The latest admission by Pakistan during the failed talks in Turkiye, that it has a secret agreement with a ‘foreign country’ allowing drone strikes on Afghanistan, should raise alarms far beyond the immediate border skirmish. This is not just another border flare-up; it signals a deeper strategic malaise, a severing of diplomatic legitimacy, and a severe mis-calculation on Pakistan’s part.
At the heart of the matter: Pakistan, at talks in Turkiye, reportedly told Kabul that it could not prevent drone strikes because it is bound by the agreement. Worse: it asked the Afghan delegation to recognise its ‘right’ to strike Afghan territory during Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) assaults.
In effect, Pakistan is seeking formal acceptance of an extra-legal use of force on its neighbour’s soil. For a nation that has long played both victim and actor in the war on terror, this was a stunning admission. It stripped bare Islamabad’s dependence on external powers and its eroding control over its own security narrative.
Why this matters: Sovereignty, Legitimacy and Self-Defeat
The confession reveals three things at once: Pakistan’s loss of strategic autonomy, the failure of its counter-terror policy, and the breakdown of any credible trust with Kabul. What should have been a diplomatic reset in Turkiye turned instead into a mirror held up to Pakistan’s contradictions. When a state openly admits it is tied by secret drone-strike agreements, asks another state to legitimise unilateral strikes, and sends a disorganised delegation to the negotiating table, the regional balance shifts, and not for the better.
Pakistan’s admission turns the sovereignty rubric on its head. It admits that its territory is being used as a launchpad for attacks on Afghan soil. By striking secret deals and seeking their public validation, Pakistan moves from statehood towards dependency. Its refusal to name the foreign power only deepens the loss of credibility. The optics: Pakistan is not the master of its own decisions.
Pakistan seems to believe that by funding or allowing drone strikes, it can control the TTP threat. In the past six months alone, at least a dozen drone incidents have been reported along the Durand Line, each widening mistrust between Kabul and Islamabad. But it’s betting on a short-term fix when what it needs is structural reform. Instead, it is outsourcing violence and, in doing so, increasing the risk of escalation as evidenced by the recent border clashes and the subsequent deadlock in talks.
Pakistan’s admission turns the sovereignty rubric on its head. It admits that its territory is being used as a launchpad for attacks on Afghan soil. By striking secret deals, Pakistan moves from statehood towards dependency. Its refusal to name the foreign power only deepens the loss of credibility
The Collapse of a Narrative
For years, Pakistan has accused Kabul of harbouring TTP fighters, while Afghanistan has countered that the TTP is Pakistan’s internal problem. At the Istanbul talks, those fault lines deepened. Instead of presenting a coordinated position, Pakistan’s delegation stumbled, contradicted itself, and ultimately sought retreat. It claimed it could not prevent drone strikes because ‘breaking the agreement’ was impossible. In doing so, Islamabad effectively admitted that its sovereignty is constrained by the will of another power.
The significance is enormous. This was not a battlefield slip or a leaked cable. It was an open confession that a foreign partner, unnamed but clearly powerful, has rights to conduct or authorise strikes from Pakistani soil. The identity of the Big Boss is no rocket science. The state that once prided itself on being the ‘frontline ally’ in the war on terror has now become the puppet and staging ground for an external proxy.
A Self-Inflicted Diplomatic Injury
Pakistan’s demand that Afghanistan legitimise cross-border strikes and de facto normalise a violation of sovereignty, plus its admission of the pact, derailed the trust needed for a deal. Talks hitting an impasse now means only one thing: the next stage is non-diplomatic. The Afghan side argued that the TTP is Pakistan’s internal problem, not Afghanistan’s burden. That was a diplomatic way of saying: Clean your own house.
Pakistan’s logic, however, was transactional. It sought to turn security anxiety into diplomatic leverage. It wanted to be allowed to bomb first and talk later. Such logic may win applause in domestic headlines, but it collapses in international diplomacy. You cannot claim to be a victim of terrorism while simultaneously asserting the right to use another country’s airspace as a free-fire zone.
