Anti-Taliban Front Declares Temporary Ceasefire For Ramadan

It all started after President Trump opened by demanding an “immediate” ceasefire in the Russia-Ukraine war and warned Zelenskyy to “make peace or lose American support”. Trump claimed Russian President Vladimir Putin was ready for a deal, urging Zelenskyy to negotiate. In contrast, Zelenskyy insisted no peace talks could occur “until (Ukraine) has security guarantees” against another Russian offensive. He urged Trump to “make no compromises with a killer” (referring to Putin).

At one point, Trump bluntly told Zelenskyy, “You’re either going to make a deal or we’re out. And if we’re out, you’ll fight it out and I don’t think it’s going to be pretty.” This threat meant the U.S. would withdraw support if Ukraine didn’t pursue negotiations. Trump emphasized he didn’t want the U.S. entangled in an “endless war,” framing his stance as putting “America First.”

Vice President J.D. Vance sided firmly with Trump. Vance scolded Zelenskyy for “litigating” their dispute “in front of the media” and called him “disrespectful”. He complained that Zelenskyy hadn’t shown enough gratitude for U.S. aid, saying the Ukrainian leader failed to say “thank you” for American support. The White House later echoed this, asserting Trump and Vance were “standing up for Americans” and would not “tolerate...disrespect of America”.

Zelenskyy defended his position vigorously despite being outnumbered in the room. With arms folded in defiance, he challenged Vance on what kind of diplomacy was meant, given Putin’s track record. “What kind of diplomacy are you talking about, JD?” he asked pointedly. He also urged Trump not to compromise with Putin, stating one cannot trust a “killer”. Throughout the televised clash, Zelenskyy argued that Ukraine’s survival depended on firm opposition to Russian aggression, not a rushed peace that favors the aggressor.

By all accounts, the meeting was extraordinarily confrontational. Voices were raised as Trump and Zelenskyy shouted at each other about ending the war. The encounter was described as “heated and contentious”. It was Trump’s choice to have media present, turning a high-stakes diplomatic discussion into a public spectacle. At times Zelenskyy spoke in English (not his native language) and grew visibly frustrated, while Trump talked over him, leading to chaotic scenes.

The meeting ended abruptly. Zelenskyy was told to leave the White House early without the usual courtesies. As a result, a planned joint press conference was canceled, and a highly anticipated U.S.-Ukraine minerals deal (for joint development of Ukraine’s natural resources) was left unsigned and in limbo. This deal had been touted as a means to finance Ukraine’s reconstruction and strengthen ties.

Immediately after, Trump took to his Truth Social platform to double down on his stance. He wrote that Zelenskyy “is not ready for Peace if America is involved” and claimed Zelenskyy felt U.S. involvement gave him an advantage. Trump said Zelenskyy could “come back when he is ready for peace.” Later, departing for Florida, Trump told reporters that Zelenskyy “needs to realize he is losing the war.” He added: “He’s got to say, ‘I want to make peace.’ … He doesn’t have to stand there and say ‘Putin this, Putin that,’ all negative things.”

Zelenskyy, for his part, gave a tempered reaction after the dust settled. In a Fox News interview later that evening, when asked if his relationship with Trump could be repaired, he said “Yes, of course” and even appeared apologetic, adding, “I’m sorry for this.”. This hinted that Zelenskyy regretted how the encounter unfolded. However, he maintained Ukraine’s need for security guarantees and continued to resist any ceasefire that left Ukraine vulnerable. This interview with Fox News left some rooms for maybe that diplomatic relations with the U.S. could be salvaged despite this historic confrontation.

The White House swiftly put out its own narrative of the event. In an official post titled “Support Pours in for President Trump, VP Vance’s America First Strength," the administration framed the confrontation as a show of strength. It highlighted supportive quotes from cabinet members and senate and house representative Republicans.

The Ukrainian side did not issue a full formal readout immediately (beyond Zelenskyy’s brief media comments). However, an official in Zelenskyy’s delegation described the meeting’s collapse to Reuters, confirming Zelenskyy was ushered out early and did not sign the agreement they came for. Ukrainian officials scrambled to reassure allies, with Zelenskyy phoning European leaders after leaving the White House.

Political and Diplomatic Fallout

Within the U.S., the clash sharply divided American politicians. Supporters of Trump, mostly Republicans aligned with his “America First” view, applauded his stance. For example, Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters, “What I saw in the Oval Office was disrespectful and I don’t know if we can ever do business with Zelenskiy again”. Rep. Ralph Norman lauded Trump and Vance for “ensuring we put the American people FIRST”. They argue that Trump is forcing Ukraine to seriously seek peace and not take U.S. aid for granted.

