For Pakistan, the ceasefire along the Afghan border feels less like a breakthrough and more like the end of an illusion.
The pause in fighting came at Afghanistan’s request, yet the roots of the conflict stretch far beyond the past week. They reach into years of patience, diplomacy and restraint that produced little more than empty assurances.
Every government in Islamabad has faced the same paradox. Pakistan has invested more than any other country in Afghanistan’s stability, but has reaped the least security from it. When Kabul fell to the Taliban, Pakistan chose engagement when others chose exit. It kept its embassy open, continued trade and argued internationally that isolating Afghanistan would only deepen its chaos. The outcome was not as sound as the logic.
Militancy reorganised and groups once pushed into the mountains returned under new names and familiar banners. Their attacks on Pakistani soldiers, police and civilians have multiplied each year. The idea that religious or tribal ties could temper extremist networks has proved painfully misplaced. What began as a hope for stability has turned into a test of endurance.
The result is a relationship defined by denial on one side and exhaustion on the other. Islamabad has spent years calling for cooperation on border management and intelligence sharing. Kabul has responded with ambiguity, promising to act while claiming the problem lies beyond its control. Such contradictions erode the foundation of trust that a shared frontier demands.
Pakistan’s recent strikes were a reluctant answer to that erosion. They were designed to prevent further escalation, not to ignite it. Every sovereign state reserves the right to defend its citizens when persistent attacks cross its borders. The strikes were limited, precise and based on verified intelligence. What escalated matters was not the operation itself but the response that followed. Armed groups operating from Afghan soil struck at Pakistani security posts, widening a crisis both sides could have avoided.
The ceasefire offers both countries a chance to pause before the situation becomes irreversible. It also reflects an important shift: recognition in Kabul that escalation carries risks it cannot manage. If the truce is to mean anything, Afghanistan must confront a reality long avoided – it cannot govern effectively while tolerating militants who use its territory as a launchpad. The border cannot remain open for trade and open for terror at the same time.
These tensions do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a much longer story that has tied Pakistan’s security, economy and demography to Afghanistan’s instability for more than four decades. The shared border has carried refugees, trade, and conflict in equal measure. Pakistan has hosted millions of Afghans through war and displacement, often with limited international support. It has absorbed the political and economic costs of instability next door while continuing to advocate for Afghanistan’s global reintegration. Few countries have shown that level of consistency, but patience has its limits.
There is also a regional dimension that neither side can ignore. Instability along this frontier rarely stays contained. China has invested heavily in connectivity through CPEC and views a secure western corridor as central to its plans. Iran and the Central Asian States depend on predictable trade routes for energy and food supplies. Russia and Turkey are watching for any shift that might alter the balance of influence. Afghanistan’s internal choices now shape the region’s calculations in ways that go far beyond its borders. Pakistan’s patience, likewise, is guided by both security imperatives and economic realities.
Regional diplomacy will therefore be key. Both countries could benefit from a structured dialogue involving neighbors that have a direct stake in stability. A coordinated framework on counterterrorism, trade and refugee management would do more for peace than any temporary truce. The alternative is a cycle of reaction that weakens everyone and leaves external powers to fill the vacuum.
Pakistan has endured the fallout of decades of war, the burden of refugees, and the persistent threat of cross-border militancy. Its position today is not born of aggression but of necessity. When a neighbor’s tolerance for armed groups undermines your sovereignty, silence becomes complicity.
The challenge now is whether both governments can move beyond accusations and toward something practical. Kabul must decide if it wants to be treated as a state or as a sanctuary. Islamabad must ensure its responses reinforce deterrence without closing the door to dialogue. The ceasefire is not peace, but it can be the beginning of a new framework that treats borders as responsibilities, not bargaining chips.
Peace will not come through press statements or temporary pauses. It will come when both sides recognise that the only lasting frontier is the one built on accountability. Pakistan has signaled that its patience has limits. Afghanistan now has to decide whether it wants to test them again or turn this pause into progress.
The writer is a non-resident fellow at the CISS. He posts/tweets umarwrites
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer's own and don't necessarily reflect Geo.tv's editorial policy.