Imran Khan Has A Point: Pakistan’s Future Should Indeed Be Tied With Russia, But Will It?

The problem is that the authorities who replaced him following the post-modern coup in early April comprise members of the pro-American school of thought instead of the multipolar one whose representatives they deposed through superficially “democratic” means.

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan expressed the belief during a recent interview with Deutsche Welle that his country’s future is tied to Russia since that commodity superpower can reliably provide affordable gas, oil, and wheat for his people. This is certainly true and should arguably end up happening, especially since there’s also a crucial geo-economic dimension to it with respect to the global systemic transition to multipolarity that the author elaborated upon in detail here. The question, however, comes down to whether it’ll actually happen or not.

The problem is that the authorities who replaced him following the post-modern coup in early April comprise members of the pro-American school of thought instead of the multipolar one whose representatives they deposed through superficially “democratic” means. The Pakistani Ambassador to Russia confirmed during the Valdai Club’s first conference on bilateral relations early last month that his country is still interested in exploring the import of Russian oil and other resources, which was followed a week after by the Russian Ambassador to Pakistan in turn confirming that talks are indeed ongoing.

From former Prime Minister Khan’s perspective, the long-term economic and strategic benefits of closely partnering with Russia far outweigh any potential consequences from the US-led West, while his replacements think the opposite and are much more sensitive to the threat of sanctions. This difference in outlook can be attributed to the ousted leader’s multipolar conservative-sovereigntist (MCS) worldview that stands in opposition to his replacement’s unipolar liberal-globalist (ULG) one. The first has grand goals in mind while the second is only concerned with immediate and narrow objectives.

This division between former Prime Minister Khan’s outlook and the post-coup authorities’ confirms that his removal was driven by the desire of some domestic forces to recalibrate Pakistan’s geostrategic trajectory at this newly accelerated phase of the global systemic transition. It wasn’t, as his replacements continue to insist, done purely out of concern to halt the country’s economic collapse while leaving the foreign policy that they inherited intact. Nevertheless, they still cling to this discredited version of attempts since acknowledging their true motives would delegitimize their rise to power.

The unresolved and increasingly intensified political crisis catalyzed by the US-facilitated post-modern coup against former Prime Minister Khan has essentially knocked Pakistan out of the geostrategic game by its own hand at this once-in-a-century opportunity to partially imprint its vision onto the regional dimension of the global systemic transition. Even if the country gets back on track by resuming its previous MCS grand strategy, it’s already lost tremendous strategic ground relative to its Indian and Iranian neighbors, yet it would still be altogether better than continuing along its present trajectory.