Professor John Mearsheimer, a renowned international relations expert known for his theory of "offensive realism", has recently spoken to India's CNN-News18 about the impact of US-China competition on geopolitics in South Asia. Sharing his thoughts in interviews on India-Pakistan conflict after the Pahalgam attack, he said: "There is really no military solution to this (Kashmir) problem. The only way this can be solved once and for all is through a political solution that both sides find acceptable".
 |
| Professor John Mearsheimer on India-Pakistan Conflict |
Professor John Mearsheimer is a highly respected professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Here's how he introduces himself on his personal website: "I am the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor in the Political Science Department at the University of Chicago, where I have taught since 1982. Above all else, I am an international relations theorist. More specifically, I am a realist, which means that I believe that the great powers dominate the international system, and they constantly engage in security competition with each other, which sometimes leads to war".
He has said that neither China nor the US want a full-scale war between India and Pakistan that could escalate into a nuclear war. However, it is in China's interest to "see significant tensions between India and Pakistan to get India to devote a lot of its strategic thinking and resources against Pakistan" rather than on China. The US, on the other hand, wants India to focus all its energies on countering China.
Talking about the recent "Operation Sindoor" launched by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi against Pakistan, Mearsheimer said it will not deter Pakistan. "By Operation Sindoor, India has responded like it has in the past. Don't think India wants a major war with Pakistan, it can't dominate on the lower or even the middle rungs of the escalation ladder", he said.
On Chinese involvement in South Asia, Mearsheimer said: "China-Pakistan relations are quite good. The Chinese are providing excellent weaponry to Pakistan and will provide even better weapons in future". "I don’t think China wants an India-Pakistan war but it wants to see significant tensions between India and Pakistan to get India to devote a lot of its strategic thinking and resources against Pakistan", he added.
Talking about the US interest in South Asia, he said: "When it comes to countering China, India is the most important country for the US in South Asia. But the US also wants to maintain good relations with Pakistan to try to peel it away from China".
Related Links:
Haq's Musings
South Asia Investor Review
Pakistan Downs India's French Rafale Jets in a Major Aerial Battle
Has Modi Succeeded Diplomatically or Militarily Against Pakistan After Pahalgam?
Has Pakistan Destroyed India's S-400 ADS?
Pakistan's Aircraft Exports
Pakistan Navy Modernization
West's Technological Edge in Geopolitical Competition
Modi's India: A Paper Elephant?
Pahalgam Attack: Why is the Indian Media Not Asking Hard Questions?
Ukraine's Lesson For Pakistan: Never Give Up Nukes!
Pakistan Economy Nears Trillion Dollars
Pakistan's Sea-Based Second Strike Capability
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
22 comments:
Pakistan regards India as an existential threat: US defence intelligence annual report - The Economic Times
https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-regards-india-as-an-existential-threat-us-defence-intelligence-annual-report/articleshow/121394664.cms
"Pakistan regards India as an existential threat and will continue to pursue its military modernisation effort, including the development of battlefield nuclear weapons, to offset India’s conventional military advantage," the report metions.
"Pakistan is modernising its nuclear arsenal and maintaining the security of its nuclear materials and nuclear command and control. Pakistan almost certainly procures WMD applicable goods from foreign suppliers and intermediaries," it added.
Further, the report says Pakistan's top priorities will likely remain cross-border skirmishes with regional neighbors.
"Despite Pakistan’s daily operations during the past year, militants killed more than 2,500 people in Pakistan in 2024," it added
US also said that Pakistan is the "primary recipient" of China’s economic and military generosity and foreign materials and technology supporting Pakistan's armed forces are very likely acquired primarily from suppliers in China
"Pakistan primarily is a recipient of China’s economic and military largesse, and Pakistani forces conduct multiple combined military exercises every year with China’s PLA, including a new air exercise completed in November 2024," the report said.
"Foreign materials and technology supporting Pakistan’s WMD programs are very likely acquired primarily from suppliers in China, and sometimes are transshipped through Hong Kong, Singapore, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. However, terrorist attacks targeting Chinese workers who support China Pakistan Economic Corridor projects has emerged as a point of friction between the countries; seven Chinese nationals were killed in Pakistan in 2024," it added.
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
So this is being done without any backchannel or official talks with Pakistan, or via a third party interlocutor like the US, when Modi claims that there has been no ceasefire and the military operation is still on.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1926512146721980920
-------------------
Pause in India-Pak military action, Army works on plan to ‘rebalance’ troops at border | India News - The Indian Express
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/to-dial-down-army-works-on-plan-to-rebalance-troops-equipment-at-border-10026907/
A fortnight into the pause of military action in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack, a proposed plan for “rebalancing of troops” is being discussed within the military to avoid any fresh escalation at the borders, The Indian Express has learned.
This even as Operation Sindoor is on pause and all alerts remain at their heightened levels.
While Indian and Pak armies are focusing on multiple confidence-building measures, plans for de-escalating troops and equipment from the borders within the next fortnight are being considered.
Sources said Pakistan, which carried out major reinforcements of troops and equipment over the last few weeks, will also pull them back to pre-April locations.
Incidentally, India had not ordered large-scale mobilisation or deployment of offensive formations over the last month. Limited equipment and corresponding troops, which had been moved from their permanent locations to operational ones, are now planning to go back to their regular locations.
During Operation Sindoor, the density of troops along the borders had increased but that was more because of curtailing leave and less essential movement. However, sources said, these restrictions have now been lifted. Even short-term courses, which were to be cancelled temporarily, will now continue as per slated schedules.
According to sources, after the first two days following the ceasefire agreement, no aerial violations by Pakistani drones were reported though the occasional stray drones were sighted in Jammu and Kashmir.