Critics of Trump, many Democrats and some Republicans focused on national security, were alarmed. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro condemned the confrontation, saying attacking Zelenskyy “undermine[d] the safety and security of America” and noting one must remember “who started the war… there is only one answer: Russia.”. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the meeting “appalling”, warning it would “embolden Vladimir Putin” and that the U.S. “must not reward Russian aggression”. Sen. Jack Reed (Senate Armed Services ranking member) blasted the incident as “a political ambush and a shameful failure of American leadership,” saying it “does great harm to U.S. standing in the world” and only benefits Putin.

Within the international community, the European countries quickly rallied behind Zelenskyy after seeing the Oval Office spat. European leaders voiced strong support for Ukraine. Germany’s opposition leader at the time, Friedrich Merz, like the coming German Chancellor, emphasized “we must never confuse aggressor and victim in this terrible war."

France’s President Emmanuel Macron, NATO officials, and EU leaders all reached out to Zelenskyy to reassure him. The UK scheduled an emergency meeting of European leaders (with Zelenskyy attending) for the following Sunday to discuss creating a “security backstop,” essentially alternative security guarantees or aid plans, in case the U.S. pulled back support. These moves signaled that if Trump is reconsidering its support for Ukraine, Europe would step up efforts to back Zelenskyy and prevent Ukraine from being forced into a disadvantageous peace.

The implications of this development for war in Ukraine is worth putting attention. No doubt that this incident left Ukraine in a precarious spot. Zelenskyy left Washington empty-handed, without the economic deal or a solid assurance of U.S. backing. As Reuters reported, this meeting’s “disaster” drove U.S.-Ukraine relations to a new low. There were fears that Trump’s stance might translate into reduced military aid or pressure on Ukraine to negotiate on Putin’s terms, potentially weakening Ukraine’s position in the ongoing war. Ukrainian forces, meanwhile, publicly stayed resolute; Ukraine’s army chief emphasized their determination to keep fighting Russia.

News of the clash even jolted financial markets briefly. U.S. stocks dipped when headlines broke about the contentious meeting, as investors were unnerved by the public spat between two world leaders (uncertainty in geopolitics can spook markets). However, markets rebounded by day’s end as it became clear no immediate policy change (like cutting off aid that day) had occurred and “cooler heads prevailed” in trading. Still, the event underscored how closely global markets are watching the U.S.–Ukraine relationship and the war’s trajectory.

He described the move as a violation of existing protocols, emphasising that Pakistan seeks to resolve the issue through dialogue.

During a press briefing in Islamabad on Friday, Khan confirmed that Pakistan had formally raised concerns with Taliban officials and urged them to settle the matter through negotiations.

The Pakistani government has assigned various national institutions the task of jointly managing the borders to prevent unilateral actions that could compromise regional security. Pakistan insists that any establishment of a new border checkpoint must be mutually agreed upon through diplomatic discussions.

“We have informed Afghan authorities that this issue can be resolved through proper discussions,” Khan said.

Despite ongoing discussions, the Torkham border crossing remains closed for the eighth consecutive day since last Friday, following Pakistan’s decision to enforce the shutdown.

Pakistani media reports indicate that multiple rounds of negotiations between Taliban and Pakistani border officials have failed to reach an agreement on reopening the crossing.

Meanwhile, Abdul Jabbar Hikmat, the Taliban commissioner at Torkham, stated two days after the closure that Pakistan had shut the border gate in response to construction activities on the Afghan side.

At the time, he said: “We have asked the Pakistanis to explain their reasons for closing the gate and to reopen the route, but they have not responded to our request yet.”

The prolonged closure has had severe economic repercussions, with Pakistani officials estimating losses of around $12 million for traders. Reports also indicate that the shutdown has exacerbated transportation issues, leaving many traders and travellers stranded.

Torkham is a vital trade corridor, with an estimated 700 to 800 trucks crossing daily, in addition to 4,000 to 5,000 passengers travelling through the route.

The border has been frequently shut down in the past due to rising tensions between the Taliban and Pakistan. However, the current closure is reportedly inflicting substantial economic losses on both traders and passengers.

According to the report, the two sides agreed to hold a new round of China-Russia strategic security talks at an appropriate time, though details of their discussions on Afghanistan have not yet been disclosed.

Like other countries, Russia and China have not officially recognised the Taliban government. However, both nations maintain extensive diplomatic and economic ties with the group.

Shoigu previously visited Kabul in November 2024, where he held separate meetings with the Taliban’s Deputy Prime Ministers for Economic and Political Affairs, as well as the Ministers of Defence and Interior.

