Disarmed, Deceived, Defeated: Lessons from Oslo, Ukraine, and Pakistan’s Strategic Resilience

The idea of “trust but verify” has frequently been invoked in international politics to defend collaboration between adversarial nations. However, history has often shown that powerless trust is disguised capitulation. Beyond just guns and tanks, the battlefield is also the scene of psychological warfare, political manipulation, and, most dangerous of all, the false promise of peace. The cases of Palestine under the Oslo Accords and Ukraine’s denuclearization offer sobering lessons about how strategic concessions may compromise a country’s capacity to defend itself. Pakistan’s principled approach to sovereignty and deterrence, however, especially during its tense standoff with India, shows how strategic autonomy and unshakeable commitment are essential for survival in a hostile environment.

The Oslo Accords were promoted to the world as a major step towards Middle Eastern peace when they were signed in the 1990s. In exchange for nonviolence, the accords promised ultimate statehood and resulted in the creation of the Palestinian Authority. However, the methodical disarmament of Palestinian resistance capabilities came next. The Palestinians were ordered to give up even the most basic means of self-defence, while Israel maintained its overwhelming military supremacy, including its nuclear weapons. As one side strengthened its defences while the other was constitutionally prohibited from having any, the disparity became obvious. The assurance of calm turned into a pacifying and controlling tactic.

In a similar vein, the tragedy of Ukraine serves as a harsh contemporary illustration of how disarmament under international guarantees can end in disaster. Ukraine voluntarily gave up the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal under the conditions of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in exchange for security assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom. The agreement had almost been completed when Russia seized Crimea in 2014.

By 2022, the very nation that had secured Ukraine’s borders was preparing a full-scale invasion. No NATO power physically intervened, despite statements and sanctions from the West. “Ukraine is the victim of geography and of great-power politics where might still makes right,” according to realist professor John Mearsheimer.

Both situations serve as good examples of a basic geopolitical law: unarmed countries are weaker countries. In the current world, security is something that must be gained, preserved, and protected. Agreements made under the illusion of mutual respect often mask a more cynical reality: the powerful do not negotiate peace; they enforce conditions. According to political scientist Stephen Walt, governments are more inclined to take aggressive action when they believe their enemies are weak. This “balance of threat” theory explains why the powerful manipulate international law and peace accords to erode the autonomy of the weak before striking.

Pakistan serves as a counter-example in light of this. Pakistan has opposed all bilateral and international attempts to weaken its sovereignty or jeopardize its strategic deterrence in the face of its ideologically hostile and nuclear-armed neighbour, India. Pakistan has never let outside forces dictate the parameters of its defence posture, even in the face of tremendous diplomatic and economic pressure. Early on, it was discovered that if one party has hegemonic aspirations, accords are meaningless.

One classic example of asymmetric rivalry is the relationship between India and Pakistan. India has made repeated attempts to isolate, pressure, and militarily constrain Pakistan due to its expanding economy and aspirations for regional supremacy under the “Akhand Bharat” philosophy. India has adopted an encroachment and escalation policy, which includes the revocation of Article 370 in Kashmir and many ceasefire violations along the Line of Control. Nonetheless, Pakistan has acted as a stabilizing influence thanks to its nuclear deterrent, robust conventional capabilities, and unbroken civil-military unity.

Importantly, Pakistan has managed to stay clear of the security dependence trap. In addition to investing in domestic defence capabilities like the JF-17 Thunder fighter jets and diversifying its relationships, it has refused to allow any foreign guarantee to take the place of its preparedness. Pakistan, unlike Ukraine, has never relied on the goodwill of others to secure its national security. Pakistan has remained strategically clear despite Western narratives of “responsible nuclear behaviour,” FATF demands, and IMF conditionalities: sovereignty is non-negotiable.

Operation Bunyan-un-Marsoos recently underlined Pakistan’s strong commitment to preserving its sovereignty, which was made clear in the wake of the Indian strikes under the banner of Operation Sindoor. Pakistan demonstrated its ability to successfully neutralize threats without reckless escalation by executing a precise, multi-phase military operation in response to increasing Indian provocations. To maintain regional stability, Pakistan is prepared to respond quickly to any aggression while exercising measured control, as demonstrated by this operation, which conveyed a clear strategic message.

The statement made by Thucydides in The Peloponnesian War that “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must” may come to mind. This depressing reasoning has remained constant. However, Pakistan has decided not to suffer, in contrast to the Palestinians, who were disarmed under Oslo, or the Ukrainians, who were duped under Budapest.

Pakistan’s strategy provides important lessons as new axes of power arise and the world order changes towards multipolarity. In addition to diplomacy, deterrence must be used to protect sovereignty. Yes, it is necessary to work towards peace, but never at the expense of national security. While dialogue should be encouraged, it shouldn’t be done under duress. Pakistan’s unwavering commitment to its defence is not warmongering; rather, it is wisdom in a world where betrayal is sometimes disguised as agreements and peace proposals before conflict. The message is obvious: true freedom can only be attained by those who are prepared to defend themselves.