Is Pakistan rising as a middle power?

The issue on the Korean Peninsula is not an issue between North Korea and South Korea; it is an issue between China and the United States, involving the respective capabilities and intentions of China and the United States.

The essence of logistics is national strength. Behind the question of national strength are, respectively, the United States and China. If a neutral battlefield were located midway between Israel and North Korea, it might be in a Central Asian country.

To repeat the same point: North Korea could beat Israel so badly that it would be crying out to its ancestors for help.

Middle Eastern countries have been beaten into a state of fear by Israel. On the one hand, these countries lack strong fighting spirit and combat discipline; on the other hand, they lack truly powerful support.

Countries in tropical regions, when it comes to organized military operations and fighting spirit and willpower, naturally differ greatly from countries in cold and temperate regions. Israel is only capable of bullying Middle Eastern countries.
[Edit] this is my last reply to you, as this is completely irrelevant to the thread topic.

You're literally just speaking nonsense.

You've provided me with nothing more than your feelings, and think we can just ignore reality.

You've shown me zero evidence as to how the north Koreans would deal with Israel's superior military capabilities from the get go.

Your only argument is that China would supply the DPRK. You've not mentioned how it would do so, if they'd be capable of resupplying under a constant stream of air strikes destroying those supply lines, and why the Chinese would even provide the North Koreans with its advanced weapons, which would take months and years to supply the North Koreans in any significant numbers. Meanwhile, the Israelis would be constantly destroying those systems as they come in, as we've seen on Lebanon and Syria over the last decade and a half.
 
Thats not what I meant. I meant in the past 200 years.

Eastern societies were far ahead of the West in the ancient and Medieval times.

Like Abbasids, Mughals, Ottoman, Qing China, Hindu dynastys in Southern India, etc.
Thanks for the clarification.
 
You're literally just speaking nonsense.

You've provided me with nothing more than your feelings, and think we can just ignore reality.

You've shown me zero evidence as to how the north Koreans would deal with Israel's superior military capabilities from the get go.

Your only argument is that China would supply the DPRK. You've not mentioned how it would do so, if they'd be capable of resupplying under a constant stream of air strikes destroying those supply lines, and why the Chinese would even provide the North Koreans with its advanced weapons, which would take months and years to supply the North Koreans in any significant numbers. Meanwhile, the Israelis would be constantly destroying those systems as they come in, as we've seen on Lebanon and Syria over the last decade and a half.
"made a logical and judgmental error , after it was pointed out, flew into embarrassment-driven anger.Give a superficial reason. How typical."

Open your eyes and look carefully. The battlefield is in the middle ground between North Korea and Israel.

Why would North Korea go all the way to Israel to fight Israel? Israel bullies Middle Eastern Muslim countries; it has not bullied East Asian Confucian countries.
Is this another version of the so-called logic that “I’m weak, I’ve been attacked, so every other country should help me”?
 
Last edited:
Middle Eastern countries are generally filled with a weak-power mentality.

1、 peacetime, they consider only their own interests and seek to maximize those interests, without making a serious effort to manage relations with neighboring countries or major powers. They commonly admire and fawn over Europe and the United States.
2、in wartime, the very countries attacking them are often the European and American powers they admired and fawned over during peacetime. At that point, they turn around and complain to China and Russia—countries they usually do not respect very much—asking: “Why aren’t you helping us?”
3、They lack complete industrial chains and real technological capabilities, but in order to maintain their rule, they often stage gimmicks to fool the public, creating cognitive distortions among ordinary people.

Under this weak-power mentality, the Middle East will never produce a truly strong country. Even if one occasionally emerges, it will only be a flash in the pan.
 
Middle Eastern countries are generally filled with a weak-power mentality.

In peacetime, they consider only their own interests and seek to maximize those interests, without making a serious effort to manage relations with neighboring countries or major powers. They commonly admire and fawn over Europe and the United States.
In wartime, the very countries attacking them are often the European and American powers they admired and fawned over during peacetime. At that point, they turn around and complain to China and Russia—countries they usually do not respect very much—asking: “Why aren’t you helping us?”
They lack complete industrial chains and real technological capabilities, but in order to maintain their rule, they often stage gimmicks to fool the public, creating cognitive distortions among ordinary people.

Under this weak-power mentality, the Middle East will never produce a truly strong country. Even if one occasionally emerges, it will only be a flash in the pan.

