Can the NRF Defeat the Taliban?

Last Updated: October 8, 2025

The National Resistance Front (NRF) is currently the main anti-Taliban group, operating inside Afghanistan. Its leader is Ahmad Massoud, son of late Ahmad Shah Massoud (1 Sept. 1953 - 9 Sept. 2001). According to an interview of Ahmad Massoud to CNN's Peter Bergen the NRF has currently 5,000 fighters in Afghanistan.

But before discussing the strength of the NRF vs. the Taliban, let's ask this question ChatGPT.

Ahmad Massoud (in the middle) and his supporters in Panjshir province,
Afghanistan, in July 2021, before Kabul fell to the Taliban

The question, which was asked, is "How can NRF defeat Taliban in Afghanistan?"

ChatGPT's summarizes and lists the main points:

The National Resistance Front (NRF) faces significant challenges in its efforts to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. It can consider a multifaceted strategy to challenge the Taliban in Afghanistan. Success would depend on several key factors. Here are several potential approaches:

1.         Building Alliances: The NRF can seek to form coalitions with other anti-Taliban factions, including former government forces, ethnic militias, and regional powers that may oppose Taliban rule. The alliances with other anti-Taliban groups could be both from within Afghanistan and abroad. Strength in numbers could enhance their military and political leverage.

2.         Local Support: Gaining the support of the Afghan population is crucial. By addressing the needs and grievances of local populations, the NRF can strengthen its base and legitimacy. Focusing on issues like governance, security, and economic development can help foster this support.

3.         Guerrilla Warfare: Considering the relatively weaker position of the NRF compared to the Taliban, employing guerrilla warfare tactics may be effective. This involves hit-and-run attacks, ambushes, and leveraging local knowledge of the terrain. Utilizing guerrilla tactics can make it difficult for the Taliban to maintain control. This would involve hit-and-run attacks, ambushes, and leveraging the terrain to the NRF's advantage.

4.         Intelligence Operations: Strengthening intelligence capabilities to gather information about Taliban movements and strategies can provide the NRF with a strategic edge in planning operations.

5.         International Support: Securing international support, whether through funding, political backing, or military assistance from sympathetic countries, can enhance the NRF's capabilities.

6.         Information Campaigns: Running campaigns to counter Taliban propaganda and communicate the NRF's vision and objectives to the Afghan population can help shift public sentiment.

7.         Focus on Governance: Establishing a credible governance structure in the areas they control can help to differentiate the NRF from the Taliban and win over the population.

8.         Humanitarian Efforts: Engaging in humanitarian efforts and providing aid can help build goodwill among the populace, making it more difficult for the Taliban to gain support.

9.         Negotiation and Diplomacy: While military action is one avenue, pursuing diplomatic channels to negotiate a political solution can also be critical, particularly if the conflict escalates further.

10.       Training and Resources: Building a well-trained and equipped force can improve the NRF's effectiveness in combat against the Taliban.

It's important to note that the situation in Afghanistan is complex, and many factors influence the dynamics of power. The NRF's strategy would need to be adaptable and responsive to changing circumstances on the ground.

Majority of points, namely points 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 can only be done, if there is a military power to help the NRF, financially or militarily, which is currently not the case.

Point 3:

This point is difficult for the resistance to carry out. According to insider sources Chinese intelligence helped Taliban to localize a number of resistance fighters in the past. The Taliban possess advanced weapons, which are left-overs of the USA. Taliban take revenge on the families of resistance fighters and non-combatants to put pressure on the fighters. While young non-Pashtun men get executed, their wives and daughters get raped by Taliban fighters.

Point 4:

The NRF lacks the technical capabilities and know-how for intelligence operations. They are on their own, while the Taliban enjoy the help from other countries and organizations. 

Point 5: 

It is difficult for the NRF to find allies, for the following reasons:

The situation in Afghanistan is a complex and multifaceted one, with various regional countries navigating a delicate web of interests, priorities, and values. While some may have chosen to engage with the Taliban or other extremist groups out of fear or expediency, others have maintained their own agency and autonomy in their decision-making. International relations in the modern era are characterized by a subtle balance of power and influence, with dominant nations like the United States, China, and Russia wielding significant clout. However, it would be overly simplistic to suggest that smaller countries merely follow their lead.

