Afghanistan at the Center of China–Russia–Pakistan Geopolitical Strategy

Regional Power Coordination Centered on Afghanistan and Its Consequences for the Destiny of the Afghan and European People.

In contemporary international politics, relations among major powers are not founded solely on amicable cooperation; rather, they are predominantly shaped by interests, rivalries, security anxieties, and geopolitical calculations. The relationship among China, Russia, and Pakistan constitutes a clear manifestation of this reality.

Although these three states differ significantly in historical experience, cultural foundations, and political systems, their shared regional security and strategic concerns have compelled them to develop close coordination. Afghanistan due to its geopolitical location, protracted instability, and entanglement in international conflicts has become the central (axis) of this trilateral alignment.

This paper offers an in-depth analytical examination of the security, intelligence, strategic, political, and diplomatic relations among China, Russia, and Pakistan, and critically evaluates their political, social, economic, and psychological impacts on the Afghan people through an academic and strategic lens.

Historical and Geopolitical Background of Strategic Relations among China, Russia, and Pakistan

1. A Convergent Posture against the West

2. Afghanistan as a Shared Arena of Competition and Cooperation

The historical and geopolitical foundations of strategic relations among China, Russia, and Pakistan are directly linked to profound transformations in the contemporary international system. Despite their ideological, historical, and political divergences, these three states have gradually converged around a common security, political, and strategic posture driven by shared concerns over the global dominance of the United States and its European allies.

Russia, whose status as a global power suffered significant erosion after the end of the Cold War, seeks to challenge the U.S.-led unipolar order and reassert itself as an alternative center of power. In this context, Afghanistan represents for Moscow not only a critical component of Central Asia’s security buffer but also a lever of political pressure against the West.

China, as the world’s second-largest economy and a principal architect of a new global economic order, views Afghanistan simultaneously as a security risk and an economic opportunity. On the one hand, Beijing is deeply concerned about the Xinjiang issue, the Uyghur population, and the potential spillover of extremist networks; on the other hand, Afghanistan’s natural resources, geographic position, and relevance to the Belt and Road Initiative confer strategic economic value.

Pakistan, whose statecraft has historically been dominated by a security-centric paradigm, regards Afghanistan as an indispensable element of its doctrine of “strategic depth.” Islamabad seeks to ensure a compliant and aligned political order in Kabul in order to counter Indian influence.

All three states share the conviction that the military, intelligence, and political presence of the United States and Europe poses a threat not only to their national security but also to the expansion of their regional influence. Consequently, forging a unified stance against the West has become a cornerstone of their strategic thinking.

Afghanistan’s unique geography linking Central, South, and East Asia has transformed it into a shared theater of competition and cooperation. Any power capable of exerting influence over Afghanistan can directly affect the region’s security, economic, and political equilibrium. The power vacuum created by the U.S. withdrawal provided China, Russia, and Pakistan with an opportunity to construct a regional security order in place of

Western influence. However, this effort has largely ignored the will, sovereignty, and political rights of the Afghan people.

Rather than focusing on the establishment of a legitimate, democratic, and inclusive political system, these actors prioritize managing a political reality in which their security concerns are contained and their strategic interests safeguarded.

As a result, Afghanistan has been transformed from a sovereign state into a geography of influence, control, and political bargaining where intelligence coordination, security arrangements, and diplomatic engagement are negotiated among external powers rather than through popular participation.

This paradigm has not only weakened Afghan state-building but has entrenched long-term instability, mistrust, and political isolation. Any strategic order imposed without popular consent is inherently unsustainable. As long as China, Russia, and Pakistan continue to view Afghanistan merely as a battleground against Western influence, a zone for containing security threats, or a reservoir of economic opportunity rather than as the homeland of a sovereign people with political rights , Afghanistan will remain a victim of geopolitical maneuvering and a subject of “managed instability” rather than genuine peace.

Security and Intelligence Cooperation

1. The Joint Counterterrorism Narrative

2. Intelligence Coordination and Support for the Taliban

The security and intelligence cooperation among China, Russia, and Pakistan is publicly framed as a collective struggle against terrorism, extremism, and instability. In practice, however, this cooperation is largely driven by political interests, geopolitical calculations, and intelligence bargaining rather than a sincere commitment to human security or regional stability.