They added that there are orders in place to avoid firing on them without appropriate clearances, even as any ceasefire violations at the LoC will be responded to by the troops.
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi had flagged, in his address to the nation, Operation Sindoor is only on pause. This would imply that the military would continue to remain at a heightened state of alertness and operational readiness, while maintaining a strong defensive posture throughout.
There has been no official statement from the government on whether there have been DGMO-level talks on the de-escalation after May 12.
On May 12, DGMO Lieutenant General Rajiv Ghai spoke to his Pakistani counterpart Major General Kashif Abdullah – their second conversation since they agreed to stop all military action—during which it was agreed that both sides would consider immediate measures to ensure troop reduction from the borders and forward areas.
Sources said that stopping aerial violations was also discussed in the meeting.
An Army statement had also mentioned that issues related to continuing the commitment that both sides must not fire a single shot or initiate any aggressive and inimical action against each other were discussed in the talks.
The Indian Express had earlier reported that within days following May 12, both sides were scheduled to exchange plans on the modalities of de-escalation of troops and equipment deployed along the borders.
Two days after the May 12 talks, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar had claimed that Pakistan had agreed to extend the ceasefire with India until May 18 following DGMO-level talks between the two sides.
Without commenting on whether the two sides spoke, the Indian Army said both sides will continue the confidence-building measures to reduce the alertness level. It clarified that there is no expiry date to the understanding reached between the two militaries on May 10 to “stop all firing and military action from land, air and sea.”
Does the Chinese defense industry benefits from Pakistan military's performance against India?
AI Overview
Yes, the recent clashes between India and Pakistan have provided a significant boost to the Chinese defense industry. Pakistan's use of Chinese-made fighter jets and missiles in the conflict has raised awareness of their capabilities and sparked interest in Chinese military technology globally.
Here's why this is the case:
Battle-testing and marketing:
The conflict has served as a proxy battle-testing ground for Chinese military hardware, showcasing its potential to a global audience. This has effectively advertised Chinese weapons to a wider market, potentially increasing sales.
National pride and heightened perceptions:
The reported success of Chinese-made weapons in the conflict has boosted national pride in China and has also heightened global perceptions of Chinese military prowess and ingenuity.
Intelligence gathering:
The conflict provides China with valuable intelligence on its own weapons systems as they are used in a real-world scenario by Pakistan.
Increased demand and potential sales:
The perceived success of Chinese weapons could lead to increased demand for these systems from other countries, particularly those seeking more affordable and effective military technology.
Shift in perceptions of military technology:
The conflict has challenged the long-standing belief in the superiority of Western military technology, particularly in the context of affordability and effectiveness.
Strategic partnership:
China and Pakistan have a strong strategic partnership, with China being Pakistan's primary arms supplier. This close relationship allows for easier access to Chinese military technology and expertise.
Increased stock value:
The positive performance of Chinese-made weapons in the conflict has led to a surge in the stock prices of Chinese defense companies.
Political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible; constant need to claim credit will be our undoing: Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, to Karan Thapar for The Wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xS7V0rE8U
..........................................
In an interview that could rattle the government, the Executive Director of the Institute for Conflict Management and one of India’s foremost authorities on terrorism has said that the political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible. Dr. Ajai Sahni also said that the constant need to claim credit will be our undoing. He said one of the consequences of India’s policy of treating every act of terror as a declaration of war is that in economic terms “India looks like an excitable and very unreliable partner”. In a comprehensive 45-minute interview to Karan Thapar for The Wire, Dr. Sahni, who is also the Executive Director of the South Asia Terrorism Portal, was asked who had the upper hand when the 4-day conflict between India and Pakistan ended and said “both are losers … measured by the environment we have created”. Dr. Sahni said that “no lasting damage” has been done to the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed and claims by the Indian Express that 20% of Pakistan’s air force infrastructure has been destroyed are “ludicrous”. Dr. Sahni explains that he does not believe that the LeT and Jaish have been deterred and, worse, the Pakistan army and ISI may increase their efforts to build-up capacity for these groups. It is, therefore, quite possible the problem of terror could get worse. A very significant chunk of this interview is about the reasons why Dr. Sahni believes the political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible. I am deliberately not giving you details of what Dr. Sahni said because I think you should hear them for yourself. I am only giving you the headline which Dr. Sahni confirmed two or three times in the interview. I don’t want to run the risk of wrongly paraphrasing or prĂ©cising Dr. Sahni’s arguments.
Political handling of Operation Sindoor was incompetent and irresponsible; constant need to claim credit will be our undoing: Ajai Sahni, Executive Director, Institute for Conflict Management, to Karan Thapar for The Wire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81xS7V0rE8U
18:49
Pakistani response and all reports indicate that China is already
to a far more vigorous support You know Pakistan is a great investment for
18:56
China in this sense Uh first of all they get to test all their weapons They get
19:01
to showcase all their weapon systems to the world and already the world has taken
19:07
notice Secondly what they are doing is without any losses to themselves in terms of
19:14
life or uh significant material what they are uh doing is securing their
19:22
strategic objectives in the South Asia region which is to contain
19:29
India through their support to Pakistan So Pakistan will do whatever fighting is
19:35
necessary and India will suffer the consequences And a third factor is that
19:40
the demonstration of their weapon systems will bring them enormous
19:45
financial returns
shoaib daniyal
@ShoaibDaniyal
Remember the Karachi port attack and PAF pilot capture fake news that so many journalists ran?
@AnantGuptaAG
has a behind-the-scenes look into how that happened in this report.
https://x.com/ShoaibDaniyal/status/1926902361756233810
------------------
Who won the media war?
A Scroll analysis of Western media reporting and interviews with experts show that Pakistan had an advantage over India in the information war.
