Sorry, but the Moscow Carnegie Center does not seem to get it. Which "Taliban" are they talking about? The "good" Taliban that switched the sides, and in cooperation with NATO voted for Abdullah Abdullah. In addition to that, "good" Taliban insured that the campaign of mini-terror discouraged Pashtuns to go to the elections, thereby minimizing the number of votes for Karzai. Add to this a number of ballot boxes that were "accidentally" dropped from NATO helicopters --- and in spite of this Karzai's won by a large number. In fact, it would have taken a whole lots more to make the challenger's minuscule base show any respectable number at all. To say that Taliban did not use all their force in disrupting Afghan elections is same as saying that only the "crossover" Taliban used their force to disrupt elections. The rest of Pashtun Taliban voted for Karzai. And herein lies the difference. The "imported' Taliban under control of Pakistani intelligence was asked to disrupt the elections by damaging primarily Karazai. The "native" Taliban, or better put, Afghani resistance, voted for Karzai. As the northern tribes did not support Abdullah, the northerner, it was curtains down for this strategy. I am still waiting to find some good, facts based analysis on Afghanistan on RT. Recommend highly M. K. Bhadrakumar, often published in Asia Times Online.