Asia
Does US have an alternative to the Taliban?
Two decades ago, NATO forces led by the United States entered Afghanistan to dismantle al-Qaeda. At that time, the main target for the United States was the al-Qaeda group led by Osama bin Laden, not the Taliban – but because the Taliban did not hand Osama over to the US, the Taliban still became the US target. Although some Taliban leaders at the time opposed this decision by the group’s previous leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, the main decision-maker was the leader himself.
According to American experts, the likelihood of NATO’s war in Afghanistan being prolonged was low; but the war continued and, in addition to material losses, it also caused human losses for NATO. After more than twenty years, the United States and the West decided to end this war and prevent financial costs and casualties of their military forces in Afghanistan.
In addition, as the Taliban were not the main target of the US presence in Afghanistan, there were also differences among American officials about eradicating the Taliban from the geography of Afghanistan. For this reason, the ground was prepared for the Taliban to flee to Pakistan. Pakistan’s ISI served as a guiding light for the US on how to deal with the Taliban. This guidance was also true for the Mujahideen leaders.
The US and Pakistan maintain an opposition and alternative bloc for each ruling group in Afghanistan to challenge and replace the government’s rule when necessary. The relocation of Taliban leaders to the border areas of Pakistan was one of those cases, so that one day they would be brought onto the stage as pawns in the US and Pakistan’s game in Afghanistan, and as soon as they achieved their goals, they would have another group ready. In this regard, the US began negotiations with the Taliban to bring them back to power. The Taliban, as a proxy group, are moving forward with the goals and plans of the US and the guidance of the ISI.
There have been disagreements among American officials regarding the Taliban’s return to power, with American senators occasionally expressing their dissatisfaction openly; however, for the Trump administration in the current situation, the Taliban are a suitable option for governance in Afghanistan for the following reasons:
First:
Trump is moving hastily in achieving his goals, and for this approach, he needs a single group that is strict and consistent in its decisions. Also, financial cost is of great importance to Trump, and the Taliban has been the cheapest group in implementing America’s plans in the region.
Second:
The Taliban opponents, many of whom are members of the former Afghan government, have spent their valuable time with the United States at this historical juncture, and there is currently no opportunity for them to play an absolute role. But this does not mean that they are eliminated from the political games of Afghanistan. Tomorrow, if the Taliban oppose the decisions of the United States even slightly, the Americans will put the groups opposing the Taliban against them.
Third:
The groups opposing the Taliban are living in a state of disorganization. They do not have a coherent plan or idea regarding their stand against the Taliban. Some talk about negotiating and engaging with the Taliban, and some talk about military confrontation; but in reality, they are pursuing their own personal and group interests. Also, the meetings they have held regarding Afghanistan have been mostly verbal in nature and no practical steps have been taken.
Fourth:
The groups opposing the Taliban are more divided among themselves than they are against the Taliban. Before they have liberated Afghanistan from the clutches of the Taliban, they are looking for the type of future system and its internal structures. Therefore, it is clear that the meetings are purely media-related. They have continued this approach for the past twenty years to stay in power and gain wealth. They also undermined their trust with their international partners. The Americans know well that if these individuals are supported again, it will not only be costly, but will also challenge America’s regional plans.
Unfortunately, the main loser in this game is the Afghan people
But the main losers in the game between the US and the Taliban are the Afghan people, who have been turned into the walking dead for more than three years under the Taliban rule and do not have access to their most basic rights. Women have been deprived of the right to education and work, and the geography of Afghanistan has been turned into a prison.
The Taliban have no domestic legitimacy, they are not capable of governing and providing social services. In addition, the level of public dissatisfaction with the Taliban government is increasing with each passing day. In the situation of oppression that the Taliban have created, the public supports any kind of uprising against this group and is trying to overthrow it. The Taliban themselves are aware of the public’s dissatisfaction with it; on this basis, they rule the country by force of arms.
Given the above, America has no alternative to the Taliban in Afghanistan. But the question that arises is – will the Taliban survive?
