Trump recently turned his old bills and shone his eyes on the Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan.Speaking directly to Afghanistan: bad things will happen if you don’t return the Bagram Air Force Base. The voice just fell, and the four countries of China and Russia directly issued a joint statement against it. On the one hand, the U.S. hegemon, on the other hand, the strong rejection of regional powers.
The United States is menacing this time. Can it really recapture the base? What new changes will China, Russia, Pakistan and Iraq bring to the international situation?
Why does Trump forget about the Bagram base?
Trump is so persistent, mainly because of its geographical location.
Afghanistan, located in the heart of Central Asia, has unique advantages that could threaten Iran, Russia and China from behind.
while Bagram Air Force BaseAmerican troops in Afghanistan. The largest military hubThere were tens of thousands of soldiers.
In the view of the United States, controlling this base can be used as a springboard to check and balance China, Russia and Iran.
Trump said in a speech in Britain: The base is only an hour away from China’s nuclear weapons site.
The idea of “remembering someone else’s land” has long been preconceived, and he has previously thought about acquiring Greenland, and has also said he is interested in the Panama Canal.
Now it is pointing the finger at Afghanistan. In the final analysis, it is still the consistent hegemonic logic-if you feel strong, you can ask for other people's things casually.
Trump’s “Communications”
On September 20, Trump threatened on his social platform "Truth Social" to “If Afghanistan doesn’t return the Bagram air base to its builder, the United States, bad things will happen!!!”
Two days earlier, on September 18, when he held a press conference with British Prime Minister Stammer, he for the first time openly stated on international occasions that the United States was “preparing to take back” the Bagram base.
Trump even described the incident as “a small emergency news” and said it was a “necessary action.”
He chose to speak at this occasion, in fact, is unusual.
Not speaking within the United States, but pushing the Afghan issue to Taiwan through the European diplomatic stage.
This demonstrates that he intentionally dealt with the Bagram issue as a strategic card, not just for the domestic view.
Afghanistan refuses to give no room for negotiations
On September 18, Zakir Jalal, an official in the Foreign Ministry of the Provisional Government of Afghanistan, posted on social media X that Afghanistan and the United States really needed contact, but made it clear: “The United States cannot maintain a military presence anywhere in Afghanistan.”
This was the first direct response of the Afghan diplomatic system, consistent with the attitude of the military and the Taliban.This statement essentially blocked Trump’s way through negotiations to base.
As you can see, Afghanistan is iron hearted this time. Whether you are a threat of force or an economic temptation, there is no question of sovereignty.
Trump said at the White House that he was "negotiating" with Afghanistan, but looking at the response of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was more like he was singing a one-man show alone.
Afghan military officials have also expressed their position through several channels.
On September 21, General Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Carrie Fassyhtin said: “Cutting down an inch of land is unthinkable.”
On the same day, Deputy Defense Secretary Yakub Mujahid also mentioned the 2020 Doha Agreement, emphasizing the U.S. pledge of the year to no longer threaten Afghan sovereignty.
He also said that the Taliban had told the United States before the withdrawal of U.S. troops in 2021, if the U.S. had to leave its bases, the Afghans would not be able to do so. "Ready to fight for another 20 years".
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid also stressed online that independence and territorial integrity are red lines, and it is impossible to give in.
From diplomacy to the military, from the previous agreement to the current position, Afghanistan has made the attitude of rejection clear.
China responded twice: pointing directly to the U.S. in hype
On September 19, China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Sword responded to Trump's remarks at a press conference.
China respects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Afghanistan, and the future of Afghanistan should be in the hands of the Afghan people.
On September 26th, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun responded again.
He said that the foreign ministers of China, Russia, Pakistan and Iraq met in New York and issued a joint statement emphasizing the need to respect Afghan sovereignty.
The statement “fullly embodies the respect of neighboring countries for Afghan national dignity” and China is willing to continue to help Afghanistan in peaceful reconstruction.
The two responses are focused on each other: one is the principled position, one is the combination of multinational joint actions, and we can see that China's diplomatic rhythm in this matter and the response mindset are very clear.
Even in the United States, this is unrealistic.
Trump's whim has also caused quite a controversy at home.
Reuters interviewed several current and former U.S. officials, many of whom felt Trump’s ideas were unrealistic.
To regain the Bagram base, at least 10,000 soldiers must be dispatched and equipped with a full set of air defense systems, which is similar to “an invasion of Afghanistan once more.”
A former senior defense official also said directly that the “geographical superiority” that Trump has always emphasized has little practical military value. The risk of recovering the base is far greater than the benefits that can be gained.
It can also be seen that even within the United States, there are not many people who support Trump's tough approach.
Not only because the cost is too high, but also because the hasty withdrawal of US troops during the Biden era has not yet passed. American society is clearly opposed to the mud of the war in Afghanistan again.
conclusion
Trump’s common methods are two: Either coercion or inducement.
But the old fight between Afghanistan and the U.S. military is too deep, and both roads are difficult to go.
If the United States insists on sending troops, it will definitely fall into the quagmire of war again. And using interests to tempt is of no use to the Taliban, because the core is sovereignty, not money.
Trump’s “communication” is more like a political gesture.He wants to show strong to the domestic, to make codes to the outside, but actually can do is far from being so strong.