The Complex History of US-Pashtun Relations: The Pashtuns have long been a significant factor in the region, and the United States has had interactions with them, particularly during the Cold War era. In the 1980s, the US provided support to the mujahideen, a group of Islamist rebels that included many Pashtuns, in their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This support was a key aspect of the US's efforts to counter Soviet influence in the region and marked the beginning of a complex and often contentious relationship between the US and various Pashtun groups.

However, it is essential to note that the US is not "historically allied" to the Pashtuns. Instead, the US has formed alliances and partnerships with various groups and governments in the region, including the Pakistani government, which has its own complex relationships with the Pashtun population. In recent years, the US has been involved in conflicts in Afghanistan and Pakistan, leading to a complex web of relationships with various Pashtun groups, including the Taliban. While some Pashtun groups have received support from the US, others have been in conflict with US and coalition forces.

The story of Ahmad Shah Massoud (1 Sep 1953 - 9 Sep 2001) and the Tajik groups is a notable example of the complexities of US involvement in the region. Massoud, also known as the "Lion of Panjshir," was a key figure in the Northern Alliance, a coalition of non-Pashtun groups that resisted the Taliban's rule in the late 1990s. Although the US did not provide significant support to Massoud's group during the Cold War era, the Northern Alliance, which was founded by Massoud before he was killed by al-Qaeda terrorists, did receive some limited support in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks. However, this support was largely symbolic and did not match the level of support provided to the mujahideen during the 1980s.

The US relationship with the region and its various groups has been shaped by a complex set of factors, including Cold War rivalries, Islamist ideologies, and ethnic and tribal dynamics. The legacy of these historical interactions continues to influence the region's politics and security landscape today. As the US continues to navigate its involvement in Afghanistan and the surrounding region, it is crucial to understand the intricacies of its relationships with various groups, including the Pashtuns. For those interested in learning more about the history of US involvement in Afghanistan or the evolution of the Taliban and other regional groups, there is a wealth of information available, offering valuable insights into the complex and often tumultuous nature of the region.

The U.S. government's relationship with the Taliban and its affiliates is complex, and it's essential to separate facts from speculation. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, which ended in August 2021 under President Biden, the U.S. government did provide financial support to various organizations and entities in Afghanistan, including some that have had ties to the Taliban.

Regarding the weapons left behind, it is true that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021 resulted in a significant amount of military equipment being left in the country, which was the consequence of the rapid withdrawal.. Estimates suggest that the Taliban seized billions of dollars' worth of U.S.-supplied weapons, including small arms, ammunition, and vehicles.

As for President Trump's stance towards the Taliban and anti-Taliban resistance groups, during his presidency, he pursued a policy of negotiating with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan. In 2020, his administration signed the Doha Agreement with the Taliban, which aimed to reduce violence and facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. troops. However, the agreement was criticized for not including the Afghan government and for potentially emboldening the Taliban.

In his current term, President Trump has made varying statements on the matter, making it unclear where he stands on the issue. Furthermore, it is also unclear what his administration's policy towards anti-Taliban resistance groups is.

Russia is still traumatized by the consequences of the Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989), which resulted in the dissolving of the Soviet Union. Being uncertain about the consequences of the resistance against the Taliban, it currently prefers to have Taliban as allies instead of enemies. Nonetheless, Russia must realize finally that having the Taliban as allies is impossible for the long-term. Terrorist attacks in Russia have already increased significantly, as well as attacks in other countries in the region and the West. The main reason is the fact that the Taliban are now in power in Afghanistan.

In the late 1970s, the Soviet Union became involved in Afghanistan's internal affairs, backing communist leaders like Hafizullah Amin (1929 – 27 December 1979), a Pashtun who had earned a Master's degree in Education from Columbia University in New York City in the late 1950s. Although Amin professed to be a communist, his background and Western education suggest a more nuanced identity. During his time in the United States, Amin adopted Marxist communist ideology. However, despite his commitment to communism, Amin's Pashtun heritage and Western educational influences appear to have had a more profound impact on his perspective.

The Soviet Union provided significant financial, military, and diplomatic support to Amin's government, and he was seen as a key ally in the region. However, Amin's relationship with the Soviet Union was not without tension. He was known to be a nationalist and a strong advocate for Afghan independence, which sometimes put him at odds with Soviet interests.