Anant Gupta
https://scroll.in/article/1082684/can-indian-mp-delegations-reverse-pakistans-global-narrative-win
A Scroll analysis of foreign media reporting and interviews with several experts show that Pakistan has indeed edged out India in the information war. Will the Modi government be successful in its effort to fix the global narrative about the conflict and put the focus back on Pakistan’s use of terrorism against India?
View from the West
As far as the foreign press was concerned, the so-called Kashmir dispute was at the heart of the conflict from its very start – a narrative that India has always sought to avoid.
Since the Pahalgam terror attack, The Washington Post has published 21 stories about the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. Kashmir was in the headlines 10 times. Terrorism did not appear even once.
It may bring solace to India that the The New York Times carried a story about the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, the two terrorist groups that India claimed to have targeted during Operation Sindoor.
But even so, it is unlikely that New Delhi will be pleased with how America’s newspaper of record saw the result of the fighting: a draw, not an Indian victory. A report that was published in the paper after the ceasefire announcement carried the headline: “India and Pakistan talked big, but satellite imagery shows limited damage.”
The headline to the newspaper’s first storyabout Operation Sindoor was even more damaging. “India strikes Pakistan but is said to have lost aircraft,” it read, highlighting a Pakistani claim that New Delhi has yet to confirm.
The New York Times was not alone. Other international media outlets, such as CNN and Reuters, followed up on Pakistani claims of taking down as many as five Indian fighter jets, state-of-the art French Rafales among them.
India has so far refused to publicly accept or deny any loss of planes. The loud silence made foreign journalists wary of other Indian claims as well.
“I respect anyone who is open about losses and weaknesses,” said Shashank Joshi, defence editor of The Economist. “I then trust them more when they make claims about their successes and their strengths.”
Even as Pakistani claims of downing Indian jets got play in the international press, the Indian assertion of killing over 100 terrorists during Operation Sindoor received little to no attention.
-------
Too little, too late
Given that Pakistan took the lead in shaping opinions in the West, analysts are sceptical about what the MP delegations from India will be able to achieve. Fair, the Georgetown professor, argued that these efforts to set the global narrative should have preceded military action.
“The Indians should have gone to the United Nations first,” she said. “They should have presented their evidence [about Pahalgam]. They should have gone around to global capitals first and then conducted the military operation.”
Sushant Singh, a lecturer in South Asian Studies at Yale University, said it is unclear who the MPs would meet on these visits. But the fact that the government is sending them out is, in itself, an indictment of India’s foreign policy establishment, he said.
“If you require MPs who are not part of the government to talk about cross-border terrorism, then it is clearly a failure of [external affairs minister S] Jaishankar and the whole diplomatic core that we have,” Singh said. “What is it that Shrikant Shinde is going to do that a professional diplomat with 35 years of experience can’t do?”
Pravin Sawhney
@PravinSawhney
Lessons of #OperationSindoor :
1. It has brought India & Pakistan closest to hot war.
2. Showed vivid clarity on the next hot war between India & Pakistan.
3. With this operation, China replaced the US as the dominant power in South Asia.
4. Signaled China's capability to change the status quo of Kashmir.
5. Created China's credible deterrence against the US & western militaries by demonstrating operational superiority of its weapons & capabilities used by Pakistan.
6. Showed China's commitment to stand by a friend (Pakistan) to the Global South nations.
I will do a video & an article on this important issue this week!
https://x.com/PravinSawhney/status/1927255806921134497
Defence Index
@Defence_Index
China ( Victor Gao) has made its stance clear without raising its voice: water is a shared lifeline, not a tool for bilateral leverage. Any move by India to restrict Pakistan’s access could prompt China to do the same to India.
https://x.com/Defence_Index/status/1927331276354158713
India is Losing South Asia to China | Council on Foreign Relations
By Joshua Kurlantzic
https://www.cfr.org/blog/india-losing-south-asia-china
In a relatively short period of time however – roughly the last two years – the tide on the subcontinent has shifted dramatically against India. Pakistan, of course, has long been India’s adversary while also being one of China’s closest partners in the world. Now, as China modernizes, that partnership benefits Pakistan in its balancing against India; in recent India-Pakistan battles, Pakistan used modern Chinese air-to-air missiles, defense systems, and advanced fighter planes to reportedly significant effect.
Other parts of the subcontinent that had enjoyed close ties to India have quickly shifted, in recent times, to building warmer links to China. Sheikh Hasina and her pro-India government no longer rules Bangladesh; she was ousted by massive protestsagainst her rising authoritarianism and corruption last year.
After her ouster, the hastily formed interim government led by Muhammad Yunus has turned to China, which has offered billions in aid and infrastructure projects, all while anti-India sentiment is spiking in Bangladesh as people are freer to speak and to condemn India’s ties to Hasina. (India gave Hasina asylum after she fled Bangladesh, which further rankles Bangladeshis).
In the past two years, leaders who favored India also have lost power In Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and Nepal. Last year, the party of Maldives president Mohamed Muizzu won a landslide victory in parliament. Muizzu had won the presidency the year before on a platform of “India out,” a campaign against India’s longstanding influence over the island country. Muizzu has openly welcomed much closer links to China, and made a visit to Xi Jinping earlier this year. The indebted archipelago state badly needs external financing and is looking to China for it (it already owes much of its debt to China.)
As Al Jazeera reported, a former top Maldives government official said that “China may now be more amenable given Muizzu’s landslide win. ‘China has a lot of leverage,’ the ex-official said, and will likely seek favors in return, including the ratification of a Free Trade Agreement [with the Maldives] that has languished since 2014 and access to key east-west trade routes that Maldives straddles. Indian and Western diplomats have previously expressed worries this access may pave the way for China to secure an outpost in the Indian Ocean.”