Given the internal disagreements within the Taliban over decision-making, it seems unlikely that the Taliban will continue to function as a unified force with a single leadership. The Taliban’s “spell of unity” may be broken unless the interests of the US and the ISI deem otherwise. Recently, the Center for Contemporary Afghan Studies in Moscow published a report from its research that suggests that another civil war awaits Afghanistan.
First, war and peace depend on the interests of America and other great powers. Supposedly, if a war is coming, it will not be between the opposition and the Taliban, but within the Taliban group, and the people will be on the opposing side of both branches of the Taliban and will try to destroy this group. In Afghanistan, any group that does not have internal legitimacy and rules with the help of foreign countries is bound to collapse sooner or later.
Ultimately, the US and other major powers do not have a suitable alternative for Afghanistan in the current situation. The Taliban, with all their problems, have been beneficial to US interests in the region and Afghanistan. But the Taliban are on a path that is contrary to the interests of the people, which is not in the interest of this group. In addition, based on the assumptions of realism on which foreign policy is based, interests take precedence over any value for the US. If America’s interests lie in the Taliban today, tomorrow perhaps a better group will be found.
Asia
South Korea emerges as major beneficiary of shifts in global arms market
Uncertainty in the global arms market, driven by the United States reassessing its relationships with allies and a broad rearmament drive across many countries, is creating major commercial opportunities for South Korea. According to an analysis published by Politico, Seoul has become the world’s fastest-growing supplier of military equipment.
The report said that large-scale conflicts around the world have created urgent demand for weapons as countries seek both to support allies and strengthen their own defenses against potential future confrontations. At the same time, changes in the US role within the global arms market have opened new opportunities for South Korean manufacturers. Statements and policy decisions by US President Donald Trump regarding NATO have led allies to question Washington’s reliability in times of crisis, increasing uncertainty across the global market. In addition, the diversion of a large share of US weapons supplies to the Middle East because of ongoing conflicts has placed further strain on already overstretched supply chains.
European countries increase purchases from South Korea
Faced with what Politico described as the Trump administration’s more distant approach toward allies, European countries in particular have accelerated arms purchases from South Korea. The publication noted that Seoul’s growing influence as a supplier has been driven largely by major defense contracts signed with Poland.
Following the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, several Eastern European capitals, including Warsaw, transferred portions of their military inventories to Kyiv, relying on German support to replenish their arsenals. However, Berlin’s slow pace in replacing allied stockpiles generated frustration across the region.
South Korea emerged as an alternative supplier during this period and became a reliable source of military equipment for Eastern European countries. Poland became Seoul’s largest customer through a $13.7 billion agreement covering the purchase of tanks, rocket launchers, self-propelled howitzers and other military equipment.
“We were originally preparing against North Korea, but now we are ready to provide these solutions to customers around the world,” said Choo Hyung-kim, head of the Security Management Institute, a defense analysis organization affiliated with South Korea’s National Assembly.
Lack of political baggage gives Seoul an advantage
Politico reported that one of the greatest advantages enjoyed by South Korean defense companies is the absence of the “political baggage” associated with major arms exporters such as the United States, China, Russia and Israel.
According to the figures cited, the combined projected revenue of South Korea’s largest defense companies, including Hanwha Group, Hyundai Rotem, LIG Nex1 and Korea Aerospace Industries, is expected to reach approximately $37 billion in 2026. That would represent a fourfold increase from their combined revenues in 2021.
Meanwhile, an official from the office of former South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol told the Yonhap news agency in 2024 that the scale of any weapons shipments to Ukraine would depend on Russia’s approach to its relationship with North Korea. Seoul later clarified that it had no plans to provide ammunition directly to Ukraine.
Asia
DeepSeek raises $7.4 billion in funding round, surpasses $50 billion valuation
Chinese artificial intelligence startup DeepSeek has raised more than 50 billion yuan ($7.4 billion) in its first funding round. According to Reuters, citing The Information, the company’s valuation has surpassed $50 billion.
The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that the capital will be used to support the costly development of advanced artificial intelligence technologies.
According to the newspaper, citing sources familiar with the matter, investors valued the company at more than $50 billion. The valuation makes DeepSeek the most valuable AI startup in China.
DeepSeek founder Liang Wenfeng reportedly owned about 90% of the company before the funding round. Liang is said to have contributed roughly $3 billion during the fundraising process, making him the largest participant in the round.