The concept of terrorism lacks a fixed legal and universal definition within this trilateral framework; instead, each state instrumentalizes it in accordance with its domestic and foreign policy objectives. China, under the banner of security, categorizes virtually all political, cultural, and religious expressions of Uyghur resistance as terrorism, and actively coordinates with regional partners to internationalize this narrative thereby reframing the Xinjiang issue from a human rights concern into a security threat.

Russia, shaped by its historical experience with Islamic movements in the Caucasus and Central Asia, employs counterterrorism discourse to legitimize internal security policies and seeks to maintain Afghanistan as a controlled buffer zone rather than a sovereign, stable state.

Pakistan, whose intelligence apparatus constitutes the core of state decision-making, pursues a dual-track counterterrorism policy. While certain groups are designated as threats to national security, others deemed useful for regional influence, strategic depth, and balancing India are tolerated or supported under the logic of “good versus bad militants.” This inherent contradiction lies at the heart of trilateral intelligence cooperation.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan serves as the central node of intelligence coordination. Its deep, historical, and institutional ties with the Taliban’s leadership, financing, and strategic decision-making structures enable China and Russia to leverage Pakistani networks for access, intelligence, and influence. Consequently, Afghanistan has become a convergence point of foreign intelligence operations rather than an autonomous intelligence environment.

This cooperation has largely been utilized to stabilize Taliban rule, which these states accept as a pragmatic reality capable of filling the security vacuum, limiting Western influence, and containing extremist groups under indirect control. However, this “stability” has been achieved at the expense of Afghan security, freedom, and rights.

Under the guise of security, mechanisms of military control, repression of dissent, and societal silencing have been strengthened. Freedom of expression has been curtailed; civil activists are surveilled and pressured; political opposition is neutralized under security pretexts; and women have been systematically excluded from social, educational, and economic life. The security-centric worldview of China, Russia, and Pakistan has conveyed a clear message to the Taliban: as long as regional security concerns are managed, human rights violations are tolerable.

As a result, intelligence coordination has eroded public trust rather than reinforcing it. Afghans increasingly perceive security decisions as serving external interests rather than their own protection. This mistrust has widened the gap between society and governance and has undermined any prospect of sustainable stability.

Security built on intelligence deals, political expediency, and enforced silence is inherently fragile. Unless counterterrorism is anchored in human security, social justice, and popular participation, this joint narrative will not eliminate terrorism but will merely transform its manifestations and perpetuate instability and suffering.

A Unified Political Stance on Afghanistan

1. An Alternative Narrative to the West

2. Decision-Making without Afghan Participation

The shared political position of China, Russia, and Pakistan on Afghanistan reflects an alternative paradigm in contemporary international politics one in which stability and security replace democracy, human rights, inclusive governance, and national sovereignty as the primary sources of political legitimacy.

These states seek to define Afghanistan as a security problem rather than as the political expression of a nation’s historical will and rights. In their strategic calculus, legitimacy is conferred upon any regime that contains regional security threats, controls extremist groups, and cooperates in limiting Western influence regardless of its denial of fundamental rights, political participation, or social justice.

Within this framework, Taliban rule is accepted as a political reality rather than recognized as a legitimate, democratic, and inclusive government. This acceptance is justified through a narrative that elevates security above values and substitutes stability for justice. Such a narrative marginalizes the Afghan people’s political agency, transforming them from subjects of self-determination into objects of great-power transactions.

Whereas Western political thought grounds legitimacy in popular consent, elections, rule of law, and human rights, the model advanced by China, Russia, and Pakistan defines legitimacy through security control, suppression of dissent, and imposed order. This shift sets a dangerous precedent not only for Afghanistan but for the broader region by normalizing the sacrifice of popular will in the name of stability.

Decisions concerning Afghanistan are largely made behind closed doors, through restricted diplomatic circles, intelligence channels, and strategic understandings absent public debate, transparency, or Afghan participation. Afghan civil society, political movements, academic institutions, and legitimate representatives are systematically excluded.

This practice directly contradicts the principles of national sovereignty, which entails not merely territorial control but representation of popular will.

Afghanistan’s future is thus negotiated at tables where Afghans are either entirely absent or relegated to symbolic roles. This deepens political alienation and erodes trust, as the population increasingly perceives its fate as subordinate to external interests.

This trilateral stance has conferred a form of informal legitimacy upon the Taliban: when regional powers prioritize engagement over pressure, accept realities over conditions, and privilege security over rights, the ruling authority internalizes the message that popular consent is unnecessary only the approval of powerful states matters.