This is more than hypocrisy; it is a strategic blunder. Every drone strike authorised under this secret pact erodes Pakistan’s credibility and pushes Afghanistan closer to hardened defiance. It also feeds the very militant networks Islamabad claims to fight, as civilian casualties and resentment rise across the border.
A fractured Pakistan, cornered in by TTP on one border, internal insurgencies in Baluchistan, PoK, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and diplomatic collapse on the other, becomes volatile and irrational. That volatility could spill into India’s western frontier through militant networks, refugee flows, and information warfare
The Regional Shockwave
While on the surface this is about Pakistan and Afghanistan, the ripples extend much further:
First, the sovereignty precedent is broken. A state admitting foreign drone strikes on neighbouring territory undermines international law norms. If this precedent is normalised, many more states will exploit similar outsized ‘right to strike’.
Second, Pakistan’s dependency is now public. Whether the foreign partner is the United States, China, or another state, the implication is that Islamabad’s security decisions are externally constrained. This dependence hollows its claims of an independent defence posture. For a nuclear-armed nation that constantly talks of ‘strategic autonomy’, this is a humiliation that cannot be easily walked back.
Third, instability on the Durand Line bleeds into the larger neighbourhood. Every cross-border clash, drone incident, or militant retaliation risks drawing in external players. The border that was Pakistan’s strategic buffer now threatens to become its most dangerous fault line.
What It Means for India
For India, this episode carries a mix of opportunity and risk. It confirms what New Delhi has long assessed: Pakistan’s internal contradictions are catching up with it. Yet an unstable Pakistan is not an Indian advantage; it is a regional challenge.
A fractured Pakistan, cornered in by TTP on one border, internal insurgencies in Baluchistan, PoK, and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and diplomatic collapse on the other, becomes volatile and irrational. That volatility could spill into India’s western frontier through militant networks, refugee flows, and information warfare. The same TTP-style radicalisation that haunts Pakistan’s northwest can find echo chambers in online ecosystems that transcend borders.
Pakistan’s confession in Turkiye was not just a diplomatic blunder; it was an admission of loss. It showed that the state, which once sought strategic depth in Afghanistan, has now lost it entirely. It revealed that Pakistan’s borders are being policed not by its own will but by its dependencies
Diplomatically, however, the moment opens space for India to strengthen its ties with Kabul. Yet the process must not be based on haste or anti-Pakistan sentiments but a long-term, balanced strategic partnership built on trust and national vision.
The Unspoken Truth
Pakistan’s confession in Turkiye was not just a diplomatic blunder; it was an admission of loss. It showed that the state, which once sought strategic depth in Afghanistan, has now lost it entirely. It revealed that Pakistan’s borders are being policed not by its own will but by its dependencies. And it confirmed that its strategy of denial and diversion has reached its limit.
Afghanistan, though bullied, did not bow and refused to legitimise attacks on its territory. The negotiations broke down, but they also made a statement bigger than that: sovereignty remains significant to the countries that struggled to regain their sovereignty. Pakistan, in its turn, has lost the distinction between statehood and subservience, allies and clients.
A state that admits foreign powers can strike from its soil is no longer in full command of its destiny. And when a nuclear-armed neighbour loses control of its own boundaries, no one in South Asia can afford to relax. South Asia doesn’t need more secrets in the sky; it needs nations that stand by their choices and own their consequences.
The author, a PVSM, AVSM, VSM has had an illustrious career spanning nearly four decades. A distinguished Armoured Corps officer, he has served in various prestigious staff and command appointments including Commander Independent Armoured Brigade, ADG PP, GOC Armoured Division and GOC Strike 1. The officer retired as DG Mechanised Forces in December 2017 during which he was the architect to initiate process for reintroduction of Light Tank and Chairman on the study on C5ISR for Indian Army. Subsequently he was Consultant MoD/OFB from 2018 to 2020. He is also a reputed defence analyst, a motivational speaker and prolific writer on matters of military, defence technology and national security. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily carry the views of Raksha Anirveda