In 1979, Amin's government faced significant internal unrest and opposition, and the Soviet Union became increasingly concerned about the stability of the regime. Despite their initial support for Amin, the Soviets eventually turned against him, and he was assassinated in December 1979 during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In 1979, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack in Afghanistan called Operation Storm-333. On December 27, special troops and paratroopers raided the heavily guarded Tajbeg Palace in Kabul. They killed the leader of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Amin, who had taken control of the country in a revolution the year before. This event marked the beginning of the Soviet-Afghan War.

Operation Storm-333 was a pivotal event in the lead-up to the Soviet-Afghan War. However, in the months preceding Operation Storm-333, the Soviet Union had already been increasing its military presence in Afghanistan, with thousands of military advisers and troops deployed in the country. The Soviet Union had also been providing significant financial and military aid to the communist government of Afghanistan, led by Hafizullah Amin.

The day after Operation Storm-333, on December 28, 1979, the Soviet Union launched a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan, with tens of thousands of troops pouring into the country. This marked the beginning of a long and bloody conflict that would last for nearly a decade, resulting in significant human suffering, economic costs, and geopolitical repercussions.

Der Spiegel wrote in its 1988 article: "The Americans, for their part, despite their constant demands for withdrawal, have little real interest in a quick end to the war: they are perfectly happy to humiliate the Soviet army in the Hindu Kush and let the Russians bleed there – with minimal effort on their part. Afghanistan has long since become Moscow's Vietnam."

(Original German text: "Die Amerikaner wiederum haben im Gegensatz zu ihren ständigen Abzugsforderungen kaum ein echtes Interesse an einem schnellen Ende des Krieges: Ihnen paßt es durchaus, die Sowjet-Armee im Hindukusch vorzuführen und die Russen dort - bei geringstem eigenen Einsatz - bluten zu lassen. Afghanistan ist längst zum Vietnam Moskaus geworden.")

In a seemingly ironic twist, Russia is now repeating its past mistakes by backing the Pashtun-dominated Taliban. As Russia attempts to learn from its experiences in the 1980s and avoid repeating the errors of the past, it appears to be trapped in a cycle of repetition.

Front row (from left to right): Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russian Special Representative for Afghanistan and pro-Taliban Lobbyist Zamir Kabulov during a meeting in Moscow, Russia, on October 7, 2025

By supporting the Taliban, Russia risks replicating the same mistakes that ultimately led to its downfall in Afghanistan decades ago. Despite its efforts to navigate the complex Afghan landscape with caution, Russia's actions suggest a haunting sense of déjà vu, as it becomes increasingly entangled in the same web of conflicts and alliances that have historically plagued its involvement in the region.

China, on the other hand, is a country, which wants allies, no matter the costs, and Afghanistan’s national resources. The country doesn’t care about terrorism, as long as it doesn’t affect them. Rustam Ali Seerat analyses in his article on China-Taliban relationship: "China's core interests in Afghanistan remain constant despite the Taliban regime's return to power. These interests can be categorized into three pillars: connectivity, security, and access to resources such as minerals, oil, and gas."

Seerat adds in the same article: "In September 2023, China's new ambassador presented credentials to the acting Taliban Prime Minister. On Tuesday, January 30th, China's President Xi Jinping received ambassadorial credentials from the Taliban envoy to Beijing appointed by the interim Taliban administration."

Taliban have unlimited access to the natural resources of Afghanistan. By selling them to China, they have the financial means to afford a long war. They can pay for the infrastructure, feed their fighters and pay foreign terrorists to fight for them.

Generally, the European countries and regional nations are actively engaged in shaping their own destinies, taking into account the complex realities on the ground. The Afghan conflict serves as a case in point, with regional countries faced with the difficult choices of how to engage with the Taliban, support the Afghan government, or pursue a more nuanced approach. The involvement of European countries in Afghanistan is a prime example of this dynamic. In 2001, the US-led invasion was supported by a coalition of countries, including several European nations, which contributed troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) established by the United Nations.

However, the decision of European countries to participate in the ISAF was not simply a matter of following the US lead. While it is true that the US played a significant role in shaping the international response to the Afghan conflict, European countries also had their own distinct interests and priorities in the region. Many European countries have focused on providing humanitarian and development aid to Afghanistan, and have worked to promote the country's economic and social development. This approach reflects a nuanced understanding of the complex challenges facing Afghanistan, and a recognition that military intervention alone is not sufficient to achieve lasting stability and security.

The withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan in 2021 marked a significant turning point in the conflict, and had a profound impact on the decisions of European countries. Many European countries also withdrew their troops, citing changing security situations and the need to reassess their engagement. However, it is worth noting that the decision to withdraw was not solely driven by the US withdrawal. Many European countries had already been reevaluating their engagement in Afghanistan, citing concerns about sustainability, troop risks, and the need to prioritize other security challenges in the region. Nevertheless, it is likely that had the US kept troops in Afghanistan, European and Western countries would have maintained their military presence as well, highlighting the complex interplay of interests and influences that shape international relations in the modern era.

Germany's leading role in its relation with the Taliban: In a move that has sparked concern among human rights activists, Germany has taken a leading role in engaging with the Taliban, with a delegation of senior Foreign Ministry officials recently traveling to Afghanistan to discuss the deportation of criminal migrants.

The German Interior Ministry confirmed on October 5, 2025 that "technical talks" were held with the Taliban, while a Taliban spokesperson described the meeting as "friendly and positive."

By engaging with the group, Germany has effectively broken the taboo on relations with the Taliban in Europe, paving the way for other countries to follow suit. Switzerland and Austria have already announced plans to deport criminal immigrants to Afghanistan, with the Swiss government hosting a Taliban delegation to discuss the process.

The increasing interaction between European countries and the Taliban has raised concerns among Afghan citizens and human rights activists. Many see this as a form of "whitewashing" and "legitimizing" a terrorist group, which could have far-reaching consequences. The Taliban's history of human rights abuses, particularly against women, has been well-documented, and critics argue that European countries are compromising their values by engaging with the group.

As European countries continue to engage with the Taliban, there are fears that the group will use its leverage to exert pressure and make demands. Afghan citizens are concerned that the Taliban will use coercive policies to force European countries to hand over embassies and accept their senior diplomats. The recent statements by UN officials about ISIS Khorasan's attempts to recruit soldiers in Europe have added to these concerns, raising the prospect of European countries being forced to comply with the Taliban's demands to prevent ISIS from being sent to Europe.

Germany's decision to engage with the Taliban has significant implications for European policy. By taking the lead in this area, Germany has set a precedent for other countries to follow. The German government's claim to defend human rights and women's rights in Afghanistan has been called into question, and critics argue that the country's actions are undermining its own values.

As the situation continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how European countries will balance their human rights obligations with their desire to engage with the Taliban. One thing is clear, however: Germany's leading role in shaping European policy on the Taliban has significant implications for the region and beyond.

Afghan activists are already wary of the notion that relations with the Taliban are being established under the guise of deporting criminal migrants to Afghanistan. In their view, this pretext is merely a means to an end, allowing countries to engage with the Taliban and paving the way for a broader process of recognition. Ultimately, they believe that this recognition is being driven by geo-political considerations, rather than a genuine concern for the migrants in question. By using the issue of migrant deportation as a justification for dialogue, countries may be inadvertently legitimizing the Taliban's authority and influence, which could have far-reaching consequences. Furthermore, this development has sparked concerns that the Taliban's terrorist activities and human rights abuses may be overlooked or downplayed in the pursuit of strategic interests.

Several Muslim nations, notably those in the Arabian Gulf and Pakistan, continue to provide support to the Taliban and, in some cases, even bolster their ties with the group. This is largely due to the fact that these countries share similar Islamic ideologies with the Taliban. As a result, they tend to increase their influence over the Taliban and engage in trade with them, rather than distancing themselves. Moreover, these countries also seek to utilize Afghanistan as a strategic operational base for their clandestine and illicit activities. Afghanistan's strategic location and porous borders make it an attractive haven for illicit activities. The country's instability and lack of effective governance have allowed various groups, including those with ties to the Taliban, to utilize its territory as a hub for their clandestine operations.

These activities can range from narcotics trafficking and arms smuggling to money laundering and terrorism financing. The region's proximity to major opium poppy cultivation areas, as well as its position along key trade routes, further facilitates the movement of illicit goods.

For countries with interests in these activities, maintaining a level of influence over the Taliban and the Afghan territory can be seen as a means to ensure continued access to this operational hub. This can involve providing financial, military, or diplomatic support to the Taliban, which can, in turn, perpetuate a cycle of instability and violence in the region.

It's worth noting, however, that these activities are often shrouded in secrecy, making it difficult to ascertain the full extent of the involvement of various countries or groups. Nonetheless, it is clear that the instability in Afghanistan has created an environment conducive to illicit activities, and addressing these issues will require a concerted effort from the international community.