Consequently, efforts toward inclusive governance have been systematically weakened. The Taliban see themselves accountable not to the Afghan people but to regional powers. Political participation has withered; parties have disappeared; civic space has closed; and society has been reduced from an active political agent to a passive observer.

This erosion of participation poses a grave threat to Afghanistan’s future, as societies excluded from shaping their destiny inevitably lose emotional and political attachment to the state.

In sum, while the joint political stance of China, Russia, and Pakistan may appear effective in managing short-term stability, it ultimately freezes rather than resolves Afghanistan’s crisis. By addressing symptoms instead of root causes, this alternative narrative becomes not an alternative to Western dominance but an alternative to democracy itself—condemning Afghanistan to prolonged political deprivation under the banner of stability.

Diplomatic Engagement and International Forums

1. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the United Nations

2. Diplomatic Legitimacy and Political Bargaining

China, Russia, and Pakistan channel their diplomatic engagement on Afghanistan primarily through regional and international forums, most notably the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the United Nations. Within the SCO, China and Russia maintain a closely aligned position prioritizing security, containment of extremism, and limitation of Western influence, with Pakistan acting as an active supporter. The organization serves not only as a security forum but also as an instrument for promoting an alternative international order.

Within this framework, Afghanistan is treated less as an independent political subject and more as a component of regional security architecture. Taliban rule is accepted as a reality to be managed rather than subjected to legitimacy criteria. At the United Nations, these states seek to soften international pressure on the Taliban, advocate for easing sanctions, and subordinate human rights concerns to security imperatives.

This approach has pushed the international community toward pragmatism over principle. When powerful states opt for engagement instead of pressure within global institutions, the enforcement of international norms weakens. Diplomatic engagement with the Taliban is thus driven by strategic bargaining security guarantees, counter-extremism commitments, narcotics control, and regional stability management while violations of human rights, restrictions on women, and suppression of free expression are deemed acceptable trade-offs.

This dynamic distorts the concept of diplomatic legitimacy: legitimacy no longer derives from popular consent but from consensus among powerful states. Such transactional diplomacy undermines the credibility of international norms and reinforces double standards, signaling that principles apply only to the weak, not to regimes that satisfy great-power security needs.

Although engagement through the SCO and the UN may contribute to short-term crisis management, it ultimately freezes Afghanistan’s political crisis. Without anchoring legitimacy in the will, rights, and participation of the Afghan people, international forums risk becoming arenas of political bargaining rather than instruments of justice leaving Afghanistan suspended between global norms and regional expediency.

Political Impact on the Afghan People

1. The Erosion of Democracy

2. National Sovereignty and Independent Decision-Making

The political consequences of the security-driven and strategic relations among China, Russia, and Pakistan for the Afghan people are profound, enduring, and predominantly negative. These relations have systematically undermined democratic values and dismantled mechanisms of political participation. Elections the cornerstone of democratic governance have been abolished; political parties dissolved or excluded; and civic engagement curtailed under security pretexts.

As a result, the Afghan people have been transformed from active political agents into passive subjects of power implementation. Under the banner of stability, democratic demands are portrayed as disorder, dissent, or security threats providing the ruling authority with justification to suppress opposition and silence critical voices. Democracy has thus been stripped not only of its institutional form but also of its conceptual legitimacy.

National sovereignty understood as the people’s right to determine their political destiny has been hollowed out. Decision-making authority no longer resides with the Afghan population but is structured around the security, intelligence, and strategic interests of external powers. Whether concerning governance structures, international engagement, or domestic policy, decisions are evaluated through the lens of Beijing, Moscow, and Islamabad’s approval rather than public needs.

This external influence has weakened Afghanistan’s capacity for independent decision-making and eliminated accountability. A government that does not derive authority from popular will has no incentive to answer to the population. This has generated deep political mistrust, driving apathy, migration, and the erosion of the social contract posing severe long-term risks to state-building.

Economic and Social Consequences

1. China’s Economic Interests and Popular Exclusion

2. Afghan Life under Poverty, Unemployment, and International Isolation

The economic and social effects of the strategic alignment among China, Russia, and Pakistan on the Afghan population are profound and unequal. China’s economic presence is particularly consequential, as Beijing views Afghanistan primarily as a repository of natural resources, minerals, energy assets, and transit routes not as a society deserving inclusive development.

