As the Taliban marked the fourth anniversary of their return to power, their official celebrations in Kabul passed without a single congratulatory message from any foreign government—not even from Russia, the only country to have formally recognized the group. The conspicuous silence reflects a deep diplomatic unease and highlights the symbolic limits of international engagement with the Taliban.
The absence of even a token acknowledgment from Moscow, despite the Russian Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year to remove the Taliban from its list of banned organizations, underscores the ambiguity and internal contradictions in Russia’s policy. Deeyar TV has found that the Taliban still appear on the National Anti-Terrorism Committee’s list of terrorist groups in Russia, revealing a significant legal and bureaucratic disconnect.
The ambiguity was further illustrated by a recent legal controversy in Moscow. On August 6, Russian lawyer Alexander Molokhov announced that the Ministry of Justice was seeking to revoke his license for offering to represent the Taliban in court earlier this year. According to Molokhov, he presented a power of attorney to the Russian Supreme Court in April but was barred from participating in the proceedings. The Moscow Bar Association will decide on the case within a month, with potential consequences ranging from a formal warning to full disbarment.
While the Supreme Court suspended the Taliban’s designation as a banned organization starting May 20, the Molokhov case reveals that Russia’s legal and political establishment is far from unified on how to treat the group. The contradiction—between formal legal decisions and professional sanctions for those acting on them—speaks to the unresolved and precarious nature of the Taliban’s status in Russia.
The international silence on the Taliban’s fourth anniversary marks more than just a lack of congratulations. It reflects a broader refusal by the global community to bestow symbolic or political legitimacy on the regime. Even among states engaging in pragmatic or transactional dealings with the Taliban, the line between functional interaction and political recognition remains firmly drawn.
The Molokhov case in Moscow, with its legal paradoxes and political sensitivity, serves as a microcosm of the world’s broader dilemma: while diplomatic channels may quietly open, the Taliban’s full integration into the global legal and political order remains deeply contested.