Pakistan, which has historically been a key player in Afghan affairs, has maintained ties with the Taliban and has been accused of providing them with support. However, Pakistan's goals are multifaceted, and the country seeks to balance its relationships with various stakeholders, including the US, China, and Russia.

As a Shia Islamic republic, Iran has historically been cautious in its dealings with its Sunni neighbors, seeking to avoid conflict and maintain a delicate balance of power in the region.

Iran has pursued a policy of "strategic patience" in its dealings with the Sunni world, seeking to avoid direct confrontation and instead focusing on building alliances and influence through diplomacy and economic cooperation. This approach has allowed Iran to maintain a degree of stability and security in the region, while also pursuing its own interests and goals.

In the context of Afghanistan, Iran's engagement with the Taliban is likely driven by a desire to counterbalance the influence of Sunni extremist groups and to protect its own interests in the region. By maintaining a relationship with the Taliban, Iran may be seeking to prevent the group from becoming a proxy for its Sunni rivals, such as Saudi Arabia or the UAE, and to instead promote a more stable and secure environment in Afghanistan.

Qatar provides backing to the Taliban through multiple channels and methods. While maintaining a diplomatic facade, Qatar has been accused of secretly backing the Taliban, which can be seen as a betrayal of the United States. This perceived duplicity is particularly evident in the coverage by Al-Jazeera, a Qatari-controlled media outlet, which has been known to defend the Taliban's actions.For example, a recent report by Al-Jazeera, a media outlet that reflects the perspective of Qatar's government, states: "Bagram, a sprawling complex, was the main base for US forces in Afghanistan during the two decades of war that followed the September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington by al-Qaeda."

Additionally, the report brazenly attacks the United States: "Thousands of people were imprisoned at the site for years without charge or trial by US forces during its so-called “war on terror”, and many of them were abused or tortured."

Point 1 and 2:

The first and second points can currently be refuted as well: On several occasions, U.S. president Joe Biden claimed that Afghans did not fight enough against Taliban. Two of Biden’s main claims have been disproved already in a previous article on this blog.

Afghan civilians and civil organizations are at a significant disadvantage when it comes to resisting the Taliban, primarily due to their lack of support from professional Islamic terrorist groups and foreign intelligence agencies. This is in stark contrast to the Taliban, who receive substantial backing from numerous regional and Arab countries.

A significant portion of the Afghan population is strongly opposed to the Taliban, yet their ability to act on this sentiment is severely limited by the absence of local allies beyond the existing resistance forces. The power dynamic between the Afghan populace and the Taliban is vastly uneven, with the Taliban enjoying substantial support from other extremist organizations and like-minded countries.

This power imbalance is the primary obstacle preventing Afghan civilians from mounting an effective armed resistance against the Taliban. Without access to the necessary resources and capabilities, the average Afghan citizen is largely unable to challenge the Taliban's dominance. The lack of external support, coupled with the Taliban's entrenched position and extensive backing, makes it extremely challenging for Afghan civilians to fight for their rights and defy the Taliban's rule.

The situation in Afghanistan is indeed complex and challenging for the civilian population. The power imbalance between the Afghan people and the Taliban is a significant obstacle, making it difficult for them to mount an effective resistance. The Taliban's support from external sources, including terrorist organizations and countries with similar ideologies, further exacerbates the issue.

The lack of backing from professional Islamic terrorist groups and foreign intelligence agencies means that Afghan civilians and civil organizations are largely on their own in their struggle against the Taliban. This makes it even more challenging for them to access resources, funding, and training, which are essential for a successful resistance movement.

Moreover, the absence of local allies beyond the existing resistance forces limits the options available to Afghan civilians who are opposed to the Taliban. This scarcity of support networks and alliances hampers their ability to coordinate efforts, share resources, and develop a unified strategy to counter the Taliban's influence.

Ultimately, a lasting solution to the crisis in Afghanistan will require a multifaceted approach that addresses the root causes of the conflict, including poverty, inequality, and lack of access to education and economic opportunities. It will also require a commitment to supporting the Afghan people in their efforts to build a more just and equitable society, free from the influence of extremist groups like the Taliban.