Although investment and reconstruction rhetoric is prevalent, the absence of transparency, public oversight, and accountability has transformed these projects into closed, security-driven transactions benefiting narrow elites and foreign partners rather than the population. Resource contracts are signed without public knowledge; revenue distribution remains opaque; and environmental and social impact assessments are neglected deepening inequality and exclusion.

Simultaneously, continued international isolation, lack of formal recognition, sanctions, and a paralyzed banking system have crippled Afghanistan’s economy. Investment has collapsed, job creation has stalled, and poverty has expanded. Youth and women have been excluded from economic life, lacking access to labor markets, skills development, or business support fueling social fragmentation, child labor, forced migration, and psychological distress.

International isolation has also produced profound social and psychological consequences. When a population feels excluded from the global system, hope erodes and despair becomes normalized. Without transparency, equitable revenue-sharing, and social accountability, China’s economic engagement will remain a symbol of exclusion rather than prosperity.

Restriction of Civil Rights under the Pretext of Security

The curtailment of civil rights under the banner of security constitutes one of the gravest consequences of the security-centric policies of China, Russia, and Pakistan. By prioritizing stability, these states have conveyed to the Taliban that human rights violations are acceptable as long as regional security concerns are addressed.

This logic has enabled the systematic exclusion of women from education, employment, and public life; the suppression of free expression; media censorship; intimidation of journalists; and the closure of civic space. Civil activists and human rights defenders face surveillance, threats, and repression rendering civil society effectively extinct.

Women and youth have emerged as the principal victims of these strategic bargains, with their futures and dignity sacrificed to geopolitical expediency. Stability built on repression is not only unsustainable but also lays the foundation for long-term societal crisis.

Pakistani Intelligence Influence and Public Distrust

Pakistan’s intelligence influence within the Taliban’s political and security structures has generated deep and persistent public mistrust. This influence extends beyond historical support into leadership, strategy, security policy, and foreign engagement leading many Afghans to perceive the Taliban not as a sovereign national authority but as an instrument of external interests.

Given Afghanistan’s painful history of proxy conflicts and intelligence manipulation, this perception directly contradicts national sovereignty and deepens the rift between state and society. It undermines legitimacy, fuels dissatisfaction, and weakens national cohesion. Unless this influence is made transparent, limited, and aligned with sovereignty principles, it will remain a major obstacle to stability.

Russia’s Political Transactionalism

Russia’s engagement in Afghanistan is defined primarily as a geopolitical tool against the West rather than a sincere strategy for Afghan stability. Moscow uses Afghanistan to reinforce narratives of Western failure and to regain leverage in global power politics. Its interaction with the Taliban is driven by expediency, not principles seeking to project regional power and use the Afghan file as a bargaining chip in disputes over Ukraine, sanctions, and security competition.

In this calculus, Afghan human rights and political participation are secondary. Such transactionalism reinforces perceptions of injustice in international politics, signaling that the fate of smaller nations is negotiable. As long as this logic prevails, Russian engagement will perpetuate mistrust and political marginalization rather than stability.

Psychological, Social, and Cultural Crisis

Afghanistan is experiencing deep psychological, social, and cultural crises rooted in prolonged instability, poverty, war, and uncertainty. These conditions have produced widespread despair, displacement, and mental health challenges particularly anxiety, depression, and trauma. Long-term effects include weakened social bonds, erosion of cultural values, and the breakdown of social structures.

While the security and strategic coordination among China, Russia, and Pakistan may serve their global interests, in the absence of popular will, human rights, sovereignty, and legitimate governance in Afghanistan, this coordination exacerbates rather than resolves the crisis.

A sustainable solution requires democracy, inclusive participation, and human rights guarantees. Stability can only emerge through a political order that represents all ethnic, religious, and social groups; protects women’s rights; restores sovereignty to the people; and aligns regional relations with Afghan interests rather than intelligence bargains.

Only people-centered policies and inclusive strategies can rescue Afghanistan from its psychological, social, and economic crises and lay the foundations for long-term stability, prosperity, and human dignity.

