South–Central Asia today stands at a critical juncture where competing geopolitical ambitions, shifting alliances, and unresolved historical grievances shape the emerging regional order. The heart of this complex landscape is Afghanistan, a country whose internal fragility has consistently echoed across its borders and shaped the policies, insecurities, and diplomatic choices of surrounding states. As relations with Afghanistan become increasingly strained, the consequences stretch far beyond bilateral irritants; they influence the collective posture of the Muslim world, they complicate Russia’s attempts to present itself as a stabilizing actor, and they invite intensified strategic maneuvers from India. For states invested in long-term stability, the moment demands clarity, restraint, and principled diplomacy, yet what is unfolding is a mixture of caution, ambition, and unresolved distrust. This column seeks to offer a commanding assessment of regional shifts and outline the implications that policymakers cannot afford to overlook.
Afghanistan’s predicament is not a sudden product of recent years, nor is it solely the outcome of foreign intervention. It is the combined result of prolonged war, fragmented governance, inconsistent partnerships, and the persistent presence of militant networks that continue to exploit institutional weaknesses. The current government in Kabul seeks legitimacy and recognition, but the path toward either is obstructed by a combination of internal administrative shortcomings and external skepticism. When regional states observe border tensions, sporadic militant activity, or the absence of inclusive governance mechanisms, their patience thins and their willingness to engage diminishes. This erosion of trust creates a cycle of isolation for Afghanistan, and a cycle of anticipatory insecurity for its neighbors. States prefer predictable partners; Afghanistan remains anything but predictable.
Yet the diplomatic strain is not uniform. Some neighbors maintain pragmatic channels, others adopt a cautious distance, and still others oscillate between cooperation and confrontation. The variance stems from differing national interests. Countries concerned primarily with border security adopt an uncompromising stance. Those seeking trade connectivity advocate engagement. Those aligning with major power blocs often shape their Afghanistan policy according to broader geopolitical alignments rather than bilateral sentiment alone. The consequence is a disjointed regional posture that deprives Afghanistan of the unified diplomatic environment it needs to gradually reintegrate into the international system.
Across the Muslim world, the Afghan question exposes a persistent dilemma: the tension between the desire for unity and the pull of national interest. Many Muslim-majority nations express rhetorical concern for Afghanistan’s humanitarian crisis, yet real-world engagement remains limited. Competing priorities dominate: economic restructuring at home, internal security pressures, and cautious foreign policies shaped by longstanding alignments with global powers. Humanitarian sympathy, while sincere, often yields to strategic prudence. And so Afghanistan finds itself without a solid bloc of Muslim support that could meaningfully influence its political or economic trajectory.
This fragmentation within the Muslim world leaves an opening for other powers to exert influence. Russia, observing both a vacuum and a threat, has moved with calculated caution. Its approach to Afghanistan is neither ideological nor moralistic; it is driven by pragmatic considerations rooted in security and regional influence. Moscow’s concerns revolve around curbing extremism, preventing instability from spilling into Central Asia, and countering the influence of Western-aligned security networks. To advance these interests, Russia participates in multilateral mechanisms, hosts diplomatic dialogues, and maintains indirect channels with Afghan authorities. But Moscow’s ambitions are constrained by its own burdens: economic strain, resource-intensive conflicts elsewhere, and a diplomatic environment that demands attention across multiple fronts. While Russia seeks to present itself as a mediator, it lacks the economic leverage and political cohesion needed to enforce or guarantee long-term stability in Afghanistan. Its role remains important, but not decisive.
India, meanwhile, sees Afghanistan through a strategic lens colored by decades of competition, proximity, and regional rivalry. Historically, India invested heavily in Afghanistan through infrastructure projects, soft power initiatives, and developmental aid. These efforts were not merely altruistic; they were intended to counterbalance the influence of rival states and secure strategic depth. The recent political shifts in Kabul, however, forced India to recalibrate. It now engages Afghanistan indirectly, through selective diplomatic channels, intelligence assessments, and cautious outreach. Regional actors perceive India’s activities with varying degrees of suspicion, believing that New Delhi may seek to shape outcomes in ways that advantage its broader strategic posture. Whether these concerns are exaggerated or reality-based is secondary; what matters is the perception. In geopolitics, perception often carries the weight of fact.
