Why Afghanistan’s Neighbors Have Not Backed Pakistan’s Strikes on the Taliban

What happened between Pakistan and the Taliban, and why did Pakistan launch airstrikes in Afghanistan?

Pakistan and the Taliban clashed over cross-border terrorism and responsibility for attacks in Pakistan. Islamabad says armed groups operate from Afghanistan, while Kabul denies enabling them and calls Pakistan’s strikes aggression. The dispute matters because both countries share a long, disputed border that militants can cross. The Taliban also objected to repeated references to terrorism involving Afghanistan.

On September 18 and 26, terrorist attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa killed about 44 people and injured about 138. Pakistan then struck targets in Afghanistan that it believed were TTP training camps and hideouts. At the Moscow meeting, Pakistan blamed the Taliban for allowing these groups to operate freely. The Taliban demanded political negotiations instead.

The confrontation blocked a joint statement at the October 5 Moscow Format meeting. Pakistan faces threats from TTP, BLA, and ISKP, while its 2,640-kilometer border remains difficult to control. The episode shows why neighboring states favor diplomacy, though Pakistan argues military action is necessary against immediate threats.

What is the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and why does Pakistan consider it a major security threat?

The TTP is an armed Pakistani militant movement, often called the Pakistani Taliban. Pakistan considers it a major threat because it launches attacks through networks operating in Afghanistan, according to Islamabad.

On September 18 and 26, attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa killed about 44 people and injured about 138. Pakistan says TTP and associated factions used Afghan training camps and hideouts, prompting strikes against targets across the border.

Pakistan faces special vulnerability along its 2,640-kilometer Afghan border. Remote terrain, divided communities, and family ties create many routes for militants to cross. The Taliban rejects Pakistan’s accusations and calls airstrikes aggression. This dispute blocked a joint statement at the October Moscow Format meeting.

How large are the threats facing Pakistan compared with those facing China, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan?

Pakistan faces the largest and most immediate militant threat among these four countries. Its border is longest and difficult to monitor, while it faces TTP, BLA, and ISKP.

The contrast is clear in recent attacks. Pakistan suffered two deadly attacks in September, killing about 44 people and injuring 138. It then struck suspected TTP camps in Afghanistan, while Kabul denied responsibility and called the strikes aggression.

China and Uzbekistan face smaller immediate threats, favoring diplomacy over military escalation. China’s ETIM concern is reportedly dispersed, while Uzbekistan recorded only one rocket incident in 2022, causing no casualties. Tajikistan is more exposed, with 1,374 difficult kilometers; five Chinese workers died in two 2025 attacks.

Why have China, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan not backed Pakistan’s military response to militants operating from Afghanistan?

China, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan did not endorse Pakistan’s airstrikes because their borders, threats, and dealings with Kabul differ. They generally view military force as less effective than political pressure, investigations, and cooperation with the Taliban.

China’s border is only 92 kilometers, while Uzbekistan’s is 144 kilometers, with crossings tightly controlled. China says the Taliban relocated ETIM fighters, while Uzbekistan has faced only one rocket incident, in 2022. These threats appear smaller and easier to contain than Pakistan’s repeated militant crossings.

Tajikistan faces a tougher situation, sharing 1,374 kilometers of remote, mountainous border. Yet Kabul has offered help investigating attacks and arrested suspects, giving Dushanbe reasons to pursue cooperation. Pakistan’s 2,640-kilometer disputed frontier, kinship networks, and threats from TTP, BLA, and ISKP create a different scale of danger. At Moscow, these differing priorities prevented agreement on a joint statement.

How do Afghanistan’s borders with Pakistan and its northern neighbors differ, and why do those differences affect the risk of cross-border militancy?

Afghanistan’s northern borders are shorter and easier to monitor than its Pakistani frontier. That difference matters because terrain, border disputes, local ties, and militant activity shape how easily fighters cross.

Pakistan shares 2,640 kilometers with Afghanistan, where Pashtun and Baloch communities live on both sides. Afghanistan has never recognized the border, and militants exploit many routes despite fencing begun in 2017. China’s border is only 92 kilometers, crossing harsh terrain near the 5,000-meter Wakhjir Pass. Uzbekistan’s 144-kilometer border follows the Amu Darya and has one guarded crossing.

Tajikistan is the northern exception, with 1,374 kilometers of remote, mountainous border. Two attacks from Afghanistan killed five Chinese workers there in November 2025. Pakistan faces the greatest danger from the TTP, BLA, and ISKP. China’s immediate ETIM threat is smaller after reported Taliban relocation away from the border. Uzbekistan recorded only one rocket incident in 2022, without casualties. These differences explain differing responses.

What could happen if Pakistan and the Taliban cannot agree on how to stop attacks launched from Afghan soil?

If Pakistan and the Taliban cannot agree, attacks from Afghanistan could continue, followed by Pakistani military strikes. The dispute could deepen diplomatic deadlock, making regional cooperation against militant groups harder.

A recent example shows the danger. Attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on September 18 and 26 killed about 44 people and injured 138. Pakistan then struck suspected TTP training camps and hideouts in Afghanistan, while the Taliban called the strikes illegal aggression.

The October Moscow Format meeting produced no joint statement because both sides rejected terrorism-related wording. Pakistan faces a 2,640-kilometer border, disputed since Pakistan’s founding, with militants using cross-border routes. Without agreement, investigations, arrests, and pressure on the TTP may weaken, raising the risk of repeated attacks and retaliation.

Why do international law and state sovereignty generally favor negotiations and diplomatic pressure over one country carrying out military strikes inside another country?

International law generally protects each state’s sovereignty, meaning outsiders cannot use force inside it without permission. The UN system favors negotiation, investigation, and diplomatic pressure because strikes can kill civilians, widen conflict, and create retaliation. Force is usually lawful only with consent, Security Council authorization, or necessary self-defense.

Pakistan’s September attacks killed about 44 people and injured about 138 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Islamabad then struck targets in Afghanistan, saying they were TTP camps and hideouts. The Taliban called this aggression, while Pakistan blamed Afghan territory, showing why disputed evidence and sovereignty make talks safer.

At the October Moscow meeting, these differences blocked a joint statement. Pakistan shares 2,640 kilometers with Afghanistan, while militants retain routes across a disputed frontier. Diplomacy cannot guarantee quick results, but sustained pressure, investigations, and cooperation can reduce escalation without normalizing cross-border force.

Key Facts:

📌 September attacks killed about 44 and injured about 138 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

📌 Pakistan blamed Afghanistan-based TTP fighters for cross-border attacks.

📌 Pakistan shares a 2,640-kilometer, disputed border with Afghanistan.

📌 TTP is Pakistan’s main militant concern linked to attacks from Afghanistan.

📌 September attacks killed about 44 and injured about 138 in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

📌 Pakistan shares a 2,640-kilometer border where militants exploit remote routes.

📌 Pakistan’s 2,640-kilometer border is far longer than China’s 92 kilometers.