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
Pakistan regards India as an existential threat: US defence intelligence annual report - The Economic Times
ReplyDeletehttps://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
ReplyDelete@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?
ReplyDeleteAI 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
ReplyDeletehttps://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 précising 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
ReplyDeletehttps://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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDeleteBy 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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDeleteAli 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:
ReplyDeletehttps://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-and-france-are-at-each-others-throats-over-the-dassault-rafale-fighter
G. Ali
Tejasswi Prakash
ReplyDelete@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:
ReplyDeletehttps://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.
ReplyDeletehttps://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:
🇵🇰 & 🇮🇳: 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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDeleteSushant 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
ReplyDeleteby 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
ReplyDelete@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
ReplyDelete@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-à-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”.
Jawhar Sircar
ReplyDelete@jawharsircar
This is the first time,
Modi is not invited to join the G7 meeting — though Australia, Brazil, S Africa and even Ukraine are invited.
Why?
Read my piece
“India’s Disastrous Isolation Around the World”
https://x.com/jawharsircar/status/1930353232355762332
---------------
India’s Disastrous Isolation Around the World
Jawhar Sircar
https://thewire.in/diplomacy/indias-disastrous-isolation-around-the-world
It is rather strange (and sad) that a fortnight before the big meet of G7 nations in Canada, there is no invitation sent to Modi.
It is pretty clear now that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will probably not join the elite G7 meeting in Alberta, Canada, scheduled from June 15 to 17. Alberta is not among the cities he seems to have seen so far in his 152 foreign visits to 72 countries in the last 11 years. So, it’s a bit of a miss on both sides.
However, what he may miss more is not being able to hug the new Canadian PM, Mark Carney (what a relief, after that hostile Trudeau!), the new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, and his known leaders, like PM Keir Starmer of the UK, French President Emmanuel Macron (after that dreadful family incident) and PM Shigeru Ishiba of Japan.
One is not certain if the glamorous Italian PM, Giorgia Meloni, would welcome a public embrace. As for US President Donald Trump – even he does not know whether he’ll hug Modi for photo ops, or punch him for denying repeatedly and vociferously that he brokered the Indo-Pak ceasefire. Best to stay clear of him while he plans how to pocket Canada as the 51st American state.
It is rather strange (and sad) that a fortnight before the big meet, there is no invitation sent to Modi. After all, he has been a fixture there, rubbing shoulders with the creme de la creme of the world’s most powerful capitalist nations, who also flaunt their highest per capita GDP. It really did not strike his enthralled supporters back home that the USA has crossed USD 80,000 as GDP per person. Even the doddering Japan’s per capita GDP is USD 32,000, while the sauntering India’s is around USD 2,800. We hope the snobs did not use this tiny detail to stop Viksit Bharat at the club gate.
----------
It is puerile even to ask whether there is any chance that the seven so-called all-party delegations to 32 countries may swing the world in India’s favour. Some 59 MPs and others – representing mainly the ruling alliance and establishment, as well as some who play footsie with them, may sing together with a few handpicked opposition MPs during their vishwa darshan. But we are stuck where we were. Modi has proved once again that Curzon was a child in the ‘divide and rule’ game and in one stroke, he has satisfied many whining ruling party loyalists who he could not give ministerial berths. But knowing MPs a bit leads me to believe that heart-burning would lap up the disproportionately meagre cost-benefits of the largest parliamentary exercise in global tourism.
A couple of hours spent by these teams with a handful of ‘intellectuals’ or ‘policy makers’ in distant Congo, Guyana or Latvia are unlikely to convince 32 nations to clap for India and against Pakistan. The literal occupation of the Kashmir valley for five years from 2019 rankles just too many, as does the non-stop minority-bashing by cowardly religious fanatics.
India’s annoying arrogance-cum-swagger, which is well above its weight and strength, is quite clear to most well-read citizens and leaders across the globe. It is India and its leadership at home that has to introspect and make course corrections. Perhaps, Dale Carnegie’s immortal How to Win Friends and Influence People, now priced at just Rs 120, may help.
FJ
ReplyDelete@Natsecjeff
Indian delegations visiting foreign countries to complain about Pakistan have reinforced in the minds of everyone they met that India is a country that is obsessed with Pakistan.
- Indian expert
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1931049255986422103
-----------------
FJ
@Natsecjeff
India's Diplomatic Bungle: Pak to Helm UNSC Anti-terror panels | THE WIRE WRAP
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1931042937560768605
---------------
https://youtu.be/4jC_BKBAY04?si=H1XK5QadRwexTajm
Jun 6, 2025 #thewirewrap #shashitharoor #indiapakistan
General Anil Chauhan, Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), has become the first Indian official to confirm that the Indian Air Force lost some fighter jets in clashes with Pakistan. That this admission has come abroad and not made domestically has raised questions. And 7 teams of multi party delegations are already on their way back to India with most teams having concluded their diplomatic outreach following Pahalgam and Operation Sindoor with the jury still out on what these delegations have achieved as Pakistan has been appointed to key counter-terrorism bodies at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The Wire's Sravasti Dasgupta is joined by Siddharth Varadarajan, founding editor, The Wire and Anuradha M. Chenoy, adjunct professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs.
China Offers Pakistan J-35A Stealth Fighters, KJ-500 AWACS, and HQ-19 Air Defense Systems
ReplyDeletehttps://defensetalks.com/china-offers-pakistan-j-35a-stealth-fighters-kj-500-awacs-and-hq-19-air-defense-systems/
The Government of Pakistan has officially confirmed that it has received an offer from China for a major defense package aimed at enhancing the country’s airpower and strategic defense capabilities. The announcement was made through the government’s official X (formerly Twitter) account earlier today.
According to the statement, the proposed package includes:
• 40 J-35A fifth-generation stealth fighter jets
• An undisclosed number of KJ-500 Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft
• An undisclosed number of HQ-19 long-range air and missile defense systems
The J-35A, developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation, represents a major leap in low-observable multirole air combat capabilities. Featuring stealth design, internal weapon bays, and advanced avionics, it is expected to significantly strengthen Pakistan’s deterrence posture and regional air superiority ambitions.
The KJ-500 AEW&C aircraft will provide 360-degree battlefield surveillance, airspace monitoring, and enhanced command and control capabilities, key to supporting high-intensity aerial operations in contested environments.
The inclusion of the HQ-19 — a theater-level ballistic missile defense platform — signals Pakistan’s focus on developing a multi-layered air defense shield. Designed to intercept high-speed threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles, the HQ-19 would represent the most advanced surface-to-air missile system in Pakistan’s arsenal.
Officials noted that the offer is currently under review by relevant defense and procurement authorities, with discussions underway on cost, delivery timelines, and localized support.
The announcement comes amid ongoing efforts by the Pakistan Air Force to modernize its combat fleet and integrated defense systems. It also builds upon recent operational success with the Chinese-supplied J-10CE fighters, which have proven effective in recent deployments.
This proposed defense package, if finalized, could reshape the regional balance of power and mark a significant milestone in the deepening strategic partnership between China and Pakistan.
-------
Thomas Keith
@iwasnevrhere_
Diplomacy was the soft shell; the core revealed Pakistan’s splice into China’s 5th‑generation lattice. Forty J‑35 stealth fighters lock Rawalpindi onto the same firmware branch Beijing uses to police the Taiwan Strait, turning every sortie over Kashmir into a live performance of Delhi’s irrelevance.
KJ‑500 radars and HQ‑19 interceptors stitch radar, tracking, and exo‑atmospheric kill space into one loop, downgrading India’s S‑400s to parade props while giving Pakistan clean anti‑satellite reach that Mumbai can only watch on STRATFOR infographics.
$3.7 billion in deferred Chinese debt isn’t charity, it’s a timer wired to strategic concessions, buying Islamabad oxygen while keeping Delhi guessing which concession point triggers first.
https://x.com/iwasnevrhere_/status/1931019017998786842
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
ReplyDelete@zhao_dashuai
These game changing weapons will be sold to Pakistan, along with the J-35AE as a package.
What are they?
And how can Pakistan use them innovatively to utterly cripple India's ability to wage war in the future?
https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1931698829717655735
--------------
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
The first weapon is the famous PL-15E. The difference is, this new version will have folded fins.
Allowing the J-35AE to carry 6 PL-15E internally.
This newer version will come with improved sensor suite as well as a more efficiently structure dual-pulse rocket engine.
------------------
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
No one if any, are talking about J-35AE's air to ground capabilities.
It is highly likely, that a 500kg class bunker busting glide bomb will be part of the J-35AE sales package.
The details are yet to be confirmed, but we do know that it will be based on the YL-V501 glide bomb.
-------------
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
The internal weapons bay of the J-35AE can carry 4 of these deep penetration bombs.
The wings and tail fins are foldable, to fit inside the J-35AE.
What are it capabilities? And why it's no-par as a game changer as the PL-15E if used innovatively?
---------------
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
*Note, the images shown are the base variant of the YL-V501 from the Zhuhai airshow.
The YL-V501 comes with a modular multi-mode guidance system, the base variant has an IIR sensor/ camera that allows AI enabled image recognition.
-----------
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
So if the bomb is ordered to hit the left wing of a parked aircraft, it'll know not to hit the right.
Depending on the release altitude, it has a range of up to 120km.
In cases where India is planning for a major operation, their forward staging ground will be vulnerable.
--------------
See new posts
Conversation
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
·
14h
No one if any, are talking about J-35AE's air to ground capabilities.
It is highly likely, that a 500kg class bunker busting glide bomb will be part of the J-35AE sales package.
The details are yet to be confirmed, but we do know that it will be based on the YL-V501 glide bomb.
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
·
14h
The internal weapons bay of the J-35AE can carry 4 of these deep penetration bombs.
The wings and tail fins are foldable, to fit inside the J-35AE.
What are it capabilities? And why it's no-par as a game changer as the PL-15E if used innovatively?
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
·
14h
*Note, the images shown are the base variant of the YL-V501 from the Zhuhai airshow.
The YL-V501 comes with a modular multi-mode guidance system, the base variant has an IIR sensor/ camera that allows AI enabled image recognition.
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
·
14h
So if the bomb is ordered to hit the left wing of a parked aircraft, it'll know not to hit the right.
Depending on the release altitude, it has a range of up to 120km.
In cases where India is planning for a major operation, their forward staging ground will be vulnerable.
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
@zhao_dashuai
The stealth capabilities of the J-35AE, allow it to penetrate deep into Indian airspace.
Wrecking havoc on Indian logistics and hardened shelters for fighters, even underground command posts.
The J-35AE can fly to New Delhi and pay Modi's underground bunker a visit.
Time to reassess, size up Pakistan
ReplyDeleteThere is a need to pay greater attention to how the world views India’s neighbor
By Sanjaya Baru
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/time-to-reassess-size-up-pakistan/
PAKISTAN is a failed State. Pakistan should be declared a terrorist state. Pakistan’s economy is sinking. Pakistan has been internationally isolated. We have dehyphenated ourselves from Pakistan. Even Prabowo Subianto, President of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation, delinked his visit to India from a trip to Pakistan. For a decade now, the Indian public has been fed this narrative. A leading New Delhi think tank even published a paper by one of its senior scholars, titled, ‘Jaishankar Makes it Clear: Pakistan is Now Just a Sideshow for India.’
What accounts for this hesitation on the part of the so-called ‘international community’ to call a spade a spade?
On June 4, less than a month after the two nations were engaged in hostilities focused on terrorist groups based in Pakistan, the United Nations Security Council named Pakistan as vice-chair of its Counter-Terrorism Committee. This comes on top of a series of minor and major diplomatic victories for Pakistan over the past month. It is time to pay greater attention to our relations with our neighbour and to how the world views Pakistan.
The first diplomatic shock came when on May 9, two days into the cross-border hostilities, the executive board of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) voted to extend an over $2-billion loan to Pakistan. India was the only member of the board that abstained. All others, including all members of the Group of Seven, voted to give Pakistan a breather. The only Indian official who publicly criticised the IMF board for this decision, Raksha Mantri Rajnath Singh, did so almost as an afterthought. The IMF decision was followed by financial support from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank.
Then spoke US President Donald Trump. In the first of a dozen statements so far, he claimed credit for getting the warring neighbours to declare a ceasefire. He persisted with his claims even after India officially denied that the US had anything to do with the ceasefire. To rub salt into Indian diplomatic wounds, President Trump not only equated India and Pakistan as good friends of the US but claimed that both are important countries because they are nuclear powers and that they would now trade with each other and the US to avoid future conflict.
While many countries supported India in its battle against terrorism, only two — Israel and Afghanistan — named Pakistan as its sponsor. Within days, Beijing hosted a trilateral with Pakistan and Afghanistan and made the two make up. That left only Israel, accused today of conducting genocide against a hapless people, supporting India. Even Russia spoke with a forked tongue. Days after the Pahalgam terror attack, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar mocked the European Union, saying that India was seeking “partners not preachers”. Sure, no one preached after that. However, few partnered.
Many in India are aghast. What accounts for this hesitation on the part of the so-called ‘international community’ to call a spade a spade? Why has there been no whole-hearted condemnation of Pakistan or at least a more genuine expression of solidarity with India? Why did Prime Minister Narendra Modi have to depute multi-party delegations of members of Parliament around the world to do the work of India’s ambassadors?
Time to reassess, size up Pakistan
ReplyDeleteThere is a need to pay greater attention to how the world views India’s neighbor
By Sanjaya Baru
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/time-to-reassess-size-up-pakistan/
The point is that it was not always like this. The international community stood with India when in 1999 it repulsed Pakistani soldiers attired in mufti at Kargil. The global opinion on the status of Kashmir changed after that, with US President Bill Clinton giving his imprimatur to the Simla Agreement that sanctified the Line of Control as a virtual border. Clinton visited India for five days and Pakistan for five hours. He praised India and admonished Pakistan.
Again, in November 2008, after the terror attack in Mumbai, the entire world stood with India. Pakistan was shamed for its role on both occasions because its role was manifest and, equally importantly, the world gave Indian statements due regard. Statements made by the governments of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh were taken seriously in all major capitals of the world. Neither had to waste national resources to fly 50 parliamentarians around the world to convince them of our case. Professional diplomats did that job.
The Union Government’s inability to identify the nationality of the terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attack and clearly establish Pakistan’s culpability has handicapped Indian diplomacy this time. Equally, many countries are wondering whether Indian domestic politics has not played its part in weakening India’s case on cross-border terrorism. The Indian State was viewed as a secular and democratic state and the governments of Vajpayee and Singh as responsible governments that deserved international support. The Indian case in this regard has become weaker and international opinion less charitable.
The first task of national security and foreign policy management has to be the correct sizing up of one’s enemy. Second, to ensure adequate contact at different levels that facilitates an exchange of credible information. By shutting down all diplomatic, business and civil society engagement with Pakistan, India has deprived itself of the means to acquire a balanced assessment of its neighbour and the ability to influence opinion across the border.
While the economic gap between the two countries has certainly grown, Pakistan is not a basket case. It has a sizeable economy, a sizeable industrial and agricultural base, links with major economies and a competent military.
In a recent interview with The Print’s Swasti Rao, a European diplomat reminded Indians of the many strengths and capabilities of Pakistan’s air force. Apart from its hard power, Pakistan has always enjoyed the soft power of its elite. In a highly feudal and unequal society, Pakistan’s elites continue to be groomed to interact with confidence and class with their Western interlocutors. India’s new middle class that now populates its politics and diplomacy is no match.
Dogfight dividend: China’s defense stocks soar after jet showdown buzz
ReplyDeletehttps://www.fxstreet.com/news/dogfight-dividend-chinas-defense-stocks-soar-after-jet-showdown-buzz-202505150514
Investors are chasing narratives again, and this week China’s defense industry took a bold step into the spotlight. Some are calling it the sector’s 'DeepSeek moment'—a reference to the Hangzhou-based AI startup that sent Chinese tech names flying earlier this year by going toe-to-toe with OpenAI at a fraction of the cost. But this time, it’s not software stealing the show—it’s fighter jets.
Pakistan’s military claimed its Chinese-made J-10C aircraft shot down five Indian jets, including French-made Rafales and Russian-sourced MIG-29s and Su-30s. India hasn’t confirmed the report, and evidence is sparse—but that didn’t stop Avic Chengdu Aircraft Co., the J-10C’s maker, from rocketing 20% higher on Monday. Meanwhile, Dassault Aviation, maker of the Rafale, slipped over 6%.
It’s the first time modern Chinese jets have reportedly clashed with Western aircraft in combat, and on paper, Beijing appears to have walked away with bragging rights. But let’s add some altitude to this narrative. The J-10Cs didn’t face F-35s, F-22s, or even the U.S. Air Force’s F-15EX Strike Eagle II—the much improved version of the long-reigning non-stealth king of the skies. In other words, this wasn’t the A-League just yet.
Still, investors are pricing in a new script. China's defense industry has long lagged the U.S. and Europe—accounting for just 5.9% of global arms exports compared to America’s 43%. But now, with real-world footage (or at least headlines) showing Chinese-built jets holding their own, some are speculating that Beijing might finally have a product to pitch to the Global South. West Africa is already a case in point—China now supplies over a quarter of the region’s arms.
While the market loves a good story, savvy investors know to look beyond the first act. Just like DeepSeek hasn't dethroned OpenAI, the J-10C hasn't unseated the Western air superiority club. Yet that hasn’t stopped speculative capital from circling. Traders are betting that this combat buzz could open doors for new export orders, and they're front-running the earnings curve.
European defense stocks have already taught us this playbook. French and German names have exploded in value this year, with Dassault, Rheinmetall, and Hensoldt riding the wave of rising NATO budgets and reduced U.S. global policing. China’s military-industrial complex could be next in line—especially with limited publicly listed options and increasing interest from global funds seeking geopolitical hedges.
Ultimately, the Pakistan dogfight might be more marketing than milestone, but perception matters. China’s friendship with Islamabad has given its jets a stage, and for arms exporters, there’s no better ad than combat footage—even if the competition wasn’t top-tier.
This could be the start of a breakout narrative for China’s defense industry—but let’s keep it grounded. The J-10C may have caught a tailwind, but it's still flying in a lower airspace until it goes head-to-head with the F-35 or F-15E.
--------------
Shares of Chinese defense companies, including AVIC Shenyang Aircraft Company, rallied after Pakistan announced its intention to buy China's J-35 stealth fighter jets as part of a major arms purchase
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-09/chinese-defense-companies-soar-as-pakistan-touts-arms-purchase?embedded-checkout=true
Zhao DaShuai 东北进修🇨🇳
ReplyDelete@zhao_dashuai
Shares of Shenyang Aircraft Corporation surges after Pakistan confirms they will purchase 40 J-35AE stealth fighters.
https://x.com/zhao_dashuai/status/1932132330858295350
Many countries, including Pakistan, have condemned the Pahalgam attack. But no major power has agreed with India's accusation against Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteModi's policy of blaming Pakistan without evidence for militancy in Kashmir no longer works.
Read this: https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1932441769297273042
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
“Instead of backing for the military strikes, New Delhi was counselled by one and all – including Russia and Ukraine – to talk to Pakistan. India's neighbourhood was quiet. Even Nepal, which lost a national in the Pahalgam terror attack, made no statement…”
@tallstories
India's aim of isolating Pakistan is at a dead end Caught flat-footed by the apparent return of the hyphen between India and Pakistan, New Delhi's first reaction was denial. So, even the ceasefire is not a ceasefire, but a ‘stoppage of firing’ by Nirupama Subramaniam
For nearly a decade, driven by big terrorist strikes in Kashmir, India's approach on Pakistan has been focused on isolating the country in the international community by projecting it as a sponsor of terrorism in India, and thus a threat to regional stability. It is clear that effort has failed.
The coup de grace was delivered when the 15 members of the United Nations Security Council elected Pakistan, a non-permanent member for 2025-2026, to chair of the Taliban sanctions committee, and vice-chair of the counter-terror committee of the United Nations Security Council. The chair and vice-chairs are appointed for a year. But all decisions in a committee require the consensus of all 15 members.
Pakistan's UNSC coup came at a time when India's all party delegations were touring the world to spread the message that its western neighbour needs to be made accountable for terrorist actions emanating from its territory.
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/indias-aim-of-isolating-pakistan-is-at-a-dead-end-unsc-terrorism-pahalgam-united-nations-foreign-policy-3579514
FJ
ReplyDelete@Natsecjeff
*gets several jets shot down by Pakistan, fails to deter Pakistan*
A month later argues "the US should cede influence in South Asia to India"
Imagine the giggling in Washington.
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1932484084590096522
-------------------
FJ
@Natsecjeff
That's hilarious. The US will never cede influence in South Asia to India. In fact, our calculations indicate that in the not-so-distant future, India will be treated more as a US competitor and less as a US ally.
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1932481384859279820
--------------------
Ambuj Sahu
@DarthThunderous
In our latest, I and
@brigarunsahgal
argue that the underlying causes of frictions in India -US relations are rooted in an outdated South Asia policy of US. The US should recognize subcontinent as India's sphere of influence to avoid misunderstandings.
https://x.com/DarthThunderous/status/1932253532956336517
-----------------
How to Reset the US-India Partnership - The National Interest
About the Authors: Ambuj Sahu and Arun Sahgal
Ambuj Sahu is a PhD candidate at Indiana University Bloomington and writes about India’s foreign policy interests in the Indo-Pacific. Follow him on X at @DarthThunderous.
Arun Sahgal, PhD, Brigadier (Retd.), is the Director of the Forum for Strategic Initiatives, a Delhi-based thinktank. He was the founding Director of the Office of Net Assessment, Integrated Defense Staff (IDS), Ministry of Defense of India.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/silk-road-rivalries/how-to-reset-the-us-india-partnership
"Today, supporting Pakistan would only bolster China’s position in the region. By ceding space to India, the United States can effectively buck-pass the task of regional balancing. It is both strategic and prudent to facilitate India’s uncontested position in the subcontinent and minimize the flow of US resources in the region, especially to Pakistan"
Rabia Akhtar
ReplyDelete@Rabs_AA
Sanjaya Baru’s article dismantles the illusion of Pakistan’s isolation and calls on India to confront the diminishing returns of its narrative-driven diplomacy.
For over two decades, India has invested immense diplomatic capital, media muscle, and strategic messaging into discrediting Pakistan on the global stage. From branding it a terrorist state to declaring it a global pariah, New Delhi believed it could narratively isolate Pakistan out of relevance.
Indians must ask: What has that investment yielded?
In May 2025, during one of the most intense India-Pakistan crises in recent memory, the international community did not rally around Indian claims, it watched with unease. While India pounded the disinformation drums, Pakistan was elected Vice-Chair of the UN Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee. The IMF, World Bank, and ADB extended crucial financial lifelines. U.S. mediation took center stage. China, Russia, Turkey, the Gulf states, all engaged Pakistan without buying into India’s script.
India’s strategy of silencing, not engaging, has left it narratively adrift and strategically short-sighted. The world does not see Pakistan through Indian talking points anymore. It sees a nuclear-armed, diplomatically engaged, strategically relevant actor, one India can neither wish away nor define on its own terms.
If there is any lesson here, it is this: demonizing Pakistan has not isolated it, it has isolated India’s understanding of Pakistan. It is perhaps time for New Delhi to update its map of perception.
Time to reassess, size up Pakistan https://tribuneindia.com/news/comment/time-to-reassess-size-up-pakistan/
https://x.com/Rabs_AA/status/1932477744748621994
Sushant Singh
ReplyDelete@SushantSin
Narrative is a function of reality. India suffered significant combat losses on the first night which it wants to paper over. It is by hiding the reality that you lose the narrative war globally. Domestically you can make the people believe that Karachi was about to be captured.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1932291800171168138
------------
Pakistan used Chinese weapons in its fight with India. The impact may be far-reaching : NPR
https://www.npr.org/2025/06/10/nx-s1-5421262/pakistan-used-chinese-weapons-in-its-fight-with-india-the-impact-may-be-far-reaching
FJ
ReplyDelete@Natsecjeff
Top CENTCOM commander declares Pakistan a "phenomenal partner" in counterterrorism for America.
This is the opposite of what India was expecting to hear.
https://x.com/Natsecjeff/status/1932739907262279823
----------------
US Centcom chief lauds ‘phenomenal partner’ Pakistan in counter-terrorism efforts - Pakistan - DAWN.COM
https://www.dawn.com/news/1916524
United States Central Command (Centcom) commander Army General Michael Kurilla on Wednesday praised Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner in the world of counter-terrorism”, citing the nation’s struggle against terrorism in Balochistan and against terrorist groups like the Islamic State-Khorasan (IS-K).
Pakistan and the US reaffirmed the continuation of counter-terrorism cooperation during a dialogue in Washington on May 10. The dialogue underscored the cooperation between the two countries in addressing the most pressing challenges to regional and global security, including the threats posed by terrorist outfits such as the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and IS-K.
The two nations are slated to have another counter-terrorism dialogue this month.
Sushant Singh
ReplyDelete@SushantSin
The question is not what value Pakistan holds for the US. The question is the lies we were told that after Modi and Jaishankar, the US is now completely beholden to India and doesn't care for Pakistan at all. The lies were told by editors, columnists, diplomats and think-tankers.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1932816283659350524
Sushant Singh
ReplyDelete@SushantSin
The question is not what value Pakistan holds for the US. The question is the lies we were told that after Modi and Jaishankar, the US is now completely beholden to India and doesn't care for Pakistan at all. The lies were told by editors, columnists, diplomats and think-tankers.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1932816283659350524
Unsubscribe from comment emails for this blog.
Posted by Riaz Haq to South Asia Investor Review at Jun 11, 2025, 10:00 AM
Riaz Haq
2:05 PM (4 hours ago)
to me
Riaz Haq has left a new comment on your post "Builder.AI: Yet Another Global Indian Scam?":
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
The real stuff seems to be actually in Gen Kurilla’s Q&A which
@clary_co
just tweeted. Tells you of how the US military leadership looks at Pakistan when it comes to terrorism. (That sounds quite different from how Modi, Jaishankar and Tharoor wish to portray Pakistan.)
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1932691747022184692
------------------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
From CENTCOM Commander Gen. Kurilla's testimony to the House Armed Services Cmte: "ISIS-K remains an active branch..., presenting a formidable global EXOPS [external ops] threat that requires a network of partners – such as Pakistan, Uzbekistan, & Tajikistan – to combat." /1
https://x.com/clary_co/status/1932671891988250957
----------
15h
"ISIS-K has been disrupted through pressure by both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though they continue to retain a significant network and freedom of maneuver in the tribal areas." /2
-----------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
"Opportunity also exists... where we can expand counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan and other Central Asian partners. The actions of our Pakistani partners [on] Mohammad Sharifullah... highlights Pakistan’s value as a Parter" /4
--------------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
"Pakistan continues to hunt ISIS-K in their border areas, executing dozens of operations to kill and capture multiple leaders, including the mastermind of the Abbey Gate attack that claimed 13 American lives." /5
---------------
·
15h
"ISIS-K has been disrupted through pressure by both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though they continue to retain a significant network and freedom of maneuver in the tribal areas." /2
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"These sanctuaries will give ISIS fighters the space to plan attacks against its ‘near enemy’ – our Partners in the Region – & its ultimate ‘far enemy’ – the U.S. Homeland." /3
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"Opportunity also exists... where we can expand counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan and other Central Asian partners. The actions of our Pakistani partners [on] Mohammad Sharifullah... highlights Pakistan’s value as a Parter" /4
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"Pakistan continues to hunt ISIS-K in their border areas, executing dozens of operations to kill and capture multiple leaders, including the mastermind of the Abbey Gate attack that claimed 13 American lives." /5
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
From his prepared testimony: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/uscentcom_posture_statement_2025.pdf
@clary_co
ReplyDelete·
15h
"ISIS-K has been disrupted through pressure by both the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, though they continue to retain a significant network and freedom of maneuver in the tribal areas." /2
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"These sanctuaries will give ISIS fighters the space to plan attacks against its ‘near enemy’ – our Partners in the Region – & its ultimate ‘far enemy’ – the U.S. Homeland." /3
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
@clary_co
"So we are seeing Pakistan, with limited intelligence that we provide, and go after them using their means to do that, and we’re seeing an effect on ISIS Khorasan." /9
------------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
"At the same point, they [ISIS-K] are continuing to move around. Sometimes they will try and go back into Afghanistan. We have the means to be able to collect, but for the most part right now they’re hanging out right in that border area of Pakistan." /10
----------
Post
See new posts
Conversation
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"Opportunity also exists... where we can expand counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan and other Central Asian partners. The actions of our Pakistani partners [on] Mohammad Sharifullah... highlights Pakistan’s value as a Parter" /4
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
"Pakistan continues to hunt ISIS-K in their border areas, executing dozens of operations to kill and capture multiple leaders, including the mastermind of the Abbey Gate attack that claimed 13 American lives." /5
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
15h
From his prepared testimony: https://armedservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/uscentcom_posture_statement_2025.pdf
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
But wait... there's more. From the Q&A. (I had to review this part via video so it took a little longer.) The relevant Pakistan sections are in this second part of the HASC video stream.
From defense.gov
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
"Right now what we saw was the Taliban in going after ISIS-K—they hate each other—pushed a lot of them into the tribal areas on the Afghan-Pakistan border." /6
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
"Through a phenomenal partnership with Pakistan—they have gone after ISIS Khorasan, killing dozens of them. Through our relationship we have with them, and providing intelligence, they have captured at least five ISIS Khorasan high-value individuals." /7
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
"They extradited back Jafar..., one of the key individuals behind the Abbey Gate bombing. The first person... the chief of the army staff Munir [called] was me & said, “I’ve caught him, ready to extradite him back to US, please tell the Secretary of Defense & the President.” /8
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
"So we are seeing Pakistan, with limited intelligence that we provide, and go after them using their means to do that, and we’re seeing an effect on ISIS Khorasan." /9
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
·
14h
"At the same point, they [ISIS-K] are continuing to move around. Sometimes they will try and go back into Afghanistan. We have the means to be able to collect, but for the most part right now they’re hanging out right in that border area of Pakistan." /10
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
"Since [the start of] 2024... Pakistan has had over 1,000 terrorist attacks in the western area, killing about 700 security & [2,500] civilians. They have an active counterterrorism fight right now, & they have been a phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world." /11
---------------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
ISIS-K "have attempted other attacks, and there was actually ties—in the classified setting I can talk—in terms of plots against the homeland..." /12
-----------
Christopher Clary
@clary_co
"That’s why we need, we have to have a relationship with Pakistan & with India. I do not believe it is a binary switch that we can’t have one with Pakistan if we have a relationship with India. We should look at the merits of the relationship for the positives that it has." /end
https://x.com/clary_co/status/1932689631327248754
Sushant Singh
ReplyDelete@SushantSin
"A strange mix of insularity and delusion, propped up by a media at once sycophantic and hallucinatory, has kept us in denial about the steep drop of the world’s perception of India."
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1933016375997403478
-------------
Mind the gulf
By Saikat Majumdar
https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/mind-the-gulf-a-crisis-in-indias-international-image-prnt/cid/2107361#goog_rewarded
India’s image problem has now moved into a state of crisis. The gulf between how the country is perceived from outside and the picture of India promoted by the current national government has grown to a point of tragedy or comedy, depending on your perspective. Life, Byron said once, is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think. Feelings might have taken the driver’s seat, particularly with the brutal tragedy of the terrorist attack at Pahalgam, but the sobriety of honest thought is essential to assess the reality of the conflict with Pakistan that followed. This is where comedy returns, not only as a mark of thinking over feeling but, sadly, also of grotesquery of a different order. It takes us back to the longstanding problem of India’s international image and its startling contrast with the dominant domestic editions.
The question glares on the trip trail of the international public relations team of multiparty parliamentarians to tell the Indian side of the story in the recent standoff with Pakistan. The Georgetown academic, Christine Fair, gets it exactly right in her interview with Scroll when she points out that the very need for such a delegation marks something of a serious communication failure on the international stage. Pakistan, she reminds us, has been far better at communicating with the Western media. That India has failed at this is the irony of India’s size and heft, both economic and political, and its importance as a functioning democracy, if a rapidly declining one. But if size makes us complacent and inward looking, then we have a problem. We may fume at being bracketed with Pakistan. But sadly, this also shows that we have forgotten how to speak to others, particularly to outsiders who do not buy the ideological marketing of nationalist pride that distorts home truths for our citizenry.
An indifference to the world outside and the global image of the nation is sometimes characteristic of large nations that have enough within their own borders to preoccupy them. No nation has shown this as revealingly in the modern world as the United States of America whose cultural insularity is the stuff of legend. When you’re in the heart of Middle America where nothing but America is visible for thousands of miles all around, it can get hard to see other cultures beyond your land. Arriving in one such state in the last year of the last millennium as a student, I was appalled at the local image of India as the land of poverty, Gandhi, and the Taj Mahal. But even then, the impending computer glitch of Y2K had brought droves of Indian software engineers to the US, and as I moved to the east coast for doctoral study shortly after the turn of the millennium, I encountered a distinct change in the American image of India. Bengaluru, Hyderabad, and other hubs of information technology as well as students and professionals from these domains increasingly defined the country; the ‘third world’ image from the Midwest in 1999 already seemed to belong to another age. When in 2007, somewhere between the arrival of Facebook and the iPhone, I took a faculty position at a university in the San Francisco Bay Area, I entered a world where being Indian was synonymous with being smart, specifically a tech-geek — possibly a start-up founder or an ambitious Google employee in Palo Alto, where I lived, occasionally spotting Mark Zuckerberg in the local farmers’ market.
Mind the gulf
ReplyDeleteBy Saikat Majumdar
https://www.telegraphindia.com/opinion/mind-the-gulf-a-crisis-in-indias-international-image-prnt/cid/2107361#goog_rewarded
From California, the world seemed to look further west, to Taiwan and Hong Kong rather than to western Europe that loomed over the east coast and shaped what Amit Chaudhuri has called America’s “heritage modernity”. Miraculously, India seemed to be an extended part of this Rising Asia, not only in the tech culture it imported through immigrant and outsourced labour but also in the same breath as the great Asian Tiger of China. The market crash of 2008, coupled with the inauguration of the Barack Obama presidency, generated the feeling that the centre of gravity of the world was shifting from the White West and Asia offered the richest promise.
From being bracketed with China in the first and the early second decade of the twenty-first century, India is now back in the bracket with Pakistan and Bangladesh, just the way things used to be in the 20th century. A strange mix of insularity and delusion, propped up by a media at once sycophantic and hallucinatory, has kept us in denial about the steep drop of the world’s perception of India. Living in India and following the flatulent rhetoric of the government and stakeholders beholden to this leadership, one is made to believe in India’s ‘massive’ economy and vishwaguru status and take a few shopping malls, bullet trains and flyovers, the bare-normal steps of inevitable modernisation, as giant leaps into a shiny global future. But as Pratap Bhanu Mehta pointed out in an article in The Indian Express this February, while India’s delusion of relevance continues to be relentlessly driven by our internal machineries of ideology and a pliant media, neither in global trade, soft power, or political heft does India matter a fraction of what a country of this size and population should — and certainly far less than what our leaders in power would have us believe.
As someone who now lives in Delhi’s National Capital Region but continues to spend time in different parts of the world, including Africa and Europe, I see both the internal projection and the external reality and the absurd gulf between them. In research institutes, think tanks and policy centres abroad, one hears China in almost every conversation, but India rarely comes up. As the East Asian giant wrests global academic leadership away from the US, particularly in science and tech and most sharply in Artificial Intelligence research, India’s research output remains puny in volume and significance on the global scale. Our sheer size and whatever remaining semblance of democracy we offer give us a podium on the world scale that we immediately squander by being inconsequential on all fronts. No wonder we are left to vie with Pakistan to get the world to take our version of the truth seriously.
Saikat Majumdar is currently a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Study in Budapest
Suhasini Haidar
ReplyDelete@suhasinih
India abstains on Gaza ceasefire resolution in UNGA, just 6 months after voting for similar resolution. India's vote breaks with all other South Asian, BRICS, SCO countries, all G7 countries minus US, Indian PR says India stands for dialogue. Reporting
https://x.com/suhasinih/status/1933831434768367630
----------------
Sushant Singh
@SushantSin
This rather convoluted op-ed from this ex-diplomat who was part of the MPs delegation appeared earlier this week. See what he heard from the countries of the Global South on India's stance on major issues: Abstentation is not nuance, but timid silence. And silence is complicity.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1934111615563055454
--------------
Why India refused to join SCO condemnation of Israel’s attacks on Iran
India broke with the rest of the group, led by Russia and China, as it carries out a balancing act. What were New Delhi’s compulsions?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/16/why-india-refused-to-join-sco-condemnation-of-israels-attacks-on-iran
The SCO, a political and security bloc founded in 2001, consists of China, Belarus, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Iran is the most recent entrant, having joined the SCO under India’s chairmanship in 2023.
On Saturday, the SCO, currently chaired by China, issued a statement that said its member states “express serious concern” over the escalating Iran-Israel tensions and “strongly condemn the military strikes carried out by Israel” on the territory of Iran.
The SCO statement further noted that Israel’s “aggressive actions against civilian targets, including energy and transport infrastructure, which have resulted in civilian casualties, are a gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter”.
“[Israeli attacks] constitute an infringement on Iran’s sovereignty, cause damage to regional and international security, and pose serious risks to global peace and stability,” the statement added, extending condolences to Iran’s government and people.
“The SCO member states firmly advocate for the resolution of the situation surrounding Iran’s nuclear program exclusively through peaceful, political, and diplomatic means,” the statement noted.
India’s Great-Power Delusions
ReplyDeleteHow New Delhi’s Grand Strategy Thwarts Its Grand Ambitions
Ashley J. Tellis
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/india/indias-great-power-delusions
Since the turn of the century, the United States has sought to help India rise as a great power.
--------
In military terms, it is the most significant conventional power in South Asia, but here, too, its advantages over its local rival are not enormous: in fighting in May, Pakistan used Chinese-supplied defense systems to shoot down Indian aircraft. With China on one side and an adversarial Pakistan on the other, India must always fear the prospect of an unpalatable two-front war. Meanwhile, at home, the country is shedding one of its main sources of strength—its liberal democracy—by embracing Hindu nationalism. This evolution could undermine India’s rise by intensifying communal tensions and exacerbating problems with its neighbors, forcing it to redirect security resources inward to the detriment of outward power projection. The country’s illiberal pivot further undermines the rules-based international order that has served it so well.
-------
An illiberal India is also likely to be less powerful. The BJP’s policies have polarized India along ideological and religious lines, and the unresolved issues about how India’s changing demography is to be represented in parliament threaten to exacerbate regional and linguistic divisions. This makes India look increasingly like the highly divided United States. Polarization has been bad enough for Americans, hobbling their institutions and fueling democratic decay. But it will be even worse for India, where the state and society are much weaker. Polarization, for example, could intensify the armed rebellions against New Delhi that have long been underway, creating opportunities for outside powers to sow chaos within India’s borders. Those conflicts could also spill over into India’s neighborhood, as the ideological animus against Muslims exacerbates tensions with both Bangladesh and Pakistan. Polarization would also increase India’s internal security burdens, consuming resources that New Delhi needs to project influence abroad. And even if polarization does not create more internal troubles, it will undermine New Delhi’s efforts to mobilize its population in accumulating national power.
----------
The United States has tolerated these Indian behaviors in the past in part because both countries were largely liberal democracies. As both proceed down the path of illiberalism, however, they will no longer be tied by shared values. Transactional habits may come to dominate the relationship, and Washington could demand more of New Delhi as the price of partnership. Trump’s approach to India in his second term has already signaled such an evolution. Indeed, India’s inability to match China in the future, as well as its commitment to multipolarity, which is fundamentally at odds with American interests, will be deeply inconvenient for the United States. India, it seems, will partner with the United States on some things involving China, but it is unlikely to partner with Washington in every significant arena—even when it comes to Beijing.
If New Delhi cannot effectively balance Beijing in Asia, Washington will invariably wonder how many resources and how much faith it should invest in India. A liberal United States might continue to support a liberal India because helping it would be inherently worthwhile (provided that the costs were not prohibitive and New Delhi’s success still served some American interests). But if either India or the United States remains illiberal, there will be no ideological reason for the latter to help the former.
Sushant Singh
ReplyDelete@SushantSin
This seems to be coming after the Modi telephone call. After all that Modi has supposed to have told him which he listened to rather meekly, as per the Indian version. Something doesn't add up.
https://x.com/SushantSin/status/1935352130707099822
----------
The Hindu
@the_hindu
JUST IN | "I stopped a war between India and Pakistan. I love Pakistan, Modi is a fantastic man. Gen Munir was very helpful, Modi from the Indian side, lots of people were involved. I stopped the war, but did anyone report that?" President #DonaldTrump said, reports
@suhasinih
He has also said that the U.S. was going to make trade deal with India, according to Reuters.
https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1935351333571412218
---------------
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/india-will-not-accept-third-party-mediation-relations-with-pakistan-modi-tells-2025-06-18/
Summary
Modi denies any US mediation in India-Pakistan ceasefire
"I stopped the war," says Trump
Trump says he is honored to host Pakistani army chief
India says Trump expressed support for India's anti-terrorism efforts
WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD/NEW DELHI, June 18 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan's army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir at the White House on Wednesday, in an unprecedented meeting that risked worsening a disagreement with India over the president's claim that he stopped the recent war between the nuclear-armed South Asian foes.
The lunch meeting was the first time a U.S. president had hosted the powerful head of Pakistan's army, widely regarded as having sway over the country's national security policies, at the White House unaccompanied by senior Pakistani civilian officials.
Trump said he was honored to meet Munir and that they had discussed Iran, which he said Pakistan knew better than most. Trump told reporters he had thanked Munir for ending the war with India, for which he also praised Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who he spoke to on Tuesday night.
"Two very smart people decided not to keep going with that war; that could have been a nuclear war," Trump told reporters.
Munir was expected to press Trump not to enter Israel's war with Iran and seek a ceasefire, Pakistani officials and experts said. A section of Pakistan's embassy in Washington represents Iran's interests in the United States, as Tehran does not have diplomatic relations with the U.S.
Pakistan has condemned Israel's airstrikes against Iran, saying they violate international law and threaten regional stability.
The meeting represented a major boost in U.S.-Pakistan ties, which had largely languished under Trump and his predecessor Joe Biden, as both courted India as part of efforts to push back against China.
Asked earlier what he wanted to achieve from meeting Munir, Trump told reporters: "Well, I stopped a war ... I love Pakistan. I think Modi is a fantastic man. I spoke to him last night. We're going to make a trade deal with Modi of India.
A White House love-in for Pakistan’s big man outrages India
ReplyDeleteIt comes after Donald Trump ditched a meeting with Narendra Modi
https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/06/19/a-white-house-love-in-for-pakistans-big-man-outrages-india
India had hoped for a breakthrough at the g7 summit in Canada. Indian politicians and diplomats had spent much of the past month lobbying foreign governments to isolate Pakistan after its latest conflict with India, which ended on May 10th. America was a particular focus: Donald Trump had upset India by praising both sides, unilaterally claiming to have brokered a ceasefire and then offering to mediate in a dispute over Kashmir, despite Indian objections. Indian officials were also seeking a trade deal with America and hoped that a meeting in Calgary between Mr Trump and Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, would help on both fronts.
It did not go according to plan. Not only did Mr Trump leave the summit early, without meeting Mr Modi. Two days later, on June 18th, America’s president hosted Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, for lunch at the White House. Mr Trump and Mr Modi spoke by phone the day before, allowing India’s leader to assert that the recent conflict ended at Pakistan’s request and to reaffirm his objections to mediation on Kashmir. But Mr Modi declined Mr Trump’s invitation to “stop by” Washington on the way home.
Field Marshal Munir’s preferential treatment is a setback for India. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, recently drew a direct link between what he called the field marshal’s “extreme religious outlook” and a terrorist attack in the Indian-ruled part of Kashmir on April 22nd. And Mr Modi has spent much of the past decade forging closer ties with America.
The White House said it invited Field Marshal Munir after he called for Mr Trump to be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for ending the conflict with India. But they discussed Iran too. Pakistan has often offered Iran diplomatic support and has condemned Israel’s current attacks on it, so American officials could be anxious to gauge potential Pakistani responses should America become more directly involved. Pakistan’s foreign minister, Ishaq Dar, denied on June 16th that his country would carry out a nuclear strike on Israel if it attacked Iran with atomic weapons.
Recent Senate hearings suggested further reasons for Field Marshal Munir’s visit. On June 10th the commander of America’s Central Command, General Michael Kurilla, described Pakistan as a “phenomenal” counter-terrorism partner. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistani forces had targeted leaders of isis-Khorasan, an offshoot of the group that set up a “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria in 2014. On the same day S. Paul Kapur, the nominee to be the State Department’s top South Asia official, told another Senate hearing that his approach to Pakistan would be to “pursue security co-operation” while seeking trade and investment opportunities.
Why have India’s efforts fallen short? They appear to have relied too much on the relationship forged between Mr Modi and Mr Trump during his first term. Mr Trump is now more transactional, unpredictable and dismissive of his own staff’s advice. Despite talk of warming relations, America has not spared India from its trade and immigration offensives. While American officials see India as a counterweight to China, they also want to prevent Pakistan moving deeper into China’s orbit. And Pakistan has sought to cultivate ties with Trump family members, partly by presenting itself as a cryptocurrency hub.
But India has been frustrated elsewhere too, notably in the European Union, which called for restraint from both sides during the conflict and continues to advocate direct talks between them, despite Mr Jaishankar urging it to view Pakistan as “Terroristan”.
A White House love-in for Pakistan’s big man outrages India
ReplyDeleteIt comes after Donald Trump ditched a meeting with Narendra Modi
https://www.economist.com/asia/2025/06/19/a-white-house-love-in-for-pakistans-big-man-outrages-india
One problem is that India has yet to provide sufficient evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in the April 22nd attack. Some governments have also been unnerved by India’s vow to respond to any more such attacks with further military strikes on Pakistan. And Western officials are wary of jeopardising counter-terrorism co-operation with Pakistan.
The concern now for India is that it may struggle to win support to penalise Pakistan through international bodies. If so, India may focus more on unilateral actions. That could include an effort to renegotiate a 65-year-old river-sharing treaty. But it may also entail covert operations against militants inside Pakistan. And the next time a terrorist attack on India is linked to Pakistan, there will not be many Indian voices calling for peaceful, diplomatic counter-measures.
Trump embraces Pakistan: ‘Tactical romance’ or a new ‘inner circle’? | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/19/trumps-pakistan-embrace-tactical-romance-or-a-new-inner-circle
Trump hosts Pakistan army chief Asim Munir for an unprecedented White House lunch, as the US and Pakistan reset ties.
In his first address to a joint session of Congress on March 4 this year, after becoming United States president for a second time, Donald Trump made a striking revelation.
He referred to the deadly Abbey Gate bombing at Kabul airport in August 2021 – which occurred as thousands of Afghans tried to flee following the Taliban takeover – and said the alleged perpetrator had been apprehended.
The country he credited with the arrest: Pakistan. “I want to thank especially the government of Pakistan for helping arrest this monster,” Trump declared.
A little more than three months later, Trump hosted Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir for lunch at the White House on Wednesday — the first time a US president has hosted a military chief from Pakistan who isn’t also the country’s head of state. Munir is on a five-day trip to the US.
For a country that Trump had, just seven years earlier, accused of giving the US “nothing but lies and deceit” and safe havens to terrorists – and one that his immediate predecessor Joe Biden called “one of the most dangerous nations” – this marks a dramatic shift.
It’s a reset that experts say has been in the making for weeks, under Trump’s second administration, and that was solidified by the brief but intense military confrontation between India and Pakistan in May, during which the US tried to mediate a ceasefire.
Some analysts warn that the evolving relationship should be viewed as a product of Trump’s personal position, rather than institutional policy.
“We are dealing with an administration which changes its tune by the hour. There is no process here,” Marvin Weinbaum, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute (MEI), told Al Jazeera.
“One minute the US has no interest, and the next minute priorities change rapidly. You’re dealing with an administration that is mercurial and personalised, and you don’t associate that with traditional US foreign policy,” he added.
However, others point out that even the optics of Trump hosting Munir are significant.
“Trump’s lunch invite to Pakistan’s army chief isn’t just protocol-breaking, it’s protocol-redefining,” said Raza Ahmad Rumi, a distinguished lecturer at the City University of New York (CUNY). “It signals, quite visibly, that Pakistan is not just on Washington’s radar, it’s in the inner circle, at least for now.”
Reset amid regional crises
The meeting between Trump and Munir came amid heightened tensions in the Middle East, where Israel has been conducting strikes inside Iranian cities since June 13. Iran has retaliated with missile attacks of its own on Israel.
The Israeli offensive – targeting Iranian generals, missile bases, nuclear facilities and scientists – has killed more than 200 people. Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Israel over the past six days have killed about 20 people.
The Benjamin Netanyahu-led Israeli government has been urging the US to join the offensive against Iran, which shares a 900-kilometre-long (559-mile) border with Pakistan.
Speaking to the media in the Oval Office after the lunch with Munir on Wednesday, Trump noted that the Pakistanis “know Iran very well, better than most,” but added that they are “not happy”.
According to Trump, however, the main reason for meeting Munir was to thank him for his role in defusing the May conflict between Pakistan and India, a confrontation that brought the region, home to more than 1.6 billion people, to the brink of nuclear war.
“The reason I had him here was that I wanted to thank him for not going into the war [with India]. And I want to thank PM [Narendra] Modi as well, who just left a few days ago. We’re working on a trade deal with India and Pakistan,” said Trump, who is known to enjoy a warm relationship with Indian leader Modi.
Trump embraces Pakistan: ‘Tactical romance’ or a new ‘inner circle’? | Donald Trump News | Al Jazeera
ReplyDeletehttps://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/19/trumps-pakistan-embrace-tactical-romance-or-a-new-inner-circle
“These two very smart people decided not to keep going with a war that could have been a nuclear war. Pakistan and India are two big nuclear powers. I was honoured to meet him today,” he added, referring to Munir.
The crisis had begun after an April attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 Indian civilians. India blamed Pakistan, which denied the charge and called for a “credible, independent, transparent” investigation.
On May 7, India launched strikes inside Pakistani and Pakistan-administered Kashmir territories. Pakistan responded via its air force, claiming to have downed at least six Indian jets. India confirmed losses but did not specify numbers.
The conflict escalated as both sides exchanged drones for three days and eventually launched missiles at military targets on May 10. It ended only after intense backchannel diplomacy, particularly involving the US, led to a ceasefire.
Trump reiterated his role on Wednesday. “I stopped the war between Pakistan and India. This man [Munir] was extremely influential in stopping it from the Pakistan side, Modi from the India side, and others,” he said.
While Pakistan has acknowledged the US role, India insists the ceasefire resulted solely from bilateral dialogue. Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stated on Tuesday that Indian PM Modi had spoken to Trump by phone to underscore New Delhi’s view that there was no US-led mediation between India and Pakistan.
Arif Ansar, chief strategist at Washington-based advisory firm PoliTact, said Pakistan’s military performance during the confrontation prompted Trump’s engagement.
“It demonstrated that despite its political and economic challenges, the country can outmanoeuvre a much bigger adversary,” Ansar told Al Jazeera. “This has led President Trump to engage with Pakistan’s traditional power centres based on core strategic interests.”
“Opportunity to reassert relevance”
That engagement has a long history.
Pakistan’s relationship with the US dates back to its 1947 independence, after which it aligned with Washington during the Cold War. After the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan supported US objectives there, and the two collaborated closely to support the mujahideen that eventually forced Moscow to pull out its troops.
Subsequently, Pakistan also backed the post-9/11 US “war on terror”.
However, over the years, many within the US strategic community also started questioning Pakistan’s credibility as a reliable security partner, especially after 9/11 architect Osama bin Laden was found in Abbottabad, close to Rawalpindi, home to Pakistan’s military headquarters in 2011.
Since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021, the strategic partnership has waned further. Pakistan has increasingly turned towards China for economic, military and technological support.
But Weinbaum said that since Trump returned to office, Pakistan has been getting respect that was lacking under the previous Biden administration.
Trump wanted “counterterrorism assistance,” Weinbaum said – and seemingly got it.
On June 10, General Michael E Kurilla, chief of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), detailed how that cooperation led to the capture of the suspected Abbey Gate bomber.
“They [Pakistan] are in an active counterterrorism fight right now, and they have been a phenomenal partner in the counterterrorism world,” Kurilla said, in a testimony before the House Armed Services Committee in Washington, DC.
According to Kurilla, who also oversees the US military’s Middle East operations including Iran, this progress, including the arrest of the Abbey Gate bombing suspect, was made possible due to direct coordination with Pakistan’s army chief. “Field Marshal Asim Munir called me to tell me they had captured one of the Daesh-K [ISKP or ISIS-K] individuals,” he said.
Suhasini Haidar
ReplyDelete@suhasinih
Blame not the messenger in India’s diplomacy: My Op-Ed
@the_hindu
. If India's Post Op Sindoor narrative isn't getting the same global traction 2016 &2019 did... the government should review its message, global shifts and its own image issues since 2019
https://x.com/suhasinih/status/1935879600954830953
------------
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/blame-not-the-messenger-in-indias-diplomacy/article69714222.ece
History and literature are replete with references to not ‘shooting the messenger’ for bringing bad news. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the Egyptian queen assaults a messenger and threatens to have him “whipped with wire and stewed in brine, smarting in ling’ring pickle”, for bringing her the news that the Roman General Mark Antony has married another. “I that do bring the news made not the match,” the messenger replies, before making a hasty exit. Over the past two months, India’s ‘diplomatic messengers’ too have faced an ire that is unprecedented — criticised not for the message they bring, but for failing to convey effectively enough, the message New Delhi has sent out after Operation Sindoor (May 7-10, 2025).
Public commentary that is critical of the Ministry of External Affairs and its missions has focused broadly on three counts. First, that India received condolences and statements condemning the Pahalgam terror attack from all quarters, but not the kind of unequivocal support, especially from the neighbourhood, for retaliatory strikes on Pakistan, of the kind seen in 2016 (post-Uri) and 2019 (post-Pulwama). In 2016, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives backed India’s decision to stay away from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation summit in Pakistan after the Uri attack. In 2019, global solidarity with India forced even China to back a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) terror designation for Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar. Earlier, in 2008, there was international consensus in India’s favour after the Mumbai attacks, when Hafiz Saeed and a number of Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists were designated by the UNSC, and Pakistan was put on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list for the first time. Instead, this time, unfavourable comparisons have been made to Pakistan for the lines of support it received from China, Turkiye, Azerbaijan, Malaysia and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).