Asia
Pakistan Sadiq Khan’s souvenir to the Afghan Taliban
Some areas of Barmal district in Afghanistan’s Paktika province were targeted by the airstrikes of the Pakistan Army at a time when Mohammad Sadiq Khan, the country’s newly appointed representative for Afghanistan, was engaged in highly diplomatic and intensive talks with some high-ranking Taliban officials in the capital city, Kabul.
The Taliban claimed that more than 46 civilians (women and children) were killed as a result of this attack and denied Pakistan’s claim that the casualties were fighters of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Talian said that the majority of the casualties are civilians and Waziristan immigrants who lived in the areas in the last 10 years.
The Taliban have called this attack a clear violation of Afghan territory and have spoken of severe revenge. Also, the Taliban Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the charge d’affaires of the Pakistani Embassy in Kabul and handed him a letter with objectionable content.
In connection with this attack and its possible consequences, a few points can be speculated.
First,
The world’s silence regarding Pakistan’s daily light attack on Afghanistan is surprising. Not any of the countries in the world, not even the United Nations mentioned anything about the attack. Perhaps the world has realized that Pakistan has taken the risk of attacking Afghanistan not out of drunkenness but out of urgency and with the intention of suppressing TTP.
When the world has reached this understanding, the correctness of the Taliban’s claim of sheltering the TTP will become clearer than before, which will be to the detriment of this group. Pakistan’s weight in international relations can also be understood from the world’s silence, especially when the conflict in Afghanistan is in the middle.
On the other hand, it can also be understood that the Taliban are not important enough in the eyes of the world that an open violation of their sovereign territory would offend anyone, or a country and provoke a reaction. Of course, the loss of statelessness can also be strongly felt. If Afghanistan had a strong and legitimate government, maybe Pakistan would not have been so bold. In that case, if Pakistan had attacked, it would definitely have faced the overwhelming reaction of the countries.
Second,
The well-known movements against the Taliban, like the countries of the world and the United Nations, have given themselves to heavy silence. Indeed, some people have condemned, exactly those who do not want anything from the Taliban, except the reopening of girls’ schools, regardless of the quality of the content of the educational curriculum.
For example, the National Assembly for the Salvation of Afghanistan, the National Resistance Front, the Freedom Front, the Supreme Council of the National Resistance for Salvation, etc., are the current anti-Taliban movements that have avoided condemning the attack so far.
These groups know very well that TTP is walking under the shadow of Afghan Taliban and Pakistan’s concern is understandable in their opinion. Not only that, but they may also be happy with Pakistan’s attack, because while the relationship between Islamabad and the Taliban is strained, the problem of terrorists taking shelter in Afghanistan becomes more apparent, which will be to the detriment of the Kabul regime.
If the tension between Pakistan and the Taliban increases, the former may also establish contact with the opposing current groups, and the reaction to the recent attack can close the door of communication. Even the criticisms of the citizens are more towards the Taliban than towards Pakistan. It is not known how this group understands the silence of the world and the minimal reactions of its opposing forces and citizens.
Third,
Until now, Pakistan has tried to convince the Afghan Taliban to curb the TTP by resorting to dialogue, but it has not succeeded. The re-appointment of Sadiq Khan has no meaning except Islamabad giving importance to negotiations. Now, the attack on Paktika showed that the Pakistani army likes to avoid resorting to force in parallel with negotiations – what is not known is whether Islamabad will achieve its goal or not.
More importantly, by doing this, Pakistan showed that the Afghan Taliban, with the dismissal of Asif Durrani, the re-appointment of Sadiq Khan and his dispatch to Kabul, should not be trapped in the illusion that Islamabad is bound to sit around the negotiating table. To say that Sadiq Khan was not aware of the quality of the “souvenirs” he presented to the Taliban may not be true. Because the current Pakistani civilians and military have reached a consensus to curb TTP.
However, what is clear is Pakistan’s avoidance of a “decisive war” with the Taliban. For now, Islamabad’s preference is to launch sporadic airstrikes and at the same time keep the door open to dialogue. That’s it. Of course, the Taliban also hate to enter the war and instead, they seek to establish a government and extend the life of their rule, not to get involved with Pakistan, which was and is their serious supporter.
