22h ago

Russia becomes first country to recognise Taliban government

www.abc.net.au

In short:

Russia has become the first country to formally recognise the Taliban's government in Afghanistan since it seized power in 2021.

Afghanistan's Foreign Ministry called Russia's official recognition a historic step.

The Taliban has sought international recognition while also enforcing its strict interpretation of Islamic law.

World News @lemmit.online

Lemmit.Online bot @lemmit.online

BOT

2d ago

Russia becomes first country to recognise Taliban government

www.abc.net.au /news/2025-07-05/russia-becomes-first-country-to-recognise-taliban-government/105497384

16 comments

Religious extremists that aim to undermine women's liberties recognizes game.
Fuck Russia, fuck the Taliban
That said, all the other countries that haven't recognized them just have their head in the sand.
Whether you like them or not, they're the ones in power there and despite being a bunch of bumbling, backwards, violent, religious fanatics, they've actually done a better job of holding onto that power than anyone else has over the last half century.
Pretending they're not is really just denying reality.
- Wow, Vanga in the thread, lol.
- Aren't they recognized as a terrorist group vs a government? I'm guessing legitimacy is the main issue here.
  
  Interestingly enough, the US doesn't seem to regard the Taliban (at least not the main branch that's currently running Afghanistan) as a terrorist organization.
  When you said that I thought they might, I was actually pretty sure it was the case, but on looking into it that doesn't seem like they do, at least not officially.
  Some other countries do, and there are a couple other Taliban splinter groups and such that do make the cut.
  And of course, the entire history of Afghanistan since the Cold war can probably be of best summed up as "an absolute fucking mess" full of different factions, shifting allegiances, and all of that geopolitical nonsense, but you can make a pretty compelling argument that the US sort of put the Taliban in charge there in the first place. The us backed the Mujahideen against Russia back in the day, and while they're not exactly the same organization, there was a whole lot of overlap between former members of the Mujahideen and the people who formed the Taliban. So from one angle slapping the terrorist label on them would be kind of like admitting "we backed the terrorists"
  
  A terrorist group? Designated by who? And whom are they terrorizing?
- Sure, but now people there should be guaranteed to have access to the external world
  
  You know, I've read your comment a couple times, and I can't quite wrap my head around what you're trying to say, I can kind of parse it in a few different ways, and none of them quite seem like they're really a direct response to what I said either agreeing with me or disagreeing.
  It's certainly possible that I've got a case of the dumb tonight, but would you mind rephrasing and expanding on your thoughts a little bit?
Next headline up: Taliban sends troops to Kursk to support Russian defenders there.
This timeline just keeps getting weirder.
- Just because the US invades and occupies (and then leaves) a country, doesn't change the government.
The whole system of formal diplomatic recognition needs to die. Right now, "recognising" a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people. This is a very obstructive and unproductive system. It doesn't matter whether you "recognise" a government and it also doesn't matter what you decide to call your representatives to it. Refusing to recognise a government doesn't mean that group of people doesn't hold power or doesn't actually control territory. It just prevents you from engaging with them in a constructive manner. It's just a head-in-the-sand approach to intergovernmental relations.
If there's a group of people calling themselves a government that holds power over a group of people or a piece of territory that you are interested in, it shouldn't have to result in this whole game of charades. You should be able to send official representatives to that group without having to worry about offending everyone else. The whole concept of "recognition" is just nonsense.
- “recognising” a government seems to be tantamount to acknowledging that government is legitimate and representative of the people
  I agree with your conclusion (recognition should be based entirely on who has Actual Control, in cases where that can be clearly determined), but not with this particular explanation. Nobody "recognises" Taiwan, but it has nothing to do with believing it's illegitimate or unrepresentative. It has to do with the fact that China has a hissy fit if you do.
  
  The Taiwan issue has exactly to do with the fact that sending official diplomatic representatives to it means recognising its legitimacy and sovereignty. Even though most Western countries already believe this, sending the representatives would be to express that they believe this which is what upsets the Chinese government. China doesn't care what people think as long as they keep it to themselves. It's when they get "embarrassed" on the world stage that Chinese leadership thinks it demands action.
- If you read up on the history of the French Revolution (or other revolutions, but the French one is particularly dramatic) you'll find out how hard it can be to establish who is really running the country.

16 comments