Nations and international organisations have traditionally used sanctions as a pillar of their diplomatic strategies to tackle a variety of geopolitical issues. Penalties are sometimes thought of as punitive measures meant to force targeted nations to comply, but modern geopolitical dynamics show that penalties are actually more complex diplomatic tools. Sanctions have a complicated role in forging alliances, forming international relations, and promoting diplomatic discourse in addition to their direct economic effects on the countries they target. Examining the success of penalties in this context involves more than just economic measures; it also takes into account broader concerns of political, social, and strategic implications. This article examines how sanctions have changed over time, emphasising the variety of uses for them but also recognising their limitations as diplomatic instruments in a complicated and linked world. The US and UK-imposed sanctions against Russia in response to the war in Ukraine have not succeeded in substantially stopping its actions or changing its behaviour. Although there were early expectations that sanctions would exert enough diplomatic and economic pressure to force Russia to reorient, their effects have been minimal. First off, by putting countermeasures in place and locating alternate commercial partners, Russia has shown that it is resilient in the face of sanctions. For instance, to lessen the effects of Western sanctions, Russia has expanded its economic base and developed stronger connections with nations like China. Second, because the sanctions are targeted, Russia has been able to get around their impact by using its considerable resources and finding ways to exploit loopholes. Because Europe depends on Russian natural resources, some industries, like energy, have been mostly untouched.Furthermore, the sanctions’ efficacy has been weakened by the absence of coordinated international action. Even though the US and the UK have imposed sanctions, the impact of these measures has been lessened by other significant factors, such as China and certain European nations, who have maintained deeper economic ties with Russia. In conclusion, the US and UK’s weak sanctions, along with Russia’s tenacity and the absence of coordinated international response, have essentially made them useless in stopping Russian aspirationsin Ukraine. India’s autonomous foreign policy approach is highlighted by the US sanctions’ inability to influence its strategic choices about the Chabahar Port and the NSTIC (North-South Transport Corridor). India has persisted in these projects despite pressure from the US because it sees them as essential to boosting regional connectivity and furthering its economic goals. Moreover, India’s unwillingness to join the US in a military alliance is a reflection of its commitment to non-alignment and strategic autonomy. Despite appreciating its collaboration with the US on many fronts, including defense, India upholds its moral stance of refusing to join any military alliance. India, on the other hand, places a higher priority on strategic alliances that are founded on shared interests and sovereignty. India’s priority on conducting a foreign policy that suits its national interests while maintaining its strategic autonomy is highlighted by this consistency in its approach. In an ever-changing global environment, India aims to protect its interests and negotiate intricate geopolitical dynamics by remaining adaptable in its connections and interactions. First, the situation may show that Western nations, such as the US and the UK, may no longer be Pakistan’s main strategic allies. On the other hand, Pakistan may benefit from stronger ties to Asia, such as membership in the SCO, AIIB, China/BRI/CPEC, and other organisations, as well as changing patterns of economic growth brought about by new trade relations with the Asia-Pacific region and Pakistan’s emergence as a major hub for global maritime trade. Since Asia’s emerging powers—as opposed to just China—are becoming more and more powerful, the United States is under pressure to maintain its position as the regions and even the world’s leading power. For this reason, the case for the imposition of sanctions based on the proliferation of ballistic missiles and Iran’s connections must be understood in the context of shifting geo-economics chessboard. However, given that China is Pakistan’s all-weather ally and that the CPEC has so far served as the BRI’s flagship project, one could interpret the sanctions in terms of the trade war and co-sanctions that Washington has waged against Beijing. These measures aim to exacerbate political tensions not only in South Asia but also in the South China Sea particularly with Taiwan, since the United States stands to lose the least from any potential escalation of hostilities in Asia. The essence is that Pakistan’s emerging and prospective strategic alliances, including political-military cooperation, are increasingly with fellow Asian nations as opposed to traditional North Atlantic powers. Consequently, Pakistan is progressively capable of broadening its foreign policy range and thereby distinguishing its foreign policy objectives more distinctly than before, in light of the evolving multipolar geostrategic landscape. In the end, the degree of strategic autonomy and national sovereignty that any nation can secure is of universal significance.