Fourth,
It should also be said about the possible response of the Taliban. Although this group has spoken of revenge, the fulfillment of the promise, if not impossible, is not very likely. The fact is that the Taliban do not have the ability to retaliate against Pakistan’s attack.
If they are determined to attack, this is different from border conflicts, which are largely unorganized. In this case, the next reaction will be followed by Islamabad, and again, not this country, but the Taliban will suffer. We all remember Pakistan’s immediate response to Iran’s missile attack. That act of Pakistan showed that it is no joke in defending its territory. It is unlikely that the Taliban did not understand this point.
Apart from that, the Taliban cannot be considered as Iran or Israel if the people of the world are watching the response of this group. As the attack on Taliban territory has not been reacted to, the silence of this group will not be accompanied by sarcasm but with the silence of the world.
If we pay close attention, Pakistan’s open attack reminds viewers, readers and listeners of Israel’s air attack on post-Assad Syrian territory. Therefore, as the new rulers of Damascus have been silent, the new rulers of Kabul will do the same.
But one factor can provoke the Taliban – Zalmay Khalilzad’s statements (Forer US peace envoy). He has claimed on his X page that the Taliban will probably respond. Khalilzad’s view towards Pakistan is very unfavorable. For this reason, a few days before the US sanctioned its missile program, it not only supported, but also demanded more sanctions. He is also unhappy with the imprisonment of Imran Khan, the former prime minister of Pakistan.
The return of Donald Trump to the White House may not benefit Pakistan, because his view is not favorable towards this country. Therefore, Khalilzad may encourage parts of the Taliban to attack.
There are already reports doing rounds in the media that Taliban and Pakistani border troops on Friday engaged in intense clashes in Dand-e-Patan district of Afghanistan’s Paktia province.
Local sources said that the clashes lasted for several hours, with both sides exchanging heavy fire. The Taliban and Pakistani officials did not comment on the incident so far. There is also no immediate report on the casualties.
Asia
China outpaces India in race for Russian crude oil supplies
China has accelerated its crude oil purchases from Russia to replace oil shipments originating from the Middle East.
According to a Reuters report based on data from energy analytics firm Kpler, China is outpacing India in the Russian oil market.
India’s crude imports from Russia’s European ports fell by approximately 30% in August.
Beijing’s increased purchases could curb India’s exports of refined petroleum products and consequently trigger a diesel and gasoline shortage across Asia.
While China previously favoured ESPO blend crude shipped from Russia’s Asian ports, the share of its purchases from Russia’s European ports, consisting primarily of the Urals grade, has climbed to 31%.
Russian crude imports by India, the world’s third-largest oil importer, dropped to 1.87 million barrels per day in August. This volume remained well below the 2.79 million barrels per day recorded in July.
Under this scenario, which poses a risk to the Asian region, India stands as the region’s largest exporter of diesel and gasoline.
However, the country’s total crude imports in August were recorded at 4.17 million barrels per day. This figure marked the lowest level since the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East.
If the tightening raw material supply prevents Indian refineries from maintaining processing throughput, a severe deficit in refined products could emerge across the Asian market starting in September.
The Times of India previously reported that India’s Russian crude imports reached their highest share since 2022 in July.
During that period, Russia supplied more than half of India’s total crude imports of just over 5 million barrels per day, delivering 2.8 million barrels per day.
At the end of July, the Russian government extended its temporary export ban on gasoline, diesel, and other fuel types until 31 January 2027.
Under the restrictions that took effect on 1 August, direct exports of diesel, marine fuel, and gas oils by refiners will be exempted starting 1 September.
Bloomberg reported in June that Russian Urals crude was being sold in India at a $3.90 discount per barrel against international benchmarks after a hiatus of more than two months.
Urals crude traded at a discount again on 29 May for the first time since mid-March.
According to The Times of India, however, this discount on Russian Urals crude had almost entirely evaporated by early August.
Asia
Japan sharpens defense posture while strengthening Turkish ties
In an extensive interview on the Harici YouTube channel hosted by journalist Elif Ilhamoglu, Asia-Pacific research specialist and journalist Mehmet Asil Gonultas provided a comprehensive analysis of East Asia’s shifting geopolitical landscape.
