Russian initiative to facilitate peace talks to seek an end to the 17-year-old war between the US-led coalition forces and the Taliban may not have reached a breakthrough, but has set the stage for future negotiations amongst the stakeholders. Media reports suggest that a Taliban delegation from its Qatar office participated in the event while Afghanistan was represented by a delegation of the High Peace Council (HPC) which the Afghan government described as an “unofficial delegation participating in Moscow event in its personal capacity”. While the outcome of the Moscow Talks was known, the most significant development has been the sharing of a common platform by the Taliban and Afghan delegations for the first time. Similarly, the US which till recently brushed aside any proposal of reconciliation with the Taliban shared the forum with the latter. In fact, it already has initiated a dialogue process with the Taliban since July this year and two rounds of talks have since been held, while the third round being led by the US Special envoy on Afghanistan Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad as we go to the press. There are indications that Taliban may have changed their tactics after losing power for 17 years; instead of pursing only military options Taliban seem to have realized the utility of the political talks which can ultimately accrue the desired results of bringing peace in the country. Moreover, now that they have proved their prowess to control almost half of the country and contest another 20-25 percent territory the next step, which the Americans also acknowledge, would be to find a political solution to satisfy maximum number of groups in the country. Concurrently, the Trump administration also seems to have realized that unless a rapprochement with the Taliban is reached, its growing control of the country would only embarrass the Americans. Americans also realize that Afghan Security forces lack the necessary motivation to stand on their own in case the US troops withdraw from the country. A western journalist has described present-day Afghanistan as a Swiss cheese in which holes represent the Ghani government’s position while the bulk represents the Taliban position on the ground. In such a scenario talks between major stakeholders in Afghanistan is the plausible way to save the country from further death and destruction. Pakistan, China, Iran and Russia as well as Central Asian states sharing borders with Afghanistan (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan) are emerging as a regional block to forge a common position on Afghanistan while the US, Afghanistan and India by default share identical positions. However, participation of two retired Indian ambassadors in the Moscow event was a clear indication from the Indian government that the ground realities in Afghanistan are fast changing. Moreover that pragmatism demanded avoiding the embarrassment of the mid-nineties when it put all its eggs in the erstwhile Northern Alliance’s basket. It must have also dawned upon the Indian policy makers that if US could hold talks with the Taliban because of the growing influence of the Taliban in the country then the emerging scenario in Afghanistan would favour the Taliban. In Moscow, demeanour of the Taliban must have struck the observers; unlike crude and dishevelled appearance of the nineties the Taliban delegation in Moscow gave a much sophisticated and suave look and made a pleasant impact on the audience. Although the people dealing with the Afghanistan crisis knew most of the contents of the statement made by the Taliban leader of the delegation in Moscow, it was noteworthy that he tried to dispel the impression about the Taliban movement as a non-compromising and archaic group of ruthless savages. His advocacy for women rights, including inter alia business and ownership, inheritance, education, work, choosing one’s husband, security, health, and right to good life within the confines of Islam is a change of policy from earlier practices they followed while in government. Similarly their support for polio vaccination to the children belied earlier reports that they considered it as “un-Islamic”. He also touched upon the issues of narcotics and reconstruction of Afghanistan and the need for international community’s assistance in this regard. More importantly, the Taliban leader made it clear that the Taliban did not hold an “agenda of destructive actions in other countries”. He further clarified that “in the past 17 years we have practically proved that we have not interfered in any way in other countries. Similarly, we do not allow anyone to use the soil of Afghanistan against other countries including neighbouring countries”. This should serve as Taliban’s assurance in advance to the Americans regarding their (Taliban’s) future conduct towards terrorist organizations. In the same vein the statement also demanded removal of Taliban names from the UN Security Council’s sanction committee lists adding that “Peace negotiations and sanctions list are two contradictory concepts and can’t go side by side”. The Trump administration also seems to have realized that unless a rapprochement with the Taliban is reached, its growing control of the country would only embarrass the Americans The Taliban leader also highlighted the importance of durable peace through international guarantees when he said: “Peace process needs guarantees, as without this, the provisions of the peace agreements could not be properly implemented. Therefore, the United Nations, major powers, members of the Islamic Conference and facilitating countries must guarantee implementations of the agreements.” This also symbolizes a change of heart from earlier Taliban days when they would simply ignore or scoff the international community; destruction of Buddha statues in Bamyan is a case in point. There are many speculations in political circles in Afghanistan and the US regarding the next presidential elections in April next year. President Ashraf Ghani will be seeking re-election for a five years term. However, the moot question discussed in the American strategic community, is whether such elections would be necessary when peace talks are likely to be held with the Taliban, and that the proposed presidential elections may not be a good idea. It appears that the Americans are reluctant to spend millions of dollars over presidential elections and commit its troops for elections, an exercise, which may turn out to be futile if a rapprochement is struck with the Taliban and a new set up is agreed to, by other concerned parties. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who is tasked to conduct negotiations with the Taliban, is described by the Wall Street Journal as a “man in a hurry”. He has reportedly given himself “six months to one year” to conclude his task which is widely interpreted as a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. However, whether Mr. Khalilzad would succeed to extract some guarantees from the Taliban for the existing dispensation in Kabul would be a moot point. Secondly, whether the US would seek its token presence in Afghanistan or whether Taliban would agree to such an arrangement would continue to be a point of discussion among the stakeholders. Thirdly, Taliban will have to make certain commitments regarding their future conduct in governance and external affairs, including an assurance that Afghanistan’s territory would not be allowed to be used by terrorists or any proscribed organizations. It is too early to predict the future course of action which the Afghan parties may adopt to bring peace to their war ravaged country, which has seen the longest period of death and destruction during the past four decades. However, Moscow offers a glimmer of hope to adopt a course, which can silence the guns on both sides. Lets hope it happens sooner than later. The write is a former ambassador Published in Daily Times, November 14th 2018.