Russian Supreme Court removes Taliban from list of banned terrorist organizations
Russia's Supreme Court removed its designation of the Taliban as a terrorist organization, Russian state-controlled news agency TASS reported on April 17.
This decision came following a closed-door session initiated by the Prosecutor General's Office.
The Taliban, which seized power in Afghanistan in 2021 following the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces, had been classified as a terrorist organization in Russia for over two decades.
Despite its control over the country, the Taliban-led administration has not been formally recognized by any state, due to its failure to meet international commitments on human rights, governance, and counter-terrorism.
Judge Oleg Nefedov announced that the court's decision takes immediate effect and is aimed at advancing normalization of ties with Afghanistan's current de facto rulers.
Though still listed as a terrorist group until now, the Kremlin has maintained relations with Taliban officials, previously hosting them in Moscow and at events such as the 2024 St. Petersburg Economic Forum.
Trade ties between the two countries deepened over the last year, with Afghanistan being the largest importer of Russian flour in 2024.
Read also: Russia jails 4 journalists over alleged work with Navalny's foundation
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Putin's words to South Africa, as the country vows never to forget Moscow's anti-apartheid aid
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently welcomed South Africa's Deputy President, Paul Mashatile, in a meeting intended to strengthen the two countries' long-standing relationship. Russian President Putin recently met South African Deputy President Mashatile to enhance bilateral relations. Russia and South Africa form a historical bond with shared global political interests. Putin highlighted the outcome of the 2023 Africa-Russia summit and plans for joint actions until 2026. Despite modest trade numbers and distinct cultures and languages, Russia and South Africa have a long-standing connection molded by history and common global interests. During their conversation, Putin stressed the importance of their bilateral ties, adding that Russia and South Africa "share solidarity when it comes to international agenda items" and that the two countries coordinate their efforts on global platforms. "You know that following the second Africa-Russia summit that took place in 2023, here in St Petersburg, we adopted a significant package of joint documents that include the program declaration and the plan of action till 2026,' the Russian president remarked. Putin also stated that he keeps in communication with President Ramaphosa and sent his best wishes through Mashatile, as seen on Sputnik. He emphasized that improving cooperation with African nations, especially South Africa, remained a significant priority for Russia. Ties between Russia and South Africa Though Russia accounts for only 0.4% of South Africa's imports, it is overshadowed by the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. However, the two nations have a strong political relationship. Both are founding members of the BRICS alliance, working closely together on political and economic issues that threaten Western dominance. Deputy President Mashatile hailed Russia for its historical role in South Africa's independence, saying, "The people of South Africa will never forget Moscow's help in their liberation from apartheid." His sentiments are similar to those expressed by President Cyril Ramaphosa last year, who referred to Russia as a "valued ally" who stood with South Africa from the beginning of its battle. The meeting comes as South Africa relationship with the U.S hits a snag. In February, the nation declared that it was looking for additional nuclear partners, including Russia and Iran, to assist boost its nuclear energy capability. While this might boost ties with Moscow, analysts worry that it could exacerbate tensions with the United States and jeopardize current energy accords.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Russia Reacts to Trump Tactical Nuclear Bomb Report: 'Catastrophic'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Russia said the use of a tactical nuclear weapon by the U.S. in Iran would be "catastrophic" after a report that it had not been ruled out as an option for President Donald Trump, who is considering joining Israel's strikes. "There is a lot of speculation now," said Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, state news agency TASS reported. "Such a development of events would be catastrophic, but there is so much speculation that it is actually impossible to comment on it." The question is whether a bunker-buster bomb would be sufficient to destroy Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility, which is built deep into a mountain, or if it would take a tactical nuclear bomb to finish the job. The Guardian had reported that tactical nuclear weapons were considered more capable of destroying Fordow, citing unnamed defense officials, but that Trump was not presented with or considering them as an option. Later, Fox News reported that all military options were still on the table for the U.S., citing an unnamed top official, but that the military is very confident bunker-buster bombs could destroy Fordow. There has been no official comment from the U.S. about whether the use of a tactical nuclear weapon is being considered. Trump is giving himself two weeks to decide if he should strike Iran, a window of time for Tehran to avert such a fate by abandoning its nuclear program. It denies seeking to build a nuclear bomb, saying the program is for energy purposes. But Iran has enriched uranium to a level very close to that required for a bomb, and well beyond what is needed for civilian energy. Trump says Iran cannot be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. This is a developing article. Updates to follow.
3 hours ago
Appeals court lets Trump keep control of National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles
LOS ANGELES -- An appeals court on Thursday allowed President Donald Trump to keep control of National Guard troops he deployed to Los Angeles following protests over immigration raids. The decision halts a ruling from a lower court judge who found Trump acted illegally when he activated the soldiers over opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The deployment was the first by a president of a state National Guard without the governor's permission since 1965. In its decision, a three-judge panel on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded it was likely Trump lawfully exercised his authority in federalizing control of the guard. It said that while presidents don't have unfettered power to seize control of a state's guard, the Trump administration had presented enough evidence to show it had a defensible rationale for doing so, citing violent acts by protesters. 'The undisputed facts demonstrate that before the deployment of the National Guard, protesters 'pinned down' several federal officers and threw 'concrete chunks, bottles of liquid, and other objects' at the officers. Protesters also damaged federal buildings and caused the closure of at least one federal building. And a federal van was attacked by protesters who smashed in the van's windows," the court wrote. "The federal government's interest in preventing incidents like these is significant.' It also found that even if the federal government failed to notify the governor of California before federalizing the National Guard as required by law, Newsom had no power to veto the president's order. The California governor's office and the White House didn't immediately respond to emails seeking comment. The court case could have wider implications on the president's power to deploy soldiers within the United States after Trump directed immigration officials to prioritize deportations from other Democratic-run cities. Trump, a Republican, argued that the troops were necessary to restore order. Newsom, a Democrat, said the move inflamed tensions, usurped local authority and wasted resources. The protests have since appeared to be winding down. Two judges on the appeals panel were appointed by Trump during his first term. During oral arguments Tuesday, all three judges suggested that presidents have wide latitude under the federal law at issue and that courts should be reluctant to step in. The case started when Newsom sued to block Trump's command, and he won an early victory from U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer in San Francisco. Breyer found that Trump had overstepped his legal authority, which he said only allows presidents can take control during times of 'rebellion or danger of a rebellion.' 'The protests in Los Angeles fall far short of 'rebellion,'' wrote Breyer, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton and is brother to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The Trump administration, though, argued that courts can't second guess the president's decisions and quickly secured a temporary halt from the appeals court.