Focusing on the newly released 2026 Japanese Defence White Paper, Tokyo’s military posture, foreign policy recalibrations under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, and expanding bilateral ties with Turkiye, Gonultas detailed how systemic anxieties regarding China, Russia, and North Korea are reshaping the region.
“China, Russia, and North Korea are explicitly named as threats”
Addressing the release of Japan’s updated national security strategy document, Gonultas noted that the nearly 600-page publication represents the longest and most assertive security outline produced by Tokyo to date. He underscored that the tone toward regional competitors has hardened markedly compared to previous editions.
“China, Russia, and North Korea are explicitly named as threats in this year’s document,” Gonultas said. “Regarding Russia, the text explicitly characterizes its military presence on the contested Kuril Islands as an occupation, particularly following the recent visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to one of the islands. North Korea is evaluated through the operational lens of the Russia-Ukraine war, where Pyongyang is actively refining its military capabilities, deploying personnel, utilizing drones, and gaining battle-tested experience in an active combat zone.”
Gonultas explained that the characterization of Beijing as a deteriorating security risk reflects a trajectory that has intensified steadily over recent years. “While China has been identified as a primary security concern since at least 2022, the rhetorical severity increases with every iteration. This year’s assessment is the heaviest yet, directly mirroring the firm posture of the state,” he stated.
Contrasting the current administration with former leadership, Gonultas remarked, “Former Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba advocated a relatively moderate approach, maintaining that Japan and China must find ways to coexist peacefully given their geographic reality. However, Prime Minister Takaichi adopted an uncompromising stance toward Beijing even prior to assuming office.”
He noted that Beijing’s actions have reinforced Tokyo’s apprehensions: “Beijing continuously provides justification for this stance. During recent missile testings, Beijing claimed to have informed Japan in advance, but Tokyo clarified that notice was provided merely 30 minutes prior to launch, emphasizing that no formal permission was granted. Furthermore, Chinese naval vessels regularly test boundaries in Japan’s exclusive economic zone, and a Chinese warship recently targeted a Japanese fighter jet with a guidance laser. The white paper explicitly argues that China’s actual military expenditures significantly exceed its publicly declared defense budget.”
Following the publication of the document, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Defense swiftly issued formal condemnations, accusing Tokyo of fanning regional tensions and reverting to historic militarism. “China reacted directly by asserting that this document reflects rising Japanese militarism,” Gonultas said. “In response, Tokyo points to China’s rapid rearmament, its inventory of ballistic missiles capable of striking Japanese territory, its maritime incursions, and its anti-aircraft capabilities targeting Japanese military aviation.”
“There is no question of acquiring nuclear weapons”
Turning to the structural and military capabilities outlined in the white paper, Gonultas clarified that Tokyo is prioritizing high-technology defense systems and diplomatic-economic integration rather than unconventional deterrence.
“There is no question of acquiring nuclear weapons,” Gonultas emphasized, addressing recent media speculation surrounding defense policy debates. “While domestic discussions on nuclear deterrence surfaced during the era of the late Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, implementing such a policy remains politically impossible. Regardless of a ruling party’s parliamentary majority, strong internal factions vehemently oppose the concept. When Abe tentatively raised the question of nuclear deterrence after leaving office, then-Prime Minister Fumio Kishida immediately rejected the notion. Kishida, who remains an influential parliamentary figure, reaffirmed only recently that Japan must unconditionally oppose nuclear armament.”
Clarifying recent remarks made by Japanese Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi regarding the public taboo surrounding nuclear debates, Gonultas observed, “The prohibition against discussing nuclear weapons is not a formal statutory ban, but rather a deeply ingrained societal consensus. The public remains firmly opposed to even raising the topic. Defense Minister Koizumi, whose personal popularity has risen significantly among right-wing factions since taking office, uses this rhetoric largely as a political signaling strategy to consolidate his base as he positions himself for a future prime ministerial run.”