Afghanistan’s Case within the Geometry of the New Global Competition The China–Russia–Pakistan Bloc and Its Impact on Europe’s Security, Migration, and Values

The security, intelligence, strategic, political, and diplomatic relations among China, Russia, and Pakistan are deeply intertwined with the ongoing transformation of the contemporary international order. Afghanistan has emerged as a central axis of this trilateral coordination, as all three states share profound strategic anxieties regarding the global influence of the United States and the West. Collectively, they seek to lay the foundations of an alternative regional and international order in which security, control, and geopolitical equilibrium are prioritized over democracy, human rights, and universal values.

China views Afghanistan as a sensitive component of its security perimeter. Concerns related to Xinjiang, the perceived threat of extremist groups, and the strategic imperatives of the Belt and Road Initiative render Afghanistan a matter of vital national interest for Beijing.

Consequently, China has opted for a security-centric engagement with the Taliban authorities, aiming to engineer a form of stability that safeguards its strategic and economic interests, even if such stability comes at the expense of the Afghan people’s political freedoms and fundamental human rights.

Russia, for its part, instrumentalizes Afghanistan as a lever of political and diplomatic pressure against the West. Moscow seeks to demonstrate that, following the withdrawal of the United States, it retains the capacity to manage regional security dynamics and to challenge the unipolar Western-led international order. Accordingly,

Russia’s engagement with the Taliban is not grounded in principled norms, but rather in pragmatic political bargaining and transactional calculations.

Pakistan, widely characterized as an intelligence-driven state, considers Afghanistan an integral element of its strategic doctrine. Islamabad has persistently sought to ensure that power in Kabul remains in the hands of an actor structurally aligned with Pakistan’s security calculus and incapable of acting independently of its interests.

This trilateral coordination has thus reduced Afghanistan from a sovereign state to a geopolitical arena of influence, management, and intelligence-driven transactions.

At the security and intelligence level, these states cooperate under the banner of counterterrorism; however, their definition of terrorism is highly politicized. It is frequently employed as a tool to suppress popular resistance, civil activism, and political dissent. The consequence has been the militarization of Afghan society and the near-total eradication of civic space.

In the political and diplomatic arena, China, Russia, and Pakistan promote an alternative narrative for Afghanistan, one in which “stability” and “security” constitute the primary criteria of legitimacy, rather than elections, popular participation, and the rule of law. This narrative confers de facto legitimacy upon the Taliban while marginalizing the will of the Afghan people.

Decision-making processes increasingly occur behind closed doors—within regional summits, intelligence channels, and multilateral platforms such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as within the framework of this trilateral geopolitical triangle—through opaque political deals rather than inclusive national processes.

This situation has profound implications not only for Afghanistan but also for the European Union. The protracted Afghan crisis, systematic human rights violations, and economic collapse are generating new waves of forced migration, exerting direct pressure on European states.

The European Union, which presents itself as a defender of human rights, the rule of law, and democratic governance, now faces a grave moral and political dilemma. On the one hand, it fears uncontrolled migration flows, security threats, and the penetration of extremist networks; on the other, it risks undermining its own foundational values by acquiescing to a security-first approach divorced from human rights considerations.

The trafficking of narcotics through Afghanistan, irregular migration, and the transnational spread of extremist ideologies constitute tangible security challenges that the European Union increasingly perceives as consequences of this imbalanced regional order. Moreover, China and Russia seek to instrumentalize the Afghan dossier as a means of political leverage against Europe, with the objective of weakening transatlantic cohesion and diminishing Europe’s strategic standing within the global political equation.

Economically, Chinese investments often promoted under the rhetoric of development and reconstruction are characterized by a lack of transparency, absence of public oversight, and inequitable distribution of revenues. As a result, these investments serve external strategic interests rather than the welfare of the Afghan population. This dynamic deepens poverty, unemployment, and international isolation, and the social repercussions of this economic collapse are directly reflected in increased migration toward Europe.

In conclusion, while the consolidated security, intelligence, strategic, and diplomatic coordination among China, Russia, and Pakistan may serve as an instrument of influence, control, and geopolitical balancing for these states, it simultaneously guarantees the erosion of democracy, the weakening of national sovereignty, and the perpetuation of a humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan.

For the European Union, it opens a new chapter marked by security instability, migration pressures, and a profound crisis of values. As long as the will of the Afghan people, their rights, and their legitimate political participation are not established as the cornerstone of any regional or international engagement, this trilateral alignment will continue to manage crises rather than resolve them exporting instability, prolonging humanitarian suffering, and undermining the very principles upon which the international order is meant to rest.

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.