According to Reuters, the transaction was structured in an unusual way that allows Liang to retain control of the company.
Rather than investing directly in DeepSeek, investors were required to invest through a limited partnership managed by a senior executive of the startup. Under the arrangement, investors were not granted voting rights. The report also said restrictions were placed on the use of invested funds for a period of five years.
The sole exception was the China National Artificial Intelligence Industry Investment Fund. The fund reportedly invested approximately $150 million directly in DeepSeek, allowing it to retain both voting rights and full discretion over its stake.
Other major investors in the funding round included Tencent, which invested approximately $1.5 billion, and Contemporary Amperex Technology, which invested about $740 million.
Bloomberg previously described the transaction as one of the largest fundraising rounds undertaken by a Chinese startup. According to the agency, the investment marks a new stage in the efforts of leading Chinese AI companies to compete with their US rivals.
DeepSeek told prospective investors that it would prioritize foundational and transformative AI research over short-term commercialization.
Based in the Chinese city of Hangzhou, DeepSeek emerged as one of Beijing’s most prominent AI companies after unveiling a more powerful and lower-cost model more than a year ago. The WSJ reported that interest surrounding the company has accelerated AI adoption in China and increased investor appetite for domestic startups.
Liang Wenfeng has previously said he intends to continue developing open-source AI models and ultimately aims to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI). According to Bloomberg, the strategy continues an approach that has contributed to the spread of open models and influenced companies across China’s AI market, including Alibaba’s Qwen platform.
Bloomberg added that while global rivals such as OpenAI and Anthropic are exploring public offerings and revenue-generation strategies, DeepSeek has maintained its “research first” approach.
Asia
China issues white paper on global governance reform, urging support for UN-centered international system
China’s State Council Information Office on Wednesday released a white paper titled “A More Just and Equitable Global Governance: China’s Principles, Proposals and Actions.”
The white paper was issued to introduce China’s principles, proposals, and actions regarding global governance, to foster a broader consensus within the international community, to enable more effective responses to global challenges, and to build a more just and equitable global governance system.
The document states that global governance is a common endeavor concerning the well-being of all humanity, and that building a just and equitable global governance system is a shared vision long pursued by people around the world. It also emphasizes that China has always been an active participant, contributor, and builder of global governance.
According to the white paper, in the new era, Chinese President Xi Jinping has put forward the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind. Advancing a global governance system shaped on the basis of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, Xi has called for true multilateralism to promote an equal and orderly multipolar world and an economic globalization that is inclusive and beneficial for all.
In 2025, Xi proposed the Global Governance Initiative (GGI). This initiative was designed to offer China’s solutions to two urgent questions of the era: What kind of global governance system should be established, and how should global governance be reformed and improved?
The white paper notes that shortly after its introduction, the GGI received support from approximately 160 countries and international organizations, with more than 60 countries joining the Group of Friends of the Global Governance Initiative. It states that the international community is of the view that the GGI sends a clear message: to defend multilateralism, join forces, and strive for a just future.
According to the white paper, the GGI aligns with the growing trend toward greater democracy in international relations and strengthens international confidence in the practice of multilateralism. The initiative provides a clear and actionable roadmap for the improvement of global governance, injecting valuable stability and positive energy into a turbulent world.
The white paper emphasizes that China proposed the GGI to accelerate the construction of a more just and equitable global governance system. The document states that firmly defending the authority and status of the United Nations is of fundamental importance for the effective implementation of this initiative.
According to the white paper, success will also depend on major countries acting with a sense of responsibility and all nations working together in unity to bridge deficits in peace and development. It states that rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel, all countries must firmly defend the international system with the UN at its core, maintain the international order based on international law, and uphold the fundamental norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.
In addition to the preface and conclusion, the white paper consists of five chapters: “Today’s World Faces Severe and Complex Challenges,” “The Global Governance Initiative Responds to the Challenges of Our Era,” “China’s Contribution to the Development of Global Governance,” “Directing the Course of Change Toward a Bright Future,” and “Advancing Hand in Hand at a Critical Juncture in History.”
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
-
America6 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