India’s strategic posture, combined with the growing mistrust between Afghanistan and several of its neighbors, contributes to an atmosphere of uncertainty. This uncertainty is amplified by the broader environment of global power competition. China maintains its own carefully calibrated relationship with Afghanistan, driven largely by economic ambitions and security concerns related to Xinjiang. The United States, though less directly engaged, continues to influence regional calculations through partnerships, sanctions policies, and intelligence assessments. Iran, Pakistan, and Central Asian states each carry their own priorities, rooted in history, ideology, and pragmatic self-interest. In this crowded field, Afghanistan is not merely a country; it is a stage upon which multiple powers attempt to script their preferred regional outcome.
The emerging risks are not theoretical—they are concrete and measurable. Security vulnerabilities persist along nearly all of Afghanistan’s borders. Refugee movements, when unmanaged, strain the resources and social fabric of neighboring states. Economic instability, exacerbated by sanctions, low liquidity, and limited trade access, prevents Afghanistan from achieving baseline social stability. When people cannot secure livelihoods, grievances intensify. When grievances intensify, extremist narratives gain traction. This dynamic should alarm every state with a stake in regional peace.
Economic vulnerabilities are equally concerning. South-Central Asia sits at the intersection of potential energy corridors, trade routes, and connectivity projects. These projects cannot flourish in an environment of diplomatic strain and security unpredictability. States with ambitions for regional connectivity know that without Afghan stability, pipeline projects, trade routes, and transit agreements will remain theoretical aspirations rather than operational realities. Afghanistan’s geography is not just a location; it is an economic artery. When that artery is blocked by instability, the entire region experiences diminished economic vitality.
The humanitarian dimension adds a further layer of urgency. Millions of Afghans face food insecurity, limited employment opportunities, and restricted access to services. International humanitarian organizations warn that a prolonged economic freeze risks creating a generational crisis. When a society’s youth see no future, they become vulnerable to exploitation. This vulnerability poses a long-term security challenge not just for Afghanistan, but for every state within the region. Humanitarian crises are not isolated events; they are catalysts for migration, internal unrest, and cross-border tension. A responsible international posture must therefore prioritize humanitarian support not as charity but as strategic stabilization.
Diplomatic polarization complicates the picture further. As global alliances harden and rival powers adopt confrontational stances, regional actors risk being pulled into competing blocs. Afghanistan, caught at the crossroads of these blocs, becomes a contested space rather than a cooperative one. In such an environment, even minor diplomatic incidents can escalate into prolonged standoffs. This is not a sustainable path for a region already burdened by historical mistrust and economic vulnerability.
What, then, is required? The region needs vision rooted in realism, not idealism. Policymakers must acknowledge that Afghanistan’s stability is not a favor to Kabul; it is a strategic necessity for the entire region. Engagement does not imply endorsement. Communication does not signify recognition. But silence and isolation guarantee one outcome: deeper instability.
Russia’s role, though limited, can yield benefits if supported by regional partners willing to collaborate on counterterrorism, border management, and economic corridors. The Muslim world must move beyond rhetorical solidarity and establish practical frameworks for humanitarian and economic engagement. India must recognize that sustainable influence is built not through covert maneuvering but through transparent, confidence-building diplomatic channels. Afghanistan’s neighbors must realize that pressure without dialogue leads to dead ends. Dialogue without realism leads to disappointment.
For Afghanistan itself, internal reform is indispensable. No state can demand trust while offering unpredictability. No government can seek legitimacy without demonstrating administrative competence and inclusive governance. Regional actors will engage more meaningfully when Kabul demonstrates stability, discipline, and a clear roadmap for governance. Until then, external skepticism will persist.
The future of South-Central Asia depends on choices made today. The region can pursue confrontation or coordination. It can adopt policies shaped by fear or policies guided by strategic maturity. It can allow external powers to dictate terms, or it can craft collective frameworks anchored in regional interests. The stakes are high: security, economic development, humanitarian well-being, and the geopolitical future of an entire region.
A commanding view of regional affairs demands candor: instability in Afghanistan is not an Afghan problem alone. It is a regional challenge with global implications. The path to stability requires sustained diplomacy, principled engagement, and a shared recognition that peace is not a passive condition; it is the outcome of deliberate and cooperative choices. The region stands at a pivotal crossroads. The direction it chooses will determine whether the coming decade is marked by progress or by prolonged uncertainty. The time to act responsibly is now, before the currents of instability become irreversible.
The writer is senior analyst and he can be reached at [email protected]