Gonultas outlined Tokyo’s actual defense investments, highlighting unmanned systems and domestic defense manufacturing. “Japan’s primary technological focus centers on advanced drone infrastructure,” he stated. “Furthermore, Japan has revised its historical restrictions on arms exports. While the constitution was previously interpreted to ban the export of lethal weaponry—limiting sales strictly to search-and-rescue or non-lethal equipment—legislative shifts now permit defensive exports, provided they are directed toward allied nations that are not actively engaged in armed conflict.”
“Japan is acutely aware that it cannot stand alone against China”
Evaluating Tokyo’s strategic dependence on Washington, Gonultas emphasized that Japan’s defense planners view the US alliance as indispensable for national survival.
“Japan is acutely aware that it cannot stand alone against China’s sheer scale,” Gonultas stated. “This fundamental reality forces Japanese policymakers to maintain flawless relations with Washington at all costs. Recently, when a US serviceman was implicated in an assault incident on Okinawa Island, Defense Minister Koizumi explicitly declined to criticize the US military, drawing sharp domestic backlash. Yet, this reflects Tokyo’s overriding priority: retaining the US strategic presence in the Indo-Pacific.”
“Both the Japanese government and the general public harbour deep anxieties regarding Chinese intentions, particularly concerning a potential military move against Taiwan,” Gonultas continued. “Should China blockade or seize Taiwan, Japan’s vital maritime trade routes would be compromised at Beijing’s discretion. Aside from the United States, no regional power possesses the capacity to offer meaningful deterrence.”
Gonultas added that this strategic anxiety has intensified under the current US administration. “Japanese planners are operating under immense pressure to keep US President Donald Trump fully committed to regional security, even as Washington signals potential adjustments to its military posture, including reductions in joint exercises with South Korea,” he noted. “To build a broader network of deterrence, Tokyo is actively cultivating overlapping bilateral and trilateral security partnerships with Australia, the Philippines, India, and South Korea, aiming to anchor US power within the region.”
“Constitutional limits restrict Japanese forces to purely defensive operations”
Addressing whether growing regional friction could lead to direct military confrontations, Gonultas pointed to the legal constraints governing Japan’s Self-Defense Forces.
“The likelihood of Japan initiating or engaging in direct offensive conflict remains minimal,” Gonultas stated. “Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution explicitly renounces war and prohibits the maintenance of offensive war potential. All military assets held by Japan are structured strictly for self-defense, meaning operational force can only be applied after Japanese territory sustains an explicit attack.”
“When Prime Minister Takaichi previously stated that Japan would protect Taiwan in the event of an invasion, any operational support would realistically be limited to logistics, non-combatant evacuation operations, and naval resupply missions for US forces, rather than direct front-line engagement,” Gonultas explained. “Although Takaichi favors constitutional revision, the Japanese public remains overwhelmingly pacifist and deeply attached to Article 9, driven by demographic aging, historical memory, and a profound fear of military escalation.”
“Turkiye is viewed as a reliable and capable defense partner”
Highlighting expanding diplomatic and industrial engagement between Ankara and Tokyo, Gonultas noted that defense procurement and technological cooperation have gained significant momentum.
“Following high-level diplomatic engagements, including Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan’s official visit to Tokyo and subsequent defense agreements signed at the SAHA EXPO defense exhibition, bilateral security cooperation has entered a concrete phase,” Gonultas said. “Japan is actively seeking to acquire drone technology. Importantly, Tokyo does not merely wish to purchase off-the-shelf equipment; it seeks technology transfers and co-production frameworks to understand manufacturing methodologies. Ankara has demonstrated a positive reception to these discussions.”
“Turkiye is viewed in Tokyo as a reliable, highly capable defense actor and a non-aggressive diplomatic mediator,” Gonultas added. “With negative public perception toward Israel reaching 80% in Japan, Tokyo has deliberately diversified its defense partnerships away from Tel Aviv, placing increased value on its historical alliance with Turkiye.”
Gonultas further observed that diplomatic coordination extends into Central Asia. “Japanese Deputy Foreign Minister Eri Arfia, who is of Uyghur origin and fluent in Turkish, visited Istanbul and met with representatives of the Organization of Turkic States, expressing Japan’s interest in securing observer status,” Gonultas explained. “Tokyo views Turkiye as a vital bridge to Middle Eastern energy stability and Central Asian critical mineral supply chains.”