In Nepal and Sri Lanka, too, Indian influence has shifted amidst change in domestic politics. In a shocking victory in Sri Lanka last year, a leftist alliance, the National People’s Power (NPP), not among the usual political contenders, won both the presidency and control of parliament. The alliance has not stoked anti-India sentiment as has occurred in the Maldives or Bangladesh, and this year it signed a defense cooperation agreement with India.
Still, the NPP clearly favors Beijing and has aggressively wooed China , which surely worries India. Soon after being elected president, NPP leader Anura Dissanayake lavished praise on China. The Sri Lankan ruling alliance held a pro-China rally on May 1 with guests from the CCP. Moreover, the president has regularly emphasized that Sri Lanka should follow China’s economic model and that China is the most trusted economic partner for Sri Lanka. China has reciprocated with aid, investment, and closer diplomatic links.
And in Nepal, K.P. Sharma Oli, the head of the Communist Party of Nepal, has been prime minister since last July.
Thomas Keith
@iwasnevrhere_
Something irreversible just moved in South Asia’s core operating system and Delhi watched it happen in real time, powerless to stop it.
On May 21, 2025, a trilateral signal was broadcast out of Beijing. Pakistan, China, and Afghanistan didn’t just meet. They aligned. Politically, infrastructurally, and doctrinally. The Foreign Ministers’ Dialogue didn’t posture, it programmed. Seven lines of protocol were codified: deepen CPEC, extend it into Afghan terrain, exchange ambassadors, suppress insurgents, and harden the regional kernel against external interference.
The extension of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor into Afghanistan isn’t a proposal. It’s a deployment. The timing wasn’t accidental. It followed India’s attempted narrative reset with the Taliban, only for Pakistan and China to respond with a trilateral commitment, signed not in theory but in real-time coordination, with Muttaqi seated alongside Dar and Wang Yi. The next meeting? Kabul.
Delhi now operates in a recalibrated battlespace. Not just a two-front threat, but a fused system. The economic corridor is becoming a sovereign mesh, an always-on stack that integrates states not through occupation, but through shared latency budgets and infrastructural recursion. The BLA, RAW, and any residual fifth columns aren’t fighting Pakistan anymore. They’re up against a protocol written in BeiDou timestamps, sovereign data corridors, and PLA-grade predictive targeting.
India’s media class can smell it. Firstpost’s meltdown was less a broadcast than a public psychotic break. "China is no longer neutral," they cry. "It’s arming Pakistan, supplying satellite data, embedding itself in Pakistani defense grids!" They’ve realized too late: this isn’t partnership. It’s sovereign fusion and Pakistan didn’t get absorbed, it got elevated.
Wang Yi’s words weren’t a diplomatic pleasantry. “China supports Pakistan in safeguarding sovereignty and territorial integrity.” In old language, that’s a line in the sand. In new protocol, it’s a checksum handshake, India’s border probes now invoke not just military alertness but system-level pushback.
What about Afghanistan? The same Afghanistan India once treated as an appendage of its regional clout? It just committed to China’s orbit, pledged to secure China’s interests, and reiterated the One China principle. In exchange, it gets lifelines, energy, trade, reconstruction, and infrastructure. From who? Not Washington. Not Delhi. From the Belt and Road's spinal tap.
Meanwhile, Delhi still yells about “terrorists” and “state sponsors” with Cold War diction, unable to process what it’s actually watching: the strategic software of Asia being rewritten without its input. India isn’t being encircled. It’s being deprecated. Its primacy scripts don’t compile. The protocols are being updated in Beijing and Islamabad, while Indian analysts still write op-eds about buffer zones.
No insurgent, no strike, no information war can reverse what just occurred. CPEC has breached Afghanistan. Pakistan is now its sovereign co-admin. China is no longer a “partner.” It is the runtime and India, India is what gets sandboxed.
https://x.com/iwasnevrhere_/status/1926318449870987555
Derek J. Grossman
@DerekJGrossman
Sorry, India, but Russia's ties with Pakistan are actually quite good--perhaps the best ever.
https://x.com/DerekJGrossman/status/1927971051880796569
-------------------
RUSSIA PAKISTAN DEAL
Why Is India’s Ally Russia Now Helping Pakistan? Putin’s Surprise Move Sparks Tension
While the project may seem purely economic, the strategic implications could be far-reaching.
Written By Zee Media Bureau|Last Updated: May 28, 2025, 11:47 PM IST|Source: Bureau
https://zeenews.india.com/world/why-is-india-s-ally-russia-now-helping-pakistan-putin-s-surprise-move-sparks-tension-2907631.html
New Delhi: India’s long-time strategic partner Russia has finalised a deal with Pakistan to revive a defunct Soviet-era steel plant. The move has raised eyebrows in New Delhi. This cooperation could reshape economic ties in the region and spark new diplomatic friction between India and Russia.
Confirmed by Russian envoy Denis Nazruyev and Pakistani officials, the agreement aims at reconstructing and modernizing the once-operational Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) – which had shut down in 2015 due to outdated machinery and mismanagement.
The new steel facility will occupy a 700-acre section of the 19,000-acre PSM site near Karachi and will utilise Pakistan’s estimated 1.4 billion tons of iron ore reserves. Built originally in 1973 with Soviet support, PSM once produced 1.1 million tons of steel per year.
However, years of corruption and poor maintenance drove it into a staggering $2.14 billion loss.
Powered by advanced Russian steel manufacturing technology, the revival project is expected to cut Pakistan’s annual steel import bill by 30% and slash $2.6 billion in foreign expenditures.
Pakistan spent $324 million on imported scrap and semi-finished products – a cost the new plant aims to drastically reduce – alone in March.
A joint working group will oversee the project’s financing and execution The decision signals deepening economic cooperation between Moscow and Islamabad.
