Pakistan News
In fiery presser, ISPR DG terms Imran Khan ‘mentally ill, national security threat’
“His ego and desires have grown to such an extent that he says if not me, then nothing,” says Lt Gen Chaudhry
Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry on Friday castigated Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) founder Imran Khan and his party’s “anti-army’s rhetoric”, terming him a “mentally ill person, whose conduct had become a “serious national security threat”.
Addressing an over two-hour-long press conference in Rawalpindi, the military’s spokesperson slammed the former prime minister for working with “external elements, spreading disinformation, provoking unrest and persistently targeting the armed forces”.
The ISPR chief said today’s briefing was aimed at outlining internal national security challenges, saying that nothing is above the state of Pakistan.
Without naming anyone, Lt Gen Chaudry referred to the jailed PTI founder saying: “His ego and desires have grown to such an extent that he says if not me, then nothing.”
Describing what he called a “delusional mindset” of a “person captive of his own thoughts,” Lt Gen Chaudhry said that the narrative promoted by a particular political figure has “evolved into a national security threat”.
The ISPR DG said that anyone who attacks the armed forces or its leadership is effectively “creating space for another army”.
Lt Gen Chaudhry asserted that the PTI founder keeps the Constitution, the law and established rules aside while promoting this narrative.
He said that the PTI founder sends a narrative against the military and its leadership whenever a meeting is held at Adiala jail.
PTI founder ‘mentally ill’
Addressing the presser, the ISPR DG slammed Imran for “placing personal ego above national interest and of repeatedly promoting an anti-Pakistan, anti-army narrative”.
“This mentally ill individual tweeted two days ago. He believes nothing exists beyond him — not even Pakistan.”
“We respect Pakistan’s political leadership but keep the army away from your politics,” the military’s spokesperson said, adding: “We will not allow anyone to create a rift between Pakistan’s army and the people”.
Lt Gen Chaudhry said Imran had promoted a “scientific system” of coordinated troll activity, driven narratives through his own social media accounts, and repeatedly likened himself to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.
Indian, Afghan and some international media, he said, amplified his messaging, with troll networks abroad boosting content in synchronised cycles.
According to the ISPR DG, the former premier has now become a national security threat and is working in coordination with external elements.
Giving another recent example, the general said this individual had claimed that anyone from his own party who visited the National Defence University (NDU) would be a traitor. “According to his logic, anyone who goes to ISPR is also a traitor,” he added.
Noting that the freedom of expression is allowed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the ISPR DG said that it carries certain restrictions with it as well and does not permit anyone to speak against the state and national security.
Lt Gen Chaudhry said the “mentally disturbed individual” had recently posted a tweet and asked his supporters to target military leadership that stood firm against an enemy eight times stronger in the Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos.
“There is an entire science behind this,” the ISPR DG said.
Referring to the PTI founder, Lt Gen Chaudhary said: “Who are you? Whose language are you speaking? What do you think of yourself?”
The DG ISPR said that the public had already witnessed the “symptoms of a disturbed mindset”.
He asked whether the individual had not previously instigated the May 9 attack on the General Headquarters (GHQ).
“This person believes that anyone serving in the Pakistan Army is a traitor,” the DG ISPR asserted, adding that this person considers himself to be the only one who is right and believes everyone else is wrong.
He questioned why this individual did not speak about Pakistan’s significant issues.
Vows response to attack on army
The ISPR DG said that the PTI founder first creates a narrative aimed at halting remittances to push Pakistan toward default, and then calls for targeting the army’s leadership, which successfully stood firm against India during the four-day war in May.
“When you ask his party, they say that we do not know where the narrative comes from,” the military’s spokesperson said.
“A person who thinks that nothing is above his own self, even Pakistan, has [in fact] become a national security threat,” the general warned, saying that “this person is working with external elements”.
“If someone attacks the Pakistan Army, then we will also respond.”
Referring to the social media post concerned, he shed light on how the Indian media and troll accounts, operating from outside Pakistan, pick up on this narrative.
“Accounts come after the tweet in a sequential manner [….] The original narrative was given by this mental patient by tweeting.”
“Uzma Khan is sitting on the Indian media and telling PTI to attack,” Lt Gen Chaudhry highlighted.