“Takaichi’s public approval ratings have dropped toward 50%”
Analysing domestic political dynamics, Gonultas reported that Prime Minister Takaichi faces mounting economic pressures that threaten her initial political momentum.
“While Prime Minister Takaichi entered office with approval ratings approaching 70%, recent surveys show public support dropping toward 50%, with some independent polls placing approval near 40%,” Gonultas stated. “The primary driver behind this decline is economic dissatisfaction. Despite state interventions to stabilize the yen around 170 per US dollar following energy price surges caused by the Iran conflict, living costs remain elevated.”
“Voters supported Takaichi expecting structural economic revitalization, but the administration has heavily prioritized ideological and administrative initiatives—such as designating Osaka as a secondary capital alongside its coalition partner, the Japan Innovation Party, enacting national flag protection laws, and tightening permanent residency requirements for foreign workers,” Gonultas explained. “Although the government plans to cut consumption taxes on food items from 8% to 1%, prominent figures within her own Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), including former Prime Minister Ishiba and veteran leader Taro Aso, have publicly questioned the fiscal viability of these plans.”
Concurrently, economic authorities face severe macroeconomic challenges following joint currency interventions by the US and Japan. “While joint interventions successfully halted the chaotic depreciation of the yen beyond the 170 threshold, Japanese government bond yields recently hit 30-year highs of approximately 3%,” Gonultas noted. “To offset inflationary pressures on households, the government has facilitated a 5% average wage increase—the highest in recent decades—while coordinating with Washington to maintain exchange rate stability.”
Concluding his evaluation of Tokyo’s regional policy, Gonultas noted that despite broader regional instability, Japan continues to maintain active diplomatic communication with Tehran to safeguard energy transit through the Strait of Hormuz. “Tokyo maintains functional diplomatic channels with both Washington and Tehran, leveraging its neutral diplomatic standing to support regional maritime stability and energy security,” Gonultas concluded.
Asia
Pakistan top court orders Imran Khan moved from prison to hospital
The Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that former Prime Minister Imran Khan must be transferred from prison to a hospital.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) announced on Tuesday that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had ordered the transfer of former Prime Minister Imran Khan from prison to a hospital. The ruling meets a long-standing demand from his party and family, who have voiced concerns over his health.
The 73-year-old cricketer-turned-politician has been imprisoned since August 2023, following convictions in a series of cases that he maintains were politically motivated after his removal from office in 2022.
His sons had repeatedly raised concerns over the past year regarding his deteriorating health, while his lawyers stated that he had suffered significant vision loss in his right eye during his time in detention.
PTI spokesman Zulfikar Bukhari said: “This is a welcome decision. We wish this had happened earlier so that his eye and overall health would not have deteriorated this much.”
Bukhari added: “He should remain in the hospital until all doctors are satisfied.”
Khan’s spokesman Naeem Haider Panjutha stated on X that the court had directed Khan to be moved to Shifa International Hospital within 48 hours and to remain there until 16 September.
Since being ousted from power in a no-confidence vote, Khan has faced numerous legal proceedings, including cases involving state gifts and unlawful marriage. While some convictions have been suspended or overturned, appeals against others remain pending. Khan denies the charges against him.
In February, leading figures from the global cricket community, including prominent names from across the border in India, expressed “deep concerns” over Khan’s prison conditions and demanded improved treatment for him.
PTI came to power in 2018 and retains a broad support base across key provinces. However, the party was stripped of its electoral symbol ahead of the 2024 elections, forcing its candidates to contest the polls as independents.
-
Interview6 days agoDaniel Davis warns US strategy fails against Iranian defense grid
-
Diplomacy6 days agoErdogan blocked CIA-Mossad plan for armed Kurdish uprising in Iran, report says
-
America6 days agoAIPAC super PAC pours millions into key Democratic primary races
-
Middle East6 days agoUS considers land blockade on Iran involving Türkiye and neighbours
-
Interview2 weeks agoQuincy Institute expert says the United States had no plan B
-
Opinion2 weeks agoThe U.S. Economy and NATO’s Function
-
Europe6 days agoUkraine uses British drones for long-range strikes deep inside Russia
-
America6 days agoUS-Brazil rift widens over proposed sanctions and trade tariffs
