The most likely one is that Pakistan carefully recalibrates from its hitherto disproportionate dependence on the US back to China, albeit without worsening ties with the US, and then balances China with Turkiye as co-patrons.
Pakistan finds that dependence on USA is not necessary. There are many alternatives, China, Russia, Turkiye ,Iran. Just take the partner that suits you best as the occassion changes.
I've been writing about recent reports of an "Islamic NATO" over the past month and hyperlinked to all the relevant news items in this piece at the time:
Both are within Egypt's sphere of influence and increasingly Turkiye's as well, so putting it all together, there's a new convergence of interest between all these major countries.
Even if they don't formalize an "Islamic NATO", they're already clearly coordinating policy in Libya, Sudan, and Somalia, and this informal format can continue into the future.
That's what I mean by an "Islamic NATO", a policy-coordinating framework (formal or not) between the leading (Sunni) Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Egypt.
Thank you Andrew, it's what I thought, a Muslim tight alliance. What I didn't understand, was "NATO".
I didn't understand this precision because for me it has two meanings:
1: tight and very multi-integrated alliance offering a civilisational model
Or
2: the same but leaded by USA for USA and the comprador class of vassals.
You mean 1 or 2?
The difference is fundamental.
In the option 1 , this alliance would not be dangerous for China and Russia and could allow a new strong force in multipolarity and a great stabilisation of middle east, east Africa and central Asia. But it would be a deadly danger for USA and Europe.
In option 2. This alliance will be a deadly danger for Russia and China and a later a big danger for USA
I personally consider it to be both a possibly emerging civilizational bloc and an instrument of the US' divide-and-rule policy since it simultaneously exert influence at the tricontinental crossroads of Afro-Eurasia.
I'm surprised that USA doesn't perceive the danger. Middle-easterns are not like Europeans.
Europeans are westerners so straight and easily legible and manipulable. USA made them believe that UE could be the way for a continental sovereignty and even a challenger for USA itself. What a irony, it was just a way to definitely break the state-nations sovereignty and to rule completely the whole UE.
But folks from middle-east are much more ambiguous and convoluted. More than 10000 years of civilisation, a lot of imperial oppression. Each time, for millenniums, they are invaded by a new young people with the strength of barbarians, and each time, middle east corrupt that invader, patiently, to death.
They corrupted Ottoman empire, and before, the two Roman empires empire, and before, the Macedonian empire, and before, the Babylonian empire and before ect...
One can imagine that they will be able to succeed where Europeans failed. At the beginning , USA respected and even admired Europe. And USA despise and disdain Arabs, Turks, Pakis and other middle-easterners. And when you underestimate folks like that, it's very, very dangerous.
It's not yet institutionalized, and might never be, but all four have a growing range of shared interests in the broader "Ummah" (international Muslim community) and their pacts with one another and other countries like Libya, Sudan, and Somalia strengthen this tendency.
I don't think US can be inherently friendly to India - so they will always pivot more to Pakistan. I also think most Indians (including Modi) know this.
Pakistan finds that dependence on USA is not necessary. There are many alternatives, China, Russia, Turkiye ,Iran. Just take the partner that suits you best as the occassion changes.
Andrew, you say that Pakistan belongs to a kind of muslim NATO?
What do you mean by muslim NATO?
Thank you
I've been writing about recent reports of an "Islamic NATO" over the past month and hyperlinked to all the relevant news items in this piece at the time:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-nascent-islamic-nato-might-soon
For your convenience and others, the basis of this bloc is last September's mutual defense agreement between nuclear-armed Pakistan and Saudi Arabia:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-saudi-pak-mutual-defense-pact
This was followed by Bloomberg reporting that Turkiye wants to join it too:
https://archive.is/YbQfm
Then they reported that Saudi Arabia wants a related alliance with Egypt and Somalia:
https://archive.is/v7lY8
Pakistan, which is already de facto allied with Turkiye, has its own pact with Somalia:
https://sundayguardianlive.com/news/top-5/paks-somalia-deal-sparks-concerns-of-parallel-military-influence-in-horn-of-africa-154582/
Likewise, it reportedly reached huge arms deals with Libya and Sudan:
https://korybko.substack.com/p/pakistan-is-playing-second-fiddle
https://korybko.substack.com/p/pakistans-reportedly-planned-arms
Both are within Egypt's sphere of influence and increasingly Turkiye's as well, so putting it all together, there's a new convergence of interest between all these major countries.
Even if they don't formalize an "Islamic NATO", they're already clearly coordinating policy in Libya, Sudan, and Somalia, and this informal format can continue into the future.
That's what I mean by an "Islamic NATO", a policy-coordinating framework (formal or not) between the leading (Sunni) Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye, and Egypt.
The latest update is that Saudi Arabia just made good on its hitherto only-reported plans to clinch a security deal with Somalia:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/10/somalia-saudi-arabia-sign-agreement-on-military-cooperation
So things are moving very fast on this front, in fact, most regional folks that I follow haven't caught up yet.
Thank you Andrew, it's what I thought, a Muslim tight alliance. What I didn't understand, was "NATO".
I didn't understand this precision because for me it has two meanings:
1: tight and very multi-integrated alliance offering a civilisational model
Or
2: the same but leaded by USA for USA and the comprador class of vassals.
You mean 1 or 2?
The difference is fundamental.
In the option 1 , this alliance would not be dangerous for China and Russia and could allow a new strong force in multipolarity and a great stabilisation of middle east, east Africa and central Asia. But it would be a deadly danger for USA and Europe.
In option 2. This alliance will be a deadly danger for Russia and China and a later a big danger for USA
I personally consider it to be both a possibly emerging civilizational bloc and an instrument of the US' divide-and-rule policy since it simultaneously exert influence at the tricontinental crossroads of Afro-Eurasia.
Ha ok, so, it's really a muslim NATO.
I'm surprised that USA doesn't perceive the danger. Middle-easterns are not like Europeans.
Europeans are westerners so straight and easily legible and manipulable. USA made them believe that UE could be the way for a continental sovereignty and even a challenger for USA itself. What a irony, it was just a way to definitely break the state-nations sovereignty and to rule completely the whole UE.
But folks from middle-east are much more ambiguous and convoluted. More than 10000 years of civilisation, a lot of imperial oppression. Each time, for millenniums, they are invaded by a new young people with the strength of barbarians, and each time, middle east corrupt that invader, patiently, to death.
They corrupted Ottoman empire, and before, the two Roman empires empire, and before, the Macedonian empire, and before, the Babylonian empire and before ect...
One can imagine that they will be able to succeed where Europeans failed. At the beginning , USA respected and even admired Europe. And USA despise and disdain Arabs, Turks, Pakis and other middle-easterners. And when you underestimate folks like that, it's very, very dangerous.
Trusting them is even more dangerous.
Russia learned it those 30 last years.
It's not yet institutionalized, and might never be, but all four have a growing range of shared interests in the broader "Ummah" (international Muslim community) and their pacts with one another and other countries like Libya, Sudan, and Somalia strengthen this tendency.
Yes, surprising that USA doesn't see the danger. Much more dangerous than Russia and China united.
Those countries own more than the quarter of western economy.
I don't think US can be inherently friendly to India - so they will always pivot more to Pakistan. I also think most Indians (including Modi) know this.
Same as they always do- snivel and beg for whatever crumbs the Americans deign to toss them.