The ISPR DG cautioned that anyone attacking Pakistan’s Armed Forces “under their own political mindset” should expect a response.
Reaffirming the institution’s stance, he said, “We are the armed forces of Pakistan and do not represent any political ideology.”
CDF notification propaganda
The ISPR DG described the propaganda surrounding the CDF notification as “a flood of lies,” questioning what kind of politics of freedom of expression this represented.
“Please grow up. Talk about real issues,” he said, adding that even routine military news was being used to generate propaganda.
Continuing his remarks, the ISPR DG said that Afghan social media was also actively involved in amplifying the narrative of the PTI founder.
“Three days ago, they repeated their narrative of dialogue with the terrorists. They pushed the line that intelligence-based operations should not be carried out,” he added.
“By the logic of this mentally disturbed individual, if India had attacked, he would have walked around with a begging bowl saying, ‘Come, let’s talk.'”
The ISPR DG noted that the PTI founder was the same person “who suggested opening an office for khawarij in Peshawar”.
“This obsession with talks is not new for him,” the DG ISPR said, adding that the former premier provokes people to stand against operations.
“We are absolutely clear that his politics or his personality cannot be above the state,” he stressed.
“This is a mental disorder — this is a terror-crime nexus. It involves drugs, NCP, kidnapping for ransom and several other things.”
The ISPR DG cautioned that anyone who stands against the political terror-crime nexus could face orchestrated attacks.
‘Terrorism and extremism’
Lt Gen Chaudhry reaffirmed that the Pakistan Army stood between the public and “khawarij terrorists”.
While Pakistan had never refused dialogue, he said talks with violent extremists were out of the question. Citing Paigham-e-Pakistan, he reminded that the country’s top Ulema had rejected extremism.
He said some individuals had revived the narrative of “talking to the khawarij” only three days earlier.
The DG ISPR criticised those opposing security operations, saying the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa police were sacrificing their lives daily.
He questioned why some urged the halting of intelligence-based operations, stressing that terrorism would not end in a day and required political will. He said those advancing such arguments worked against the unanimous national narrative.
The ISPR DG said that by December 3, as many as 1.8 million illegal Afghan migrants had been repatriated under government policy.
‘State is supreme’
Emphasising constitutional hierarchy, the ISPR DG said the state — and the elected government — were supreme, not individuals or institutions. The army, he said, was an institution functioning under civilian authority.
Freedom of speech under Article 19 had limits, he noted, and could not be exercised against national security.
Responding to criticism of military capability and governance, he said the army had proved itself in battle, and that the country had not defaulted despite predictions.
Calling the current discourse a “disease — a mental disorder”, he said the business of lies and deception would no longer continue.
He dismissed online attacks, referring to them as “a barking dog — do not worry about it”.
“We stand on the side of truth, and we will remain on the side of truth,” he added.
‘Media must act responsibly’
Lt Gen Chaudhry urged the media to act responsibly, “call truth truth and falsehood false”, and focus on real national issues.
Pakistan, he said, had let billions of dollars’ worth of floodwater flow into the sea, maintained severely inadequate water storage and faced population pressures, requiring serious debate on food security.
He said the country had “politicised everything — even the national narrative”.
He said questions on governance triggered attacks from the “political-crime nexus”.
Criticising political leaders who kept their own children abroad, he urged them to send their children to the army.
Governor’s rule, he noted, was solely the government’s decision. “We are clear that no individual or politics is greater than the state.”
Concluding the briefing, Lt Gen Chaudhry said the army would not allow rifts between the institution and the public. He warned political actors to stop dragging the military into their disputes, adding that attacks on the army would draw responses.
“It is clear as daylight: we will protect the state,” he said. Calling for maturity, he said: “We are all Bunyan-um-Marsoos — a solid, united structure. Pakistan will remain, and the Pakistan Army will remain.”
News Taken From Geo News
https://www.geo.tv/latest/637487-ispr-dg-lt-gen-chaudhry-to-address-press-conference-today
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.
Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.
Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.
Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.
The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.
The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.
Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.
Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.
In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.
The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.
The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.
The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.
It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”
The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.
Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
