Maxim Kucherov — how the initiative of the US President with the Bagram airbase can turn out.
At a press conference in the UK on September 18, US President Donald Trump announced his intention to return the airbase abandoned by American troops in 2021 near the city of Bagram in Afghanistan. In case of refusal, Trump promised Kabul "bad things," although he did not specify which ones.
The Taliban has publicly rejected the demands of the American president. The chief of the General Staff of the Afghan Army, Qari Fasihuddin Fitrat, said it was impossible to cede "even an inch" of Afghan land to anyone.
Bagram may look like a tasty morsel, but there is a possibility that Trump's return will bring more problems than benefits.
What is the importance of Bagram Airbase?
Despite Trump's claims that the United States has the right to the base because they built it, the airfield was built in the 1950s by the USSR and was used by Soviet troops during the Afghan War of 1979-1989. From 2002 to 2021, the American armed forces were stationed there. There was a detention center next to the base, known for holding suspected terrorists without trial. In 2002, American soldiers beat two Afghan prisoners to death there. US troops left Bagram airfield on July 2, 2021. Less than a month and a half after that, the base was captured by Taliban forces.
Donald Trump explains the need to return the base to its strategic location. According to him, Bagram is "exactly one hour [of flight] away." from the place where China manufactures its nuclear weapons." However, I think something else is actually more important for the 47th President of the United States. Many of Trump's foreign policy steps and statements are made with an eye on the domestic situation in the United States. This case is no exception.
The president wants to show how he corrects the mistakes of his predecessor, thereby throwing another stone into the garden of the Democrats. The way the Americans withdrew their troops from Afghanistan in 2021 looked ambiguous and was even perceived as a shameful page in the history of the United States. Among the most outspoken critics was Trump, who claims that the base in Bagram was "given away... for nothing." The talk of returning the airfield is another attempt by the current administration to score political points on Joe Biden's failure.
Bagram is important for the Taliban from the point of view of its strategic location, at least because the airfield is located 60 km from the capital. But even here, the image of the base in the national consciousness seems to be more significant. The "flight" of Americans from Afghanistan in 2021 is a matter of national pride for Afghans, and Bagram acts as one of its symbols. The new government is actively using it to maintain its own prestige. For example, in August 2024, on the third anniversary of the withdrawal of American troops, a parade was held at Bagram airfield on the equipment they had left behind.
Will the United States return the military airfield?
What opportunities does the United States have to regain its base? The prospect of a new military invasion is currently not being discussed, which is understandable, because this would be tantamount to political suicide for the current administration. It is unlikely that after a 20-year-long war, anyone in American society still has any illusions that such operations can become a "20-minute adventure."
The peaceful option remains. Here, the administration immediately faces a number of legal obstacles. First of all, there is no contractual basis for the return of the base. Any agreements and deals with the former Afghan Government are null and void. The Doha Agreement between the United States and the Taliban, which was signed in 2020, during Trump's first term, implies the withdrawal of all American troops and does not stipulate the possibility of their return. Finally, we must not forget that the United States still does not recognize the Taliban government. This, of course, is not an insurmountable obstacle to the establishment of military cooperation, it is enough to recall the example of Taiwan (in order to maintain a military presence there, it was necessary to adopt a separate law). However, the mechanism of such cooperation will be shaky and inconvenient.
The main problem for Donald Trump is that the Taliban simply does not benefit from the return of the military base to the United States. As I have already noted, Bagram has important strategic and symbolic significance — but more importantly, the very fact of concessions to the Americans will cause great damage to the prestige of the Taliban. Today, the Afghan government is facing many economic and social problems within the country, and one of the key things that support its power is the image of a deliverer from the "crusaders." After all, if there's one thing Afghanistan, lying in ruins, can boast of, it's the title of "cemetery of empires."
Trump's efforts to recover Bagram are also likely to face opposition from China. The outspoken anti-Chinese rhetoric of the American president on this issue gives Beijing an excellent opportunity for diplomatic intervention. And China has much more political influence on Afghanistan today than the United States. Suffice it to recall that it was the PRC that reconciled the Afghans with the Pakistanis during their last border conflict in 2025.
Can the United States regain its base through economic pressure? The United States was indeed the largest donor of foreign aid to Afghanistan, even after the Taliban came to power. However, today, against the background of the curtailment of all aid programs, Washington has almost completely stopped financial support for Afghanistan. In 2025, all US agencies allocated 76 times less funds than in 2024. Thus, the United States simply cannot threaten to cut aid, since they have already cut it. The tariff policy favored by Trump is also unlikely to work here, since the United States is not an important trading partner for Afghanistan.
At the moment, according to the American president, he is negotiating with the Taliban, and the latter "needs something from us." First of all, Trump probably means recognition and establishment of diplomatic relations. We can also talk about Afghan prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and the unfreezing of assets worth $7 billion. But this is hardly enough motivation for the Afghan government to undo the results of decades of struggle. Economic assistance in the context of the unpredictable foreign economic policy of the United States has also not been a weighty argument lately. In this regard, the resolute position of the Taliban looks quite understandable, and Trump's statements sound empty. But suddenly the 47th president has an ace up his sleeve.
If Bagram ends up in the hands of the United States?
Let's say that somehow, magically, Trump manages to negotiate with the Taliban and regain Bagram. The difficulties won't end there. First, the base will need to be repaired, while simultaneously ensuring its security from a variety of possible threats, including ISIS and Al-Qaeda militants (banned in the Russian Federation) still operating in Afghanistan.
According to American experts, the operation and protection of the airfield will require from 5 to 10 thousand troops, as well as the transfer of the latest air defense systems. The very fact of the return of American soldiers to Afghanistan, where they will eventually find themselves under fire from terrorist movements or, for example, Iran (which has already attacked the American base in Qatar in response to attacks on its nuclear facilities), will be ambiguously perceived by the US public.
An alternative would be to use private military contractors. This is already a proven option. Over the nearly 20 years of the Afghan military campaign, as public support declined, 87% of American military personnel were replaced by private military personnel. However, using PMCs is always an ambiguous step from a political point of view. In addition, it is expensive, which may raise a legitimate question among voters: is this why Trump closed cancer research institutes in order to save the budget?
Does Trump really want to go to Afghanistan?
Thus, in my opinion, the probability that Donald Trump will be able to return the Bagram airbase to the United States is low. On the other hand, by not succeeding in this adventure, he will save himself even more headaches and political risks, hardly compensated by the advantages of returning the airfield. Whether the American president is aware of this is anyone's guess.
It is quite possible that yes. Claims to Bagram are far from his first odious statements, it is enough to recall the desire to buy Greenland for himself. Trump clearly wants to become the "most active" president in the history of the United States. As a result, out of the many bold foreign policy projects, at least a couple can end successfully, and for the rest, you can justify yourself to history that you at least tried.