Iran and Turkey are in the Middle East and they are militarily powerful nations.
 
Iran and Turkey are in the Middle East and they are militarily powerful nations.
Is it strong? But if you think it’s strong, then that’s fine.

But at least one thing is true: good at bragging and talking big.
 
Last edited:
Pakistan is working hard to balance its relationships with competing global powers

For the better part of the last twenty years, whenever the world thought of Pakistan, the focus was usually on terrorism, political chaos and a struggling economy. Naturally, this bad press made investors nervous and left the country's diplomats with very little room to manoeuvre. Lately, however, the narrative has started to shift. Pakistan is quietly adopting a much more flexible foreign policy, working hard to balance its relationships with competing global powers.

A perfect example of this was Pakistan's role during the recent flare-ups between the United States and Iran. Even though Washington and Tehran couldn't be further apart, Pakistan actually managed to keep a working relationship with both and helped keep the lines of communication open. We shouldn't exaggerate Pakistan as a master peacemaker, but the fact that it stayed relevant - and trusted - in such a tense, polarised standoff says a lot about its diplomatic agility.

If you look at how global politics works today, a country's power isn't just measured by the size of its economy or its military. It's also about "soft power" - the ability to build trust, maintain credibility and influence outcomes. By stepping up to mediate between bitter rivals, Pakistan is showing that it can use strategic diplomacy to completely reshape how the world sees it.

On paper, Pakistan has always had the right ingredients to be a major player, or what experts call a "middle power". Just look at a map: it serves as a bridge between South and Central Asia, the Middle East and the Arabian Sea. Add in a massive military, nuclear capabilities and deep historical ties with both Western and regional powers, and the potential is obvious. For years, though, that potential was squandered. Endless political drama, poor governance and a lack of clear direction kept Pakistan from cashing in on its natural advantages.

What's working for Pakistan right now is a smart strategy of playing the middle ground. Instead of tying itself strictly to one team, it's maintaining working relationships with everyone - even countries that oppose each other. Islamabad is holding onto its deep ties with China while simultaneously keeping up its security cooperation with the US. It stays friendly with Iran, yet remains closely allied with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. In today's deeply divided world, that kind of flexibility gives Pakistan a rare and valuable diplomatic edge.


That balancing act is exactly why both Washington and Tehran were willing to let Islamabad play the middleman. Iran sees Pakistan as a neighbour with shared cultural and religious roots, including a large Shia population. Meanwhile, the US trusts Pakistan because of decades of shared military and intelligence history.

But here's the reality check: you can't survive on good diplomacy alone. Pakistan's biggest hurdle is still its economy. Years ago, Goldman Sachs predicted Pakistan could eventually become one of the world's largest economies, but the country has been unable to turn its strategic location into actual wealth. Political uncertainty and constantly changing policies have simply turned away long-term investors.

The toll of terrorism and instability over the last two decades has been devastating. While neighbouring India successfully rebranded itself as a global tech and business powerhouse, Pakistan fell behind. Realistically, Pakistan won't be able to compete economically until it gets its own house in order and creates a stable, predictable environment for business.

To keep its current diplomatic winning streak alive, Pakistan desperately needs to focus toward economic reform and its own people. That means pouring resources into education, technology and innovation. The future of global competition is going to be decided by artificial intelligence, robotics, green energy and quantum computing; Pakistan can't afford to stay stuck in traditional, older industries.

Just as importantly, the endless political infighting has to stop. Constant clashes between politicians tear down institutions and discourage investors. If the domestic chaos continues, any foreign policy wins will just slip away. National priorities - like fixing the economy and securing the country - need to be treated as long-term goals, not kegpowder for partisan bickering.

Looking ahead, the rapidly changing Middle East offers a great opportunity for Pakistan. With shifting alliances and a lot of uncertainty about America's long-term plans in the region, new diplomatic doors are opening. Pakistan can absolutely benefit from this, but only if it stays out of regional rivalries.

Right now, Pakistan is genuinely performing above its economic weight class. Through smart diplomacy and strategic positioning, it has fought its way back into the conversation as a highly relevant middle power. But this success is incredibly fragile. Unless the country can figure out how to stabilise its politics and build a strong, modern economy, these diplomatic wins might just be a flash in the pan. The challenge now is proving it has the discipline to stay at the table.


poor india.... it isolate Pakistan policy fails... as usual


To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
"made a logical and judgmental error , after it was pointed out, flew into embarrassment-driven anger.Give a superficial reason. How typical."