During his trip to China, Shoigu also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Russian media outlets have reported that Moscow and Beijing share aligned perspectives on key international issues. Shoigu emphasised that political and strategic trust between the two countries remains high and that their relationship is unaffected by external pressures.

Zabihullah Mujahid, the Taliban’s spokesperson, declared on Friday that the agreement served a specific purpose at a particular time and no longer holds significance for the group.

Speaking on Taliban-controlled Radio Television Afghanistan (RTA), Mujahid stressed that the Taliban now governs Afghanistan independently, adhering to its own principles rather than the terms outlined in the Doha Agreement.

Signed on 29 February 2020 after 18 months of negotiations in Doha, Qatar, the agreement facilitated the withdrawal of U.S.-led international forces from Afghanistan, ending two decades of conflict. Following the U.S. exit, the Afghan government collapsed, enabling the Taliban to seize power through military conquest.

In his Friday interview, Mujahid stated: “The Doha Agreement was for a particular phase, and afterwards, the Islamic Emirate assumed control. We no longer operate under this agreement; instead, we follow our own governance principles. The deal was with the Americans and concluded at that point.”

He highlighted that the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the Taliban’s pledge to prevent Afghan soil from being used against the U.S. were the agreement’s core elements.

“U.S. Failed to Fulfil Commitments”

Mujahid asserted that the Taliban has upheld its obligations, including the withdrawal of foreign forces and ensuring Afghanistan does not threaten U.S. security. However, he accused the U.S. of failing to meet its commitments, pointing to ongoing sanctions on Taliban leaders and a lack of diplomatic engagement. He urged the U.S. to honour its side of the bargain.

Late in 2024, the U.S. alleged that the Taliban had breached critical aspects of the Doha Agreement. Negotiated over 18 months, the agreement was formalised by Mullah Baradar for the Taliban and Zalmay Khalilzad for the U.S. It encompassed four key points: the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the Taliban’s commitment to cut ties with terrorist groups, the launch of intra-Afghan negotiations, and the establishment of a ceasefire.

On 12 December 2024, the U.S. State Department’s annual terrorism report claimed that the Taliban continues to shelter al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and permits the Pakistani Taliban to operate within its borders. Both groups are designated as terrorist organisations by the United States, and under the Doha Agreement, the Taliban was obliged to sever ties with them—a commitment the U.S. contends has not been fulfilled.

After signing the agreement, the Taliban refused to engage in talks with the former Afghan government and pursued a military campaign to capture cities.

While Mujahid insists the Doha Agreement is obsolete for the Taliban, he has called on the U.S. to lift sanctions on Taliban leaders.

According to a United Nations sanctions monitoring report dated 8 July 2024, 61 Taliban officials remain under international sanctions, including 35 cabinet members and senior figures. Notable sanctioned individuals include Prime Minister Mullah Hassan, Deputy Prime Minister for Economic Affairs Abdul Ghani Baradar, Deputy Prime Minister for Administrative Affairs Abdul Salam Hanafi, and Minister of Refugees Abdul Kabir. Key cabinet members such as Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, Interior Minister Sirajuddin Haqqani, intelligence chief Abdul Haq Wasiq, and others—including Ministers of Hajj, Information and Culture, Borders and Tribal Affairs, Civil Aviation, Economy, Public Works, Telecommunications, Urban Development, Energy and Water, Mines and Petroleum, and the head of the Taliban’s central bank, Noor Ahmad Agha—are also listed.

These individuals face travel bans outside Afghanistan without UN Security Council approval, and their overseas assets are frozen.

In December 2024, the UN Security Council unanimously extended the mandate of its sanctions monitoring team for another year, a decision supported by all 15 permanent and rotating members.

On Friday, the AFF announced that the attack took place on Thursday evening in the Golayi Bandar Khanabad area of Kunduz, killing four Taliban fighters and injuring two others.

Local sources told Afghanistan International that a powerful explosion occurred at around 9:30 PM local time in the provincial capital. According to these sources, the target of the attack was a Taliban military vehicle.

In a statement, the AFF said its forces ambushed the Taliban convoy as it was heading towards the village of Rustaq Abad on the outskirts of Kunduz city for a house-to-house search operation.

Taliban officials have yet to comment on the incident.

The AFF was established on 28 February 2022, shortly after the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan.

On the third anniversary of its founding, the group claimed it had conducted 87 targeted attacks against the Taliban in the past year alone. According to its statement, these operations resulted in the deaths of 229 Taliban fighters and commanders, with 166 others wounded.

Since its formation, the AFF claims to have killed 821 Taliban fighters and injured 868 others across Afghanistan.