Since the end of the bipolar world order, the international system has not evolved into a stable and rule bound equilibrium. Instead, it has drifted into an era marked by strategic ambiguity, fragmented authority, and the steady rise of global belligerence. The earlier balance that once regulated tensions through relatively predictable alignments has gradually weakened, giving way to a fluid and unsettled order in which power is exercised through military assertion, economic penetration, technological influence, and diplomatic manoeuvring. Institutions that once carried normative legitimacy increasingly appear fragile, while informal networks, personalised leadership, and transactional engagements shape the direction of global politics with growing intensity. 

Within this shifting landscape, contemporary diplomacy can no longer be interpreted only through formal declarations or ceremonial state visits. What appears on the surface as bilateral engagement often conceals deeper strategic recalibrations involving multiple actors and competing interests? The anticipated interactions between major powers such as the United States and China therefore signify far more than routine diplomacy. Beneath official optics lie negotiations over influence, technological supremacy, security architecture, and geopolitical realignments extending from the Indo Pacific to West Asia and Eurasia. In such a world, diplomacy increasingly functions through layered negotiations rather than transparent institutional consensus. One of the striking features of this emerging order is the growing significance of intermediary states that operate within the spaces created by great power rivalry. Pakistan represents one such example with considerable clarity. Its hybrid political structure, shaped by a complex civil military balance, allows it to function as a strategic intermediary in situations where conventional diplomatic channels remain constrained by mistrust or institutional rigidity. In moments requiring discretion, flexibility, and informal communication, such states acquire significance disproportionate to their economic strength. Their relevance emerges not from stable institutional authority but from geopolitical utility. 

This phenomenon reflects a........

© Greater Kashmir