Russia’s unexpected hand of friendship to India’s rival Pakistan may strain its traditionally warm ties with New Delhi – especially at a time when geopolitical alliances are shifting fast. The development comes at a time when India-Russia relations are already being tested by Moscow’s growing closeness with Beijing and its evolving energy and defense ties in Asia.
Although Russia says the deal is pursuing purely an economic cooperation with Pakistan, experts warn that industrial and technological partnership can often pave the way for deeper strategic engagement.
For India, which has long counted on Russia as a reliable defense and energy partner, the move raises concerns about a gradual shift in Moscow’s regional priorities.
While the project may seem purely economic, the strategic implications could be far-reaching. It may be just the start of a broader rebalancing in South Asia’s power dynamics.
Thomas Keith
@iwasnevrhere_
Just finished watching what Republic TV called a debate between India and China. What actually aired was a narrative collapse in real time, an exposed psywar system screaming at silence. Below is the post-mortem.
Republic TV promised an “India‑China debate” but delivered a public lobotomy on live feed, exposing every neural glitch in the Hindutva propaganda cortex. The spectacle opened with Arnab Goswami pounding his desk like a malfunctioning animatronic, chanting the litany, China supplies Pakistan, China blocks UNSC, China must pick a side, yet every syllable dripped with the panic of a priest who no longer believes in his own god of moral supremacy. He tried to fuse Pakistan into China by decree, hoping sleight‑of‑tongue could erase a sovereign border and rebrand every Pakistani missile as a Chinese dagger. Only a mind colony addicted to saffron hallucinations would mistake that necromancy for analysis.
The panic engine wheezed louder when Einar Tangen’s calm voice slipped a forbidden byte, Balochistan, into the stream. One syllable and the studio triggered a kill‑switch, yanking his image off‑air as if a virus had breached the Hindutva firewall. That cut was a confession: Delhi’s moral theatrics implode the instant someone flips the mirror and asks why India funds its own blood rituals while crying victim. Republic’s directors didn’t rebut; they erased. They know cheap saffron circuitry fries on contact with symmetry.
Maj Gen Bakshi’s entrance was supposed to restore testosterone, yet he vomited cold‑war fan fiction: India will arm Taiwan, tutor Japan, strike China’s East Coast, never mind that Delhi can’t keep drones out of its own airspace. He brayed about “hot pursuit” as if the term were a talisman, not a legal doctrine India has no courage to test against Beijing. Each threat landed like a rubber bullet, loud, harmless, embarrassing. He spoke of cost–benefit calculus, unaware the cost was already evident in charred runways from Avantipur to Leh. The benefit? Fifteen seconds of studio applause before the next missile meme.
Then Victor Gao, silent as a guillotine, listed historical constants, Xinjiang older than Christ in Chinese hands, Tibet annexed eight centuries ago, One‑China policy India itself endorses. He snipped Bakshi’s bluster with three dates and a shrug. History, to Hindutva infotainers, is a prop; Gao used it as an executioner’s blade. When Arnab shrieked that Chinese air defenses had failed, Gao answered with morgue‑cold precision: Only one country lost and it wasn’t Pakistan. No adjectives, no bark, just a coroner’s note pinned to nationalist ego.
Arnab’s crescendo devolved into ululating hysteria: PL‑15s “rotting in farms,” HQ‑9s “sent for repairs,” Chinese stocks “in freefall.” It was industrial‑grade cope, hollow, unverifiable, screamed at pitch‑shift to fill dead air. Gao allowed the tantrum to echo, knowing silence amplifies insecurity better than any rebuttal. Hindutva psywar logic depends on enemy agitation; deny it, and the operators cannibalize their own narrative. By minute twenty the set looked like a hostage video of a failing religion, priests sweating under studio lights, idols refusing to answer.
Bakshi’s last card was nuclear cosplay: threaten to share warheads with Taipei. Gao countered by reciting India’s official One‑China pledge, effectively shoving New Delhi’s signature up Bakshi’s throat. The general’s eyes darted; his doctrine dissolved into free‑associative muttering about PR disasters and share prices, as if stock tickers could resuscitate dead credibility. Arnab tried to salvage dignity with Modi anecdotes and Swadeshi platitudes, but every boast about “punching back at Doklam” sounded like a drunk recounting bar fights no one witnessed.
.
https://x.com/iwasnevrhere_/status/1927918359477207191
Breaking news - Pakistan is getting DF-17 Missiles
Ali K.Chishti
Reports suggest that Pakistan is set to receive the DF-17 hypersonic missile from China—a platform that travels at over Mach 5 and renders existing Indian air defense systems obsolete.
This isn't just an upgrade. It’s a strategic nightmare for India. The same India that brags about surgical strikes and false-flag ops now faces a weapon it can’t intercept, can’t detect, and can’t stop.
After embarrassing misadventures like Balakot and the failed Operation Sandoor, New Delhi’s military posturing has become more noise than substance. The induction of the DF-17 sends a message loud and clear:
Pakistan is ready—not just to respond, but to redefine the battlefield.
In the game of deterrence, the side with hypersonics isn’t playing catch-up. It’s setting the rules.
Interesting:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-and-france-are-at-each-others-throats-over-the-dassault-rafale-fighter
G. Ali
Tejasswi Prakash
@Tiju0Prakash
"India misread, underestimated Pakistan and needs to change the way it views Pakistan."
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot
@jaffrelotc
https://x.com/Tiju0Prakash/status/1929055742469759378
----------------
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot on recent India-Pakistan military confrontation:
https://youtu.be/M0oFNGU_goQ?si=r8Bi3d4mp4Ka_HyN
um I would first um say that this sense
25:52
of disillusion (in India) has a lot to do with the
25:58
expectations the leaders yeah the leaders of the country are themselves
26:04
nurturing expectations which are completely irrealistic a fight to the
26:10
finish with a nuclear power what does that mean do you think you can really
26:16
break Pakistan create an an independent baluchistan this is complete
26:23
fantasy and of course when you foster this sense of fantasy by
26:31
being almost belligerent belligerent and also there is this sense of hysteria
26:38
that that the that the media are of course also
26:44
cultivating when you expect so much you can only be
26:49
disappointed and and this is really um counterproductive for the BJP to play
26:56
that game because they are bound to create expectations they will never meet
27:02
now will the BJP supporters who are disappointed disillusioned leave BJP
27:09
stop supporting BJP it's too early to say again but
27:15
um where else could they go you know uh it's not as if there were plenty of of
27:22
possibilities now on the other point you raise this comparison between Indira and
27:29
um and and Modi between 71 and and
27:34
2025 there is just no way to compare because in in 71 you did not
27:42
uh destroy Pakistan you helped guerilla
27:50
to become independent it's a completely different game so it's not as if you
27:56
could repeat what was done in 71 in 2025 uh this is this is of course domestic
28:02
politics um but but to return to the to to the number one point that I made and
28:08
I would really like to emphasize that one
28:14
denial vizav Pakistan the kind of imagination of Pakistan that we see
28:21
in India needs to be taken care of you know this is a country that has nuclear
28:28
weapons that is supported by China it will not be finished off it will be
28:34
there and it will be there for a long time so if I say that it's because there
28:40
is one dimension that we have not touched upon yet that worries me a lot and that is the industry
28:47
French political scientist Christophe Jaffrelot on recent India-Pakistan military confrontation:
https://youtu.be/M0oFNGU_goQ?si=r8Bi3d4mp4Ka_HyN
uh question just what treaty is yeah because if you continue to to imagine
28:53
that one day you will get rid of Pakistan one day it will be raised to the ground and of course the idea that
29:01
it does not need the water of the industry
29:07
almost is is is natural and and and you use it you use the weapon you know you
29:12
use water as a weapon that is very dangerous that is terribly dangerous
29:17
this is certainly a cases belly because Pakistan is a country with that is
29:25
affected by hydric stress to a great extent and
29:31
if dams are built if the water of these rivers can't flow to
29:36
Pakistan there'll be more than tensions this is something to think about more
29:43
more well I I do not think that dams can be built in fact India saying you know
29:48
all the you know irresponsible statements that not a drop of water will be allowed to flow into Pakistan are all
29:55
highly irresponsible statement with very poor understanding of our hydrarology
30:00
and about where we can actually you know keep the waters you know uh you can't
30:06
really keep water stop flowing in in rivers you know there will be floods entire indogangetic plane would be
30:13
flooded if we actually put physical barriers and damning these rivers is going to be a very long exercise so I
30:19
guess this will eventually I I hope at least you know that this will eventually hope lead to both countries sitting down
30:26
and renegotiating the terms of the IWT yeah the risk also nan is that if India
30:33
does that to Pakistan China can do something very similar yes exactly yes you are and then then we
30:41
enter in a in a kind of escalation where water plays a very
30:47
dirty role and and there is more to do jointly rather than fighting for the the
30:54
problem is that you know it's you know everything starts coming from the top to the bottom you know if the prime
31:00
minister says that water and blood cannot flow together it starts giving
31:06
rise to different kinds of imaginations which we are seeing which has been said by various people you know uh let me
In his latest for Dawn, @ejazhaider Ejaz Haider argues that Pakistan cannot afford to stay reactive in the face of India’s new playbook. He calls for Islamabad to establish its own 'new normal', preempt aggression, dominate escalation ladders, and raise the strategic cost for New Delhi. South Asia’s stability depends on learning the right lessons not just claiming victories.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1929174329335464414
------
Ilhan Niaz
@IlhanNiaz
Ejaz Haider argues for preemption from the Pakistani side when the next crisis erupts as India has boxed itself into using military force as a first response. South Asia has entered a post-deterrence era.
Today’s must read:
đŸ‡µđŸ‡° & đŸ‡®đŸ‡³: Where to from here?
https://x.com/IlhanNiaz/status/1929144008304972279
--------------
What are the lessons to be learnt from the recent military face-off between Pakistan and India? Given India’s escalatory adventurism, its adoption of the Israeli playbook and the continuing war rhetoric coming from Indian PM Narendra Modi, can another conflict be far? And what can Pakistan do in response?
https://www.dawn.com/news/1914673
During the Cold War, there was much talk of fighting under the nuclear overhang and even discussions on whether a limited nuclear war could be fought and won without forcing the other side to resort to a massive response. The Cuban Missile Crisis played a significant role in establishing deterrence, highlighting the risks of escalation and flagging the importance of communication and confidence-building measures between the US and the USSR.
In doing so, the crisis contributed to a stable centre at the heart of which then-West and East Germany were situated. While the periphery was destabilised through proxy wars, the centre remained quiet through a stalemate. This is what is today called the instability-stability paradox.
No such periphery exists between Pakistan and India. The entire theatre is the centre. Escalation inheres in India’s policy. Given India’s stated position, its government has boxed itself in and, even if it didn’t want to, the entry point of every new conflict will be on a higher escalation rung on the ladder.
Let me quote Nolan again because nothing describes India’s wanton aggression against Pakistan better than these lines: “More often, war results in something clouded, neither triumph nor defeat. It is an arena of grey outcomes, partial and ambiguous resolution of disputes and causes that led to the choice of force as an instrument of policy in the first place.”
FJ
@Natsecjeff
I say this very rarely about Pakistan. In fact, I cannot remember when was the last time I said this about Pakistan. But here's the thing: this is one those extremely rare occasions in history when Pakistan appears to have strategically outsmarted India on this scale. Like I said, it has been a strategic retreat for India in every conceivable way. Even the one strategic tool it tried to use - water - is not going to go very far because China is already threatening to do the same to India. India misread the strategic landscape. It miscalculated geopolitical signalling. All because Delhi was thinking politically, not strategically.
The Pakistanis were able to largely neutralise the Indian lobby's influence on Trump when it comes to Pakistan's role in the region. And they played their cards (with crypto, minerals and CT) very smartly - and preemptively. They were able to influence key aides of Trump as well as Trump's family members. They did all of this preemptively, well before the Pahalgam attack. The Pakistani lobbying started in DC right after Trump got elected.
India was expecting this administration to be the most pro-India administration in the US history. And yet, Delhi is fuming right now: Kashmir has been internationalized again after Article 370 abrogation, India once again hyphenated with Pakistan, China for the first time has emerged in total support of Pakistan against India, Trump keeps equating Indian and Pakistani leadership, and more. These are all strategic setbacks for India. China is expected to continue to intervene every time India tries to strongarm Pakistan. Same with the water treaty, same with Kashmir.
None of this even takes into account what happened on that fateful first night, or other tactical successes of Pakistan. What the Indian public was expecting to be a cakewalk has turned out to be a tactical and strategic disaster for Delhi, which continues to try to keep a brave face.
It's really the strategic element of it that requires better understanding as it has been overlooked in most discussions.
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1929449924539605482
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
New Delhi did try to wrangle an invite for Modi, it seems but failed to get one. That's what the ToI is hinting at.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1929397003995279481
-----------
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/in-a-1st-in-6-years-pm-modi-unlikely-to-be-part-of-g7-meet-hosted-by-canada/amp_articleshow/121556213.cms
For the first time in 6 years, PM Narendra Modi is unlikely to be a part of the G7 summit that is being hosted this year by Canada June15-17. There’s no official invitation yet from Canada for the meeting in Alberta but Modi in all likelihood would not have travelled to the North American country in any case, especially when India still isn’t sure the new government in Ottawa will be more receptive to its concerns about the activities of Khalistan separatists.
A Canadian G7 spokesperson didn’t confirm to TOI late on Sunday if Modi was going to be invited.
Any eleventh-hour invitation is unlikely to be considered by India because of logistical constraints, likely efforts by the separatists to disrupt the visit and the strained bilateral ties that both Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney have committed to improve. A bilateral meeting on the margins could have provided an opportunity for the leaders to jointly reaffirm their commitment to rebuilding ties.
Canada hasn’t officially announced the names of the guest leaders for the summit, which will see the heads of government of major world economies in attendance, but reports in the Canadian media say Ottawa has invited the leaders of Australia, Ukraine, South Africa, Ukraine and Brazil. This will be the first time that he won’t be at the meeting of the economically most advanced group of nations since France invited him for the summit in 2019. His presence at the summit of what is also an informal grouping of like-minded democracies has been seen as a sign of India’s growing role in shaping up the global agenda and addressing transnational issues.
The Sikh separatists last week called upon the Carney government to not invite the Indian PM, citing India’s alleged reluctance to cooperate in the investigations into the killing of separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Carney’s predecessor Justin Trudeau blamed the Indian government for the murder without backing up his claim, as Indian has repeatedly said, with any evidence. The diplomatic row that followed saw the relationship hitting an all-time low as both sides expelled each other’s diplomats for activities hostile to the host nation.
Carney has so far not explicitly spoken on the Nijjar issue but, while talking about his plans to use trade to reset ties, has said that Canada is not responsible for the strain on the relationship with India. India is hoping that Carney will act more responsibly than Trudeau in his handling of the case and has said it is ready to work with Ottawa based on mutual trust and sensitivity. India wants Canada to ensure foolproof security for Indian diplomats and also crack down on extremists and secessionists indulging in anti-India activities.
Why New Delhi’s Failure to Deter Islamabad Will Fuel Future Violence
by Aqil Shah
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/next-war-between-india-and-pakistan
Rather than deterring its rival, India precipitated a retaliation that ended up burnishing the Pakistani military’s reputation and boosting its domestic popularity. Paradoxically, India’s retribution has handed the Pakistani army its biggest symbolic victory in recent decades. And that will hardly discourage Islamabad from reining in the proxy war against New Delhi or from risking future flare-ups between these two nuclear-armed states.
-------
Indian officials underestimated how much the Pakistani military needed to demonstrate its own war readiness and resolve, both to India and to its domestic audience. According to accounts in the Pakistani and international press, Pakistan’s Chinese-made jets and air defense systems shot down several Indian fighter planes, including a French-made Rafale. That amounted to a major symbolic victory for Islamabad. It also encouraged Pakistan to test Indian air defenses with a spate of drone and missile attacks. And it revealed the limitations of India’s presumed air supremacy, renewing the Pakistani military’s confidence that it can hold its own in a limited conflict despite India’s conventional superiority.
-------
Worse for India, its attempt to reestablish deterrence backfired. New Delhi hoped that a punitive response, backed by the threat of economic coercion, might discourage Pakistan from engaging in proxy warfare. Instead, the recent hostilities will likely have the opposite effect. Indian attacks on militant sites in Muridke and Bahawalpur did little to damage Pakistan’s jihadi infrastructure. The military-run Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s most important intelligence agency, had ample time to relocate its prime assets to safety. In any case, planning and launching terror attacks on India is not dependent on fixed structures vulnerable to enemy fire. Pakistan fully retains its capacity to use terrorism to rattle India.
Indeed, far from deterring the Pakistani military, India’s attacks may suggest to the generals that their provocative strategy is working. The military, which has ruled Pakistan for much of the country’s history, has long used hostility toward India to deflect from its own failings. For example, with little evidence, it has blamed New Delhi for backing the resurgent Tehrik-e-Taliban, a militant group at war with the Pakistani state, as well as separatists in southwestern Balochistan province—India denies all these accusations. Even compared to his recent predecessors, Munir had taken a visibly hard-line approach to India. Less than a week before the Pahalgam attack, he invoked the “two-nation theory,” or Pakistan’s founding idea that Hindus and Muslims are two distinct and fundamentally incompatible civilizations, at a convention in Islamabad. In his words, “Our religions are different, our cultures are different, our ambitions are different.” Describing Pakistan as a “hard state,” he vowed to continue backing the Kashmiris’ “heroic fight” against Indian occupation.
Husain Haqqani
@husainhaqqani
India (& Pakistan) need to take out emotion from discussion of geopolitics. Always thought provoking
@mahbubani_k
sums up the India-China-Pakistan equation while talking to @BDUTT
https://x.com/husainhaqqani/status/1926166740527919575
------------
Indian narrative of Pakistan as Chinese vassal state challenged by International experts
https://www.nation.com.pk/24-May-2025/indian-narrative-of-pakistan-as-chinese-vassal-state-challenged-by-international-experts
India’s portrayal of Pakistan as a subordinate state to China has come under scrutiny, as international experts push back against what they describe as misleading propaganda aimed at deflecting attention from recent setbacks.
Indian media, echoing claims by journalist Barkha Dutt, has framed Pakistan as an extension of China’s strategic ambitions, particularly in the context of a perceived two-front threat involving both nations. However, renowned Singaporean diplomat Kishore Mahbubani has criticized this narrative, asserting that it is shaped by a narrow, India-centric perspective centered on Kashmir and the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).
Mahbubani argued that if Pakistan were genuinely a client state of China, it wouldn’t have turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for financial assistance. He described the “satellite state” label as both inaccurate and politically driven.
He further emphasized that the Pakistan-China relationship is built on shared geopolitical interests, not subservience. Drawing comparisons with other global dynamics, he noted that even ideological rivals like the U.S. and China, or Vietnam and China, have pursued cooperative economic ties when beneficial. “Nations can use relationships with adversaries to strengthen themselves,” he remarked.
Defense analysts also suggest that India’s focus on a two-front war narrative is an attempt to rally domestic sentiment following military and diplomatic challenges. These experts argue that India is deliberately branding Pakistan as a Chinese proxy to divert attention from internal frustrations.
Rabia Akhtar
@Rabs_AA
#India If you can not win your region, how do you expect to win the world?
Mani Shankar Aiyar exposes India’s diplomatic miscalculation and cuts through the BS!
In his article (link below), former diplomat and veteran MP Mani Shankar Aiyar, lays bare a dangerous flaw in India’s post-crisis outreach strategy: ignoring its own neighbourhood. While India dispatches MPs to lobby distant UNSC capitals, it has deliberately sidelined Pakistan and alienated its South Asian neighbours, the very region most affected by Indo-Pak tensions.
Aiyar warns that by bypassing regional diplomacy, India not only violates its own, 'Neighbourhood First' mantra btw, but also risks unraveling the bilateral framework enshrined in the 1972 Simla Agreement opening the door to internationalizing the Kashmir issue, something New Delhi has spent decades avoiding.
India’s gamble isn’t just short-sighted as we can see, it is self-defeating.
Read and engage with his brilliant articulation!
Missions impossible
Parliamentary missions sent abroad aim to build support, but face tough questions on India’s Pakistan policy and nuclear posturing.
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1929967029299401183
------------------
https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/india-pakistan-diplomacy-unsc-modi-foreign-policy/article69651688.ece
Of course, they do deplore terrorism, but specifically, has any of them gone public about Pakistan-sponsored, Pakistan-supported, Pakistan-financed, or Pakistan-armed terrorism? And were they to do so, what answer would our delegations, constrained by the briefings they have received, give to difficult questions such as: how could we not intercept the terrorists deep on our side of the Line of Control? And why have we apprehended none of them a whole month and more after they committed their dastardly deed? And as three of the six alleged terrorists are Kashmiris, does this reflect “normalisation”?
Even if many of those interacting with our MPs know little of India-Pakistan relations, most would want to know the outcome of the first air battle ever between highly sophisticated Western aircraft like Rafale and little-known Chinese military aircraft. Would they be satisfied, as Indians apparently are, by being blandly told that “losses are expected in combat” and detailed information will be made available at the “right time”? Even assuming that our MPs have been vouchsafed the information of our losses, can they share such information with foreigners while it is being denied to Indians? Will our interlocutors not feel short-changed at their distinguished visitors not imparting to them the vital military information they seek, perhaps even to evaluate for themselves how far China has developed in advanced military technology vis-Ă -vis the West?
The nuclear option
And will the absence of answers from the Indian MPs make them wary of the answers they get about the one question on which our interlocutors are anxious to satisfy themselves: the nuclear weapons option? After all, even the US Vice President J.D. Vance was distancing himself from involvement so long as it was a question of India acting against cross-border terrorism. But the moment we went beyond terrorist camps in Pakistan and escalated to attacking Pakistan airbases, President Donald Trump took upon himself the task of knocking Indian and Pakistani heads together to halt the escalatory prospect before it crossed the nuclear threshold.
But so long as Operation Sindoor remains open-ended—and not terminated—the possibility remains of another terror attack provoking a resumption of armed conflict at a level higher than what Uri and Pathankot or Pulwama and Pahalgam provoked and taking the world closer to a nuclear confrontation. At that point, the issue remains no longer bilateral but of global concern, for any use of nuclear weapons will have global consequences not limited to national frontiers. Little practical purpose is served by our MPs intoning parrot-like that we will not succumb to Pakistani “nuclear blackmail”.
Post a Comment