Open your eyes and look carefully. The battlefield is in the middle ground between North Korea and Israel.

Why would North Korea go all the way to Israel to fight Israel? Israel bullies Middle Eastern Muslim countries; it has not bullied East Asian Confucian countries.
Is this another version of the so-called logic that “I’m weak, I’ve been attacked, so every other country should help me”?
Its like im talking to a toddler who can't keep his own thoughts straight.

YOU made the comparison first, YOU justify it.

Waste of my time.
 
A "middle power" is a sovereign state that wields significant diplomatic, economic, and regional influence. It falls just below superpowers and great powers (like the US or China) in the global hierarchy, yet holds enough weight to shape international events, mediate conflicts, and build coalitions.

Key Characteristics
  • Diplomacy & Soft Power: Instead of relying on brute military force, they lean on multilateralism, conflict resolution, and international law.
    • Bridge-Building: They often act as mediators between larger, competing powers to promote global stability.
    • Niche Focus: They typically exert disproportionate influence in specific areas, such as technological innovation, international trade, or the energy transition.


Notable Examples
The classification is fluid, but these countries generally fall into two categories:
  • Traditional / Western: Countries like Canada, Australia, and South Korea that champion institutionalized global order.
  • Emerging / Global South: Influential nations like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and Türkiye that often pursue strategic independence and avoid strict alignment with any single superpower.
To explore more on how these nations navigate global relations, check out the World Economic Forum analysis or the Belfer Center intellectual framework.

Pakistan hardly meets these basic criteria.
 
Your concept of "state" is all fked up. State is its people. No boots, no institutions are above the citizens.

The people? State define which type of people can live in it. Certainly no afghandu apologist can live in Pakistan which would be possible under your understanding of state which is basically allowing citizens to be traitors. Neither state can afford to become complacent and allow low IQ masses to vote and chose suicidal option for the state.

Lets vote to denuclearize Pakistan. Lets vote to give up Kashmir. Lets vote to give up Balochistan/KPK to afgandus. The options are endless for so called people.
 
The people? State define which type of people can live in it. Certainly no afghandu apologist can live in Pakistan which would be possible under your understanding of state which is basically allowing citizens to be traitors. Neither state can afford to become complacent and allow low IQ masses to vote and chose suicidal option.

When Afgans come into this discussion?

Go and bloody read the Constitution as to how it defines the state. Its all about citizens, and their will , their decision , that all becomes to what we call the "state". No retard , low level inhabitant of GHQ is got anything to do by million miles to the state and its working.

Countries who are hijacked by vested interests, make their citizens irrelevant, endup turning into sub Sahara level of lifestyle, which we unfortunately are on our way.
 
When Afgans come into this discussion?

Go and bloody read the Constitution as to how it defines the state. Its all about citizens, and their will , their decision , that all becomes to what we call the "state". No retard , low level inhabitant of GHQ is got anything to do by million miles to the state and its working.

Countries who are hijacked by vested interests, make their citizens irrelevant, endup turning into sub Sahara level of lifestyle, which we unfortunately are on our way.

There was this Pakistani leader who ruined state relations with Saudis, Chinese, Americans but he was fully in to Afghan taliban. Later on when state machinery woke up and removed him, people voted for him. Now had state allowed low IQ masses choice to run rampant again then this thread wouldnt exist. We would probably be talking about conditions of surrendering KPk/Balochistan to Afghanistan and giving up Kashmir to India.

After all once you vote someone then he can do nothing wrong and should be allowed run state in to the ground.
 
There was this Pakistani leader who ruined state relations with Saudis, Chinese, Americans but he was fully in to Afghan taliban. Later on when state machinery woke up and removed him, people voted for him. Now had state allowed low IQ masses choice to run rampant again then this thread wouldnt exist. We would probably be talking about conditions of surrendering KPk/Balochistan to Afghanistan and giving up Kashmir to India.

After all once you vote someone then he can do nothing wrong and should be allowed run state in to the ground.

Your rambling do not matter, your opinon and self concocted stories and narrative are irrelevant, the only thing matter is what it says in constitution, and that is what state is, you dont like what you see, feel free to jump off the ship and find yourself a new nation to live among, Pakistan is not for you.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Pakistan Defence Latest

Back
Top