The primary goals of the Russia–China–Pakistan Trilateral Meetings in Moscow revolved around establishing regional order, counterterrorism coordination (notably concerning the Taliban), and the expansion of economic and transit linkages.
Given that these engagements combined political and intelligence components, each participant sought its own strategic advantage and pursued specific political or military interests within Afghan territory. Afghanistan has long been the epicenter of regional security dynamics, and thus the official agendas of these meetings often centered on counterterrorism collaboration and economic connectivity, particularly through initiatives like the CPEC expansion.
For Russia, the intent was to preserve and project influence across Central and South Asia, undermine U.S. and NATO presence, and simultaneously consolidate energy and transport partnerships under its geopolitical sphere.
Accordingly, the following assessment outlines, in a structured and phased manner, the strategic motives of participants, probable intelligence scenarios, risk assessments, and priority recommendations for Afghanistan’s national interest.
Key Observations
- The Moscow trilateral dialogues consistently addressed Afghanistan’s security environment and the containment of ISIS (Khorasan).
- One of the pivotal agenda points involved discussions on removing select Taliban figures from the UN sanctions list, a move initiated without consultation with the Afghan government, triggering a strong diplomatic backlash from Kabul.
- Statements by Zamir Kabulov, Moscow’s envoy for Afghanistan, repeatedly emphasized that the continued presence of U.S. military bases (eight to nine at that time) was “strategically unacceptable” for Russia—illustrating clear geopolitical anxieties.
Strategic Objectives of the Participants
1. Russia
Russia pursued two principal objectives:
(a) Reviving its regional influence and reshaping the balance of power toward a multipolar world order.
(b) Containing the spread of ISIS–Khorasan and other extremist groups, which posed direct threats to Russian and Central Asian security.
Hence, Moscow sought engagement with anti-U.S. actors to position itself as an indispensable mediator in any prospective peace process.
2. China
China’s approach was primarily driven by security and economic imperatives — safeguarding stability in its western provinces, protecting large-scale investments, and preventing extremist infiltration into Xinjiang.
Beijing also expressed interest in a weakened but cooperative Afghan state, facilitating access to Afghanistan’s mineral resources and reinforcing economic leverage through CPEC. Furthermore, China insisted on intelligence-sharing mechanisms to monitor Uyghur militant activity, while ensuring its investments and strategic corridors remained secure.
3. Pakistan
Pakistan’s long-standing Afghanistan policy has been dual-layered and tactical.
On one hand, Islamabad sought to maintain leverage over the Taliban to secure influence in Kabul; on the other, it aimed to shape the peace process in ways favorable to its national security doctrine.
Participation in the Moscow forum provided Pakistan with diplomatic visibility and an opportunity to demonstrate geopolitical relevance. Its strategic aims included securing the Durand Line, limiting TTP cross-border militancy, and expanding economic transit access to China through Afghanistan.
Probable Intelligence Implications and Scenarios
1. Fragmented Intelligence Coordination
When regional powers conducted deliberations without Kabul’s involvement, it underscored an ongoing covert intelligence transaction over Afghanistan’s sovereignty.
2. Proxy Politics and Non-Neutral Posturing
Although Moscow and Islamabad claimed counter-ISIS objectives, evidence later suggested selective support for armed factions, particularly Taliban elements, as part of competitive intelligence maneuvering a phenomenon heightening instability within Afghanistan.
3. Information Operations and Influence Campaigns
Post-2016 reports indicated that Russia, China, and Pakistan coordinated information and perception-management operations to delegitimize the Afghan republican government, portraying it as corrupt, elitist, and externally imposed, thereby shaping local narratives in favor of alternative power brokers.
Strategic Recommendations and Policy Priorities for Afghanistan
Diplomatic Ownership Framework
Afghanistan should have assertively demanded national ownership in all regional and international dialogues ensuring that no decision affecting Afghan sovereignty proceeded without formal participation.
Transparent and Lawful Intelligence Cooperation
While intelligence-sharing was essential, Afghanistan needed clear conditionalities: operational transparency, verifiable sources, and legal oversight for data usage. Any foreign intelligence assistance must align with national interests and sovereign control.
Defined Peace Negotiation Parameters
All peace mechanisms should have been conducted under UN and international supervision, incorporating temporary ceasefire provisions and judicial accountability for war crimes. Amendments to UN sanction lists should have arisen from intra-Afghan consensus, not external trilateral decisions.
Internal Governance Reform
Endemic corruption and legitimacy deficits enabled foreign manipulation.
Reinforcing accountability, inclusive economic programs, and empowered local governance should have been central reform priorities.
Intelligence Modernization
Developing a unified National Intelligence Coordination Center, integrating HUMINT (Human Intelligence) and SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) under transparent oversight, could have leveraged global best practices and enhanced national security resilience.
Scenario Planning and Risk Preparedness
Policy foresight should have considered potential escalations:
- Intensified covert involvement of Russia–China–Pakistan.
- Resurgence of ISIS–Khorasan.
- Renewed U.S. military re-engagement.
Each scenario required structured counter-response planning.
Risks and Preventive Measures
- Inclusive Afghan participation in the trilateral meetings could have reduced proxy legitimacy and strengthened intra-Afghan consultation platforms.
- Misinterpretation of intelligence data proved detrimental; Afghanistan needed credible research-based monitoring systems to inform national security decisions.
Legal and International Policy Measures
- Afghanistan should have insisted on active UN participation to ensure transparency in sanctions amendments and prevent unilateral decisions.
- Bilateral or multilateral security accords with neighboring states — focusing on information-sharing, border management, and joint counterterror operations — should have been prioritized, rather than reliance on third-party political agendas.
Analytical Summary
The 2016 Moscow Trilateral Dialogue symbolized a geostrategic recalibration among regional powers. While publicly framed as counterterrorism cooperation, it in essence served national interests of Russia, China, and Pakistan, oscillating between conflict management and influence projection.
Had the Afghan government adopted a proactive, transparent, and unified diplomatic posture, it could have mitigated external impositions and reinforced its sovereignty.
At the time, focus should have been on domestic reform, intelligence strengthening, and regional diplomatic coalitions where Afghans were the decision-makers, not the subject of negotiation.
Even today, Russia maintains that no foreign military presence in Afghanistan is acceptable. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated during the Moscow Format Conference that any external troop deployment contradicts Russia’s regional security stance — a continuation of Moscow’s strategic logic since 2016.
Meanwhile, Afghanistan remains trapped between economic fragility and political dependency, its population enduring educational deprivation, unemployment, and systemic disempowerment, while the religious establishment dominates public administration.
A generation of educated, skilled Afghans now lives symbolically excluded from professional participation reflecting the tragic intersection of external manipulation and internal dysfunction.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
