Brute Diplomacy and Strategic Prudence, Lessons for Pakistan in an Age of Coercive Power

Lt Gen Rizwan Akhtar (Retired)

Publishing date: 30 October 2025

Published in: The Nation

During a recent Diwali event at the White House, U.S. President Donald Trump claimed to have prevented an India-Pakistan war through direct mediation and trade leverage, not for the first time, though. While the statement reignited Islamabad’s longstanding recognition of Trump’s earlier crisis diplomacy, it also exposed the broader reality of how great powers, especially the United States, use “coercive diplomacy” or “brute diplomacy” to influence the decisions of other states. Apart from that, third-world leadership must be aware and alert to the “constructive engagement” and “strategic accommodation”, so often used by the American Leadership. Pakistan, a responsible and rational nuclear state, did not and would not escalate any conflict to a level where irrationality prevails. However, Trump’s comments remind us that when global powers describe themselves as “peace brokers,” it often conceals an exercise in pressure politics. The United States, historically, has relied not just on diplomacy, but on “flexible deterrent options”, a blend of economic coercion, strategic signaling, and psychological leverage, designed to secure its global ambitions. Understanding how these tools operate and how to manage them is essential for countries like Pakistan, which must navigate between strategic friendship, autonomy, and external pressure.

Let us see how these flexible deterrent options play out. “Economic sanctions and trade restrictions” are among the most powerful instruments of U.S. diplomacy. They project American influence beyond borders by constraining access to global markets, finance, and technology. The United States has routinely employed these tools, whether against Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, or more recently, China, to extract concessions or punish divergence. The U.S.-China technology conflict offers a contemporary example. Washington has restricted semiconductor exports, pressured allies to exclude Chinese firms from 5G infrastructure, and used investment bans as geopolitical instruments. Such tactics blur the line between legitimate national security measures and economic warfare. For Pakistan, which faces recurring fiscal pressures and relies on diversified external linkages, these patterns underscore a critical warning – economic dependence can quickly turn into strategic vulnerability. Trade and aid can be leveraged as political instruments, and even neutral economic choices, such as oil purchases or technology imports, can invite coercive scrutiny.

U.S. coercive diplomacy often relies on the threat of military force to compel compliance. From the Cuban Missile Crisis to Iraq in 2003 and the targeted killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in 2020, Washington has demonstrated that it will employ force to shape geopolitical realities. Such actions are rarely isolated; they send global messages. The strike on Iran was a reminder that the U.S. could, and would, bypass international norms to maintain dominance. Similarly, in South Asia, the shadow of American strategic signaling, through joint exercises, arms sales, or alliance formations, has at times influenced crisis calculations. Pakistan must, therefore, understand that in regional security dynamics, power projection often masquerades as mediation. It must retain the capacity and credibility to deter coercion while projecting itself as a consistent advocate of restraint and stability.

The United States frequently links unrelated domains, defense cooperation, trade access, and diplomatic recognition into a single web of conditionality. This “linkage diplomacy” allows Washington to extract concessions on one front by applying pressure on another. A vivid example is the way Washington connects its security dialogues in Asia with economic decisions by regional states, whether on arms procurement or technology partnerships. Similarly, “wedge strategies” are used to split alliances or neutralize coalitions opposed to U.S. policy. For smaller and medium-sized states like Pakistan, this means that diplomacy is never confined to a single issue. Economic agreements, aid packages, or even humanitarian gestures can carry implicit conditions. Understanding this interconnectedness and developing internal resilience against such leverage is the key to safeguarding National Sovereignty.

Pakistan must realistically acknowledge and understand that asymmetry exists when engaging with great powers. The U.S. controls structural levers, markets, technology, currency systems, and diplomatic access that it can use to advance its interests. Recognizing asymmetry is not submission; it is clarity. It allows Pakistan to plan responses that are proactive rather than reactive. While Pakistan must avoid excessive dependence on any single global power, be it the United States, Gulf states, or Western institutions, it must also recognize that strategic diversification is not the same as strategic confusion. The country’s partnership with China remains its most reliable axis of stability and economic continuity. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) have provided Pakistan with critical infrastructure, energy security, and regional connectivity, areas where Western partners often imposed political strings.

Unlike coercive aid conditionality seen elsewhere, China’s model has largely been developmental and non-intrusive. This does not mean dependence; it signifies strategic trust grounded in mutual respect. Pakistan must, therefore, protect and strengthen this friendship as a cornerstone of its external resilience and deterrent balance in South Asia. At the same time, diversification remains crucial. Pakistan should expand its economic and diplomatic ties to Central Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and even selective Western partners; however, without compromising its core relationship with Beijing. The message must remain unequivocal: Pakistan stands with China not out of compulsion, but because their interests converge on sovereignty, stability, and peaceful development. To offend or alienate China under external inducements would be a strategic miscalculation, potentially destabilizing Pakistan’s economic foundations and its regional deterrent balance. A mature foreign policy demands balance, diversified engagement coupled with unwavering fidelity to trusted partners.

Major powers often construct narratives that cast themselves as “stabilizers” of South Asia, subtly diminishing Pakistan’s own role as a responsible actor. Claims like Trump’s, that he “averted” a war, illustrate how external actors use narrative dominance to shape perceptions of power and restraint. Pakistan must continue to reclaim ownership of its peace narrative, demonstrating that its consistent doctrine of minimum credible deterrence, responsible nuclear stewardship, and diplomatic restraint, not foreign pressure, has preserved regional stability.

Ultimately, freedom from coercion depends on internal strength. Economic resilience, fiscal reform, and technological capacity reduce exposure to external leverage. A state that cannot be easily threatened with aid cuts or market exclusions commands greater strategic respect. This is the long-term shield Pakistan must build. Therefore, we must focus on the lessons learnt and their strategic implications. Coercive diplomacy works, but only when met with weakness. Pakistan must project confidence, not confrontation, showing that while it seeks peace, it cannot be bullied. Narrative control is half the battle. Whoever controls the global perception of “peace” controls legitimacy. Pakistan’s communication must consistently highlight its record of responsible statecraft. Partnership with China is an asset, not a liability. It gives Pakistan leverage in negotiations and insulation against Western economic blackmail. Diversification and restraint are complementary. Broadening partnerships strengthens autonomy; however, stability in the China relationship anchors credibility. Sovereignty and strategic patience pay off. Coercive pressures often pass; the states that endure them without panic are the ones that ultimately negotiate from strength.

In an era when “mediation” often disguises manipulation, Pakistan must respond to great-power overtures with intelligence, patience, and clarity. The lesson of “brute diplomacy” is not cynicism; it is awareness. Power politics is real, so is national dignity. Pakistan’s path lies neither in defiance nor in deference, but in disciplined balance, diversified friendships, deep roots with China, economic resilience at home, and confident diplomacy abroad. That is how a responsible nuclear state should navigate an age of coercive power, on its own terms, with clarity of purpose and steadiness of hand.