Point 6:

The NRF's current strength lies in its effective use of media to inform the public. However, this is a challenging task since the Taliban also utilize media extensively, possessing numerous social media channels that allow them to reach a larger audience, particularly among the less educated, who are often targeted by terrorist organizations. Despite these challenges, the NRF has enhanced its presence on social media. By demonstrating effective governance in the regions it controls and providing humanitarian aid, the NRF can build a positive reputation and garner support. This approach mirrors the late Ahmad Shah Massoud's tactics, who established safe zones within Afghanistan for those fleeing the Taliban. He distinguished his group from extremist ideologies and adopted a more moderate stance, which could similarly help the NRF broaden its support base, attracting those disillusioned with the Taliban both within Afghanistan and abroad.

It is essential to raise awareness globally that the Taliban remains a terrorist organization. Some may wonder how a group like the Taliban, often perceived as simplistic, can carry out complex terrorist attacks in Western countries. The explanation lies in their collaboration with foreign intelligence agencies and other terrorist groups. Notably, Al-Qaeda, a long-standing ally of the Taliban, has demonstrated its capability to inflict widespread harm in the West, as evidenced by its past atrocities.

Ahmad Massoud has a notable connection with Shawn Ryan, a former Navy SEAL and social media influencer, to whom he granted an in-depth interview available on YouTube. Meanwhile, Michael McCaul, a high-ranking US representative, was the first to officially designate the Taliban as a terrorist organization following their takeover of Afghanistan. Shawn Ryan is credited by McCaul for helping to bring attention to the situation in Afghanistan, highlighting the importance of continued awareness and action. 

Conclusion 

The Taliban has a significant military advantage, having taken control of Afghanistan in August 2021. The terrorist group possesses a well-organized military structure, control vast territories, and have received resources and weapons, particularly from the equipment left behind by the USA. Furthermore, the Taliban has a degree of popular support in certain regions, especially among those who align with their strict interpretation of Islamic law and tribal laws, called Pashtunwali. Those regions are the Pashtun areas in the Afghan-Pakistani border.

Moreover, the Taliban receives intelligence support and combat training from foreign intelligence and terrorist groups and diplomatic support from allied countries. Taliban have Pashtun pressure groups in many countries, who propagate for them. Influential lobbying groups are present in countries such as the UK, USA, Norway, and Germany, exerting significant pressure on their respective governments. Their efforts aim to persuade these governments to provide humanitarian assistance to organizations affiliated with the Taliban and to reconsider their designation as terrorist entities.

The corruption among Afghan politicians has significantly contributed to the complexity of the situation. After fleeing to foreign countries, like the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, many of these politicians are now living in luxury, having escaped accountability for their actions. The rampant corruption, characterized by embezzlement, nepotism, and cronyism, has significantly undermined the credibility of the previous government, led by Pashtun presidents, who were installed by the US. This has created a power vacuum that the Taliban has successfully exploited to gain control. Consequently, the public has lost faith in the government's ability to effectively counter the Taliban's insurgency, rendering it increasingly ineffectual. Moreover, the pervasive corruption has allowed the Taliban to penetrate and manipulate the government, thereby consolidating their power and grip on the region.

In 2016, the former Afghan government even made a contentious decision to rehabilitate Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the founder of the Hezb-i-Islami party, despite his notorious past. Hekmatyar, a former warlord with a history of corruption and violence, was allowed to return to Kabul after years in exile under the terms of the "Hezb-i-Islami Agreement." In exchange for his return, Hekmatyar agreed to cease hostilities and support the government. However, this move was met with widespread criticism and skepticism from both Afghans and international observers. Many questioned whether Hekmatyar's past atrocities, including his role in the brutal civil war and alleged links to terrorist organizations, could be forgiven.

Furthermore, a series of similarly misguided decisions ultimately exacerbated the already precarious situation in Afghanistan, contributing to a downward spiral of instability and turmoil. Another example is the Afghan government's decision to engage in peace talks with the Taliban, which some critics argue has legitimized the group and emboldened their militant stance. The talks have also been criticized for excluding other stakeholders, such as women's groups and civil society organizations, and for failing to address the root causes of the conflict.

Despite all of this, the Taliban lack legitimacy and authenticity. Their programs are prescribed by foreign intelligence, which facilitated Taliban's gaining power. But this is also their weakness, which can enable the NRF to defeat them, as the Taliban depend on foreign help for each of their moves. The NRF represents a resistance movement that draws on local support and has the potential for asymmetric warfare. The dynamics between the two can change based on numerous factors, including international support, internal governance issues, and public sentiment.