Pakistans Policy of Neutrality in the Russia Ukraine War- Haris - Article thematic Image - Dec

Every region in the world has been affected by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war in one way or the other, whether it is Europe for its dependence on Russian gas or countries around the world that import Ukrainian food products. Apart from these, at the diplomatic level, given the United States’ influence and dominance in the international arena, all countries have to choose between siding with the West or staying neutral – opposition seemingly not being an option. Owing to the exceptional influence that the US and West enjoy, even neutrality has challenges of its own. For Pakistan, the situation has been especially precarious against the backdrop of its long history of relations with the US and the EU, which are major stakeholders in the Russia-Ukraine war. This article aims to analyse the factors, specifically in the geostrategic and geoeconomic domains that are important for Pakistan to stay neutral.    

In the initial days of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the issue emerged as an important foreign policy agenda for Pakistan since the former Prime Minister was coincidentally in Russia when the war broke out. The coincidence resulted in wider discourse and speculations. Despite this, Pakistan’s position since the start of the war has been ‘not to take sides’. It has managed to pursue a balanced and neutral policy vis-à-vis the Russia-Ukraine war till now. There could be many arguments against this approach. A leading argument could be that when Russia is reluctant to come closer to Pakistan, then why not support the US and oppose the Russian actions in Ukraine?

However, Pakistan needs to continue her policy of neutrality. Pakistan has good relations with Ukraine in various domains. In the economic domain, their bilateral trade, as of 2021 stood at USD 411.184 million. Both countries also have military-to-military relations. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Pakistan is among the biggest arms market for Ukraine with USD 1.6 billion in contracts being completed till 2020. Over 3500 Pakistani students were studying in Ukraine, who were repatriated after the war broke out in Ukraine. Both countries have also been cooperating in science and technology. Due to this, rather than become a party in the war and make another enemy or at least lose a friend; it would not be beneficial to take any side.  

In the same vein, Pakistan and Russia, while moving on from their history of the Cold War, have gradually enhanced their bilateral relations in economic and military domains. As of 2020, their bilateral trade was USD 790 million. Both countries have also talked about enhancing their industrial and energy cooperation. They have also agreed on the ‘Pakistan Stream Gas Pipeline’, an 1100 kilometres gas pipeline project that will carry 12.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually. In the military domain, their collaboration has enhanced in recent years. Pakistan acquired Mi-35 helicopters from Russia. Whereas, joint military exercises have been conducted in both countries on regular basis. Even though Pakistan wants to enhance its relations with Russia, it should not be at the cost of compromising its relations with any other country.

History has taught us that there has always been a huge cost that Pakistan had to pay when it was not neutral. For instance, during the Cold War, Pakistan had remained indulged in bloc politics for decades in the pursuit of its geostrategic interests. However, this did not result in any fruitful outcome in the longer term. Similarly, in the post-9/11 era, Pakistan supported the US as a front-line state in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in pursuit of a peaceful and stable world. Yet, the cost, both in human and economic terms, it had to pay has been enormous. It suffered the loss of 83,000 lives and an economic loss of over USD 150 billion. Moreover, despite this support and sacrifices, there has been consistent lack of trust and changing US priorities towards Pakistan. In fact, India has now emerged as an important partner for the US and a more relevant stakeholder in regional affairs. This obviously has implications for Pakistan since despite paying huge costs, it remains at the losing end.

Taking sides in the past has not resulted in any substantive and sustainable economic gain either. For instance, Pakistan-US bilateral trade, as of 2021, was USD 8.81 billion, with the US being Islamabad’s largest export market, however, the trade volume is not sufficient to balance the high import bills.

So, the bottom line is that the Russia-Ukraine War is a new theatre of international security and great power politics. The conflict is in Europe, Russia is a major power, and it is for the regional and relevant international players, who have stakes in Europe, to decide its fate. There is no point in Pakistan becoming a part of someone else’s war and indulging in bloc politics once again. History has shown that the country has been at the losing end when it actively engaged in contestation between two superpowers – it needs to draw relevant lessons. Though challenging, Pakistan needs to continue its policy of neutrality in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine War in its own national interest.       

Haris Bilal Malik is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS) in Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The West: The History of an Idea

The world is witnessing the collapse of the Western order, if not the emergence of an alternative one. The idea of ‘West’ as against the rest is still at the root of contemporary understanding of world politics. Georgios Varouxakis, a remarkable voice on Modernity and Nationalism, has provided the historical origins and modern connotations attached with the idea of ‘West’. In his book ‘The West: The History of an Idea’, Varouxakis has argued that the West is not an eternal entity, rather it is a modern socio-political construct that emerged in the political philosophy of the early 19th century and evolved with the passage of time. The book provides an in-depth historical analysis of the idea to determine the roots of its modern interpretation.

Read More »

Space-Enabled Warfare in the 21st Century: Pathways for Developing States

Space has emerged as a distinct domain of warfare alongside land, sea, air, and cyber. Developed countries like the United States, Russia, and China possess offensive and support capabilities in space. In the shadowed expanse of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), where satellites operate like silent custodians, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine transformed the nature of modern conflict. As Russian troops marched forward, the commercial satellites like Maxar and Planet, which are operated by Western firms, captured high-resolution imagery of Russian troops, providing real-time intelligence to Ukrainian commanders, unlike ever before.

Read More »

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »