Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Kirill Semenov
[REGNUM] The escalation of the Indian-Pakistani standoff, caused by a series of border clashes, was temporarily halted by a ceasefire agreement on May 10. This provides an opportunity to sum up the preliminary results of the standoff.
Despite mutual accusations of violations, the parties have refrained from previous large-scale actions, which allows us to talk about the preservation of a truce, albeit fragile for now.
REASONS FOR ESCALATION
The standoff between India and Pakistan, which began after the partition of British India in 1947, has resulted in four major wars (1947–48, 1965, 1971, 1999) and hundreds of border incidents.
Kashmir remains the main bone of contention: both countries control parts of the region, considering it their own. According to various sources, since 1989 alone, the low-intensity conflict has claimed between 47,000 and 70,000 lives.
The latest wave of tensions between New Delhi and Islamabad began after an April 22 attack on the mountain resort of Pahalgam in Indian-administered Kashmir. The attack, for which a previously unknown group called the Kashmir Resistance Front claimed responsibility, killed 26 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims.
Survivors reported that the attackers deliberately questioned the victims about their religious affiliation before the shooting, which, although it points to an obvious “jihadist” trace, does not rule out a deliberate provocation. However, India, without waiting for the investigation to be completed, accused Pakistan of supporting the militants, which Islamabad categorically denied.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has escalated tensions with Pakistan to shore up his domestic political position, which was undermined by the 2024 elections, when his Hindu nationalist party posted its worst result since 2009.
New Delhi launched Operation Sindoor, a series of strikes on targets in Pakistani territory that it described as “terrorist infrastructure.” Islamabad responded with its own Operation Buniyas al-Marsoos, which hit a number of Indian military bases.
More than 60 people, including civilians, have been killed on both sides in five days of clashes, marking the worst flare-up since 2019, when India's abrogation of Kashmir's special status nearly led to a full-scale war.
Experts say that the current escalation is characterized by the unprecedentedly large-scale use of artillery and drones, as well as the largest air battles since 1971, which increased the risk of mistakes and further escalation of the crisis, including an exchange of nuclear strikes.
But the parties had enough willpower not to slide into the funnel of uncontrolled escalation and stopped at the red line.
REASONS FOR PAKISTAN'S SUCCESS
However, it is Pakistan that has emerged from the current stage of the conflict with a number of tactical and strategic advantages.
| Did Pakistan really? What say you, dear Reader? |
Successful military operations, a skillful information campaign and diplomatic flexibility allowed Islamabad not only to give an effective military response to India’s steps, but also to strengthen its image on the world stage.
New Delhi's military actions, launched without any evidence of Islamabad's involvement in the terrorist attack, were perceived by Pakistanis as an act of blatant aggression and caused a wave of patriotism.
At the same time, India, having a multiple military advantage, was unable to use it within the framework of limited tactical operations, while Islamabad was prepared for a balanced and effective response.
Balanced enough not to lead to a full-scale war, but effective enough to force New Delhi to recognize the futility of continuing actions that only bring reputational losses, demonstrating the tactical weakness and vulnerability of the Indian armed forces.
Clearly, Pakistan was able to learn from past mistakes, while India was confident of its advantage, which New Delhi was unable to exploit in a limited conflict.
And the Indian leadership considered the transition to a full-scale war too risky due to the threat of the confrontation escalating into a nuclear one.
PAKISTAN'S PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE DOCTRINE
At the same time, India understood that Pakistan would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons. It could even be preventive, since Islamabad is ready to use them first, considering tactical nuclear weapons, among other things, as a key tool for disrupting a potential Indian invasion.
And especially as a response to the “cold start” doctrine, in which a rapid offensive is carried out before the enemy is mobilized.
Pakistan's short-range nuclear-tipped Nasr missiles, with a range of 60km, are designed to destroy armoured convoys in border areas to prevent a breakthrough.
The strategy, Islamabad says, is aimed at “escalation to de-escalate” – stopping aggression with a local strike to avoid a full-scale war.
There are several other scenarios that would activate the “inevitable nuclear retaliation” algorithm from Islamabad.
For example, nuclear weapons could be used to prevent the Indian Armed Forces from invading vital areas of the country, which would threaten the very existence of Pakistan. Such areas include, for example, the Indus Valley.
Nuclear weapons could be used to destroy a significant part of Pakistan's military potential, such as the Air Force, and even in the event of a naval and economic blockade that threatens to leave the Pakistani army without fuel.
It is clear that such a blurring of the “nuclear threshold” and the placement of tactical charges close to the front line increases the risk of accidental escalation due to errors in threat assessment or loss of control over the arsenal.
That is why such close attention is focused on any Indo-Pakistani escalation, which could quickly escalate into a nuclear conflict at any moment.
WORLD PREMIERE OF CHINESE WEAPONS
At the same time, it is now also obvious that another deterrent factor, in addition to nuclear weapons, for