu
The PAK-AFGHANdialogue held at Istanbul could not be successful as desired by both the countries, Pakistan’s federal minister, Mr. Atta Tarar, revealed the news through his statement on 29 and then 30 October. Both agreed to continue the ceasefire and further talks to deal with the terrorist groups existing in Afghanistan. This gathering in Istanbul was a continuation of the talks concluded in Doha (Qatar), which had resulted in a ceasefire between Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban leaders acknowledged the open secret that the incumbent regime in Afghanistan is sponsoring the terrorist activities in Pakistan. Yet the Pakistani delegation showed the world that Pakistan is a pacifist state seeking an effective action against the terrorist groups within Afghanistan. The dialogues were at the verge of failure but both sat again and concluded agreed points of meeting on 6 November 2025. If transit trade remains blocked, then Pakistani pressure will sustain otherwise weapons will be imported through Karachi by Afghanistan. Hopefully, tension will dwindle down soon because the Afghan delegation did not repeat the Durand Line and other issues in the last meetings. National Mobilization Front, a dissident group in Afghanistan, has declared if India support Taliban, they would support the Sikhs and Khalistan movement in India. Moreover, very important leaders of TTP have been killed by the Pakistani forces that shows the commitment to eliminate the terrorists from the Pakistani soil.
Pakistan moved only one major agenda item, that Afghanistan should not support the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other terrorist groups that have been launching suicide attacks against the military and civilians in Pakistan. This is the same demand that the Talibans had already promised in the Doha agreement. Now, in the recent talks organized in Istanbul, the Taliban leaders confessed the presence of the terrorists of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other banned terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, which are being sponsored and facilitated by the Taliban regime. Pakistan had closed Chaman, Torkham, and other borders.
No transit trade is allowed, and repatriation of the so-called Afghan refugees is in progress. Hundreds of trucks are parked due to the persistent security concerns by Pakistan over the terrorist attacks facilitated by Afghanistan. All the terrorist organizations of Baluchistan, KPK, and Punjab are involved in immoral, illegal, and un-Islamic activities with the help of the Taliban regime. They must know that state affairs don’t not function on religious basis but on ‘National Interest.’ Therefore, Afghanistan will have to respect international laws and cosmopolitan ethics.
Afghanistan is working as the Indian proxy that Pakistan cannot tolerate at any cost. Turkey and Qatar played a sincere role in bringing the Talibans and Pakistan to the table, but the Indian-backed Kabul regime did not let the talks end with a positive result. The agreement was approaching a successful end, but Kabul, through the delegation, tabled a new demand for Pakistani help if the USA attacks. This was an immature gesture because Istanbul talks were a part of the agenda already concluded at Doha, in which no such point was a part of the agenda. The facilitators of the Muslim countries were surprised by the support of the terrorists and the erratic behavior of the Taliban delegation.
Significantly, the point of Islamic laws and Shariah propagated by the Talibans is worth discussing that since the skirmishes started on the Pak-Afghan borders or even before, the so-called advocates of Shariah have been hiding behind the falsified narrative and utter lies constantly. They adopted the same lies during the meeting at Istanbul, but were embarrassed when the Pakistani delegation presented undeniable proof and argued in the form of audio and video recordings. The real followers of Islam do not tell lies, do not kill innocent people, do not desecrate and mutilate human corpses, and do not conspire against Muslims with the help of non-Muslim state.
The world is mostly witnessing ‘war diplomacy’ while the Talibans always adopted ‘terrorism economy’ and ‘violence diplomacy’, which means to use terrorists as bargaining chips or tools. As compensation, they beg money from different countries. Pakistan knows this false show and the Taliban’s nuisance value; therefore, on the demand of money for the settlement of the terrorists far away from the Durand Line, Pakistan simply refused to pay. Pakistan had already mortified and crushed their arrogance, haughtiness, and fake image of being warriors within a few hours. Even Pakistan seems ready to revise the false curricula of Pakistan Studies and history in which the marauders are glorified.
Pakistan shared the stance vividly that if any terrorist attack in Pakistan is linked to the Afghan areas, Pakistan would hit Kabul and other main cities of Afghanistan. The engagement policy of General Asim Munir has stamped how Pakistan’s Law Enforcement Agencies would react to the anti-Pakistan conspiracies. On the failure of the Istanbul talks, the Talibans threatened to attack Islamabad, although they lack an air force which means they will use terrorists and suicide attacks. The terrorists must be clear that Islamabad will retaliate fiercely and protect the borders and ensure the security of the civilians.
However, Pakistan must repatriate the Afghan refugees as soon as possible. We hear that some of the policemen are taking bribes to show that the Afghans either have been repatriated or disappeared somewhere. The soil of Pakistan is more sacred than any other neighboring land, and the people of Pakistan are more important than anyone else on the earth; therefore, the state must take stern actions against the terrorists, traitors, corrupt officials, smugglers, terrorists and their sympathizers. Pakistan right now enjoys a soft image, effective establishment, and powerful military leadership at the international level. Therefore, this is the right time to root out the anti-Pakistan extremist elements and terrorism from the country.
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.
Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.
Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.
The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.
The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.
Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.
In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.
The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.
The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.
It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”
The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.
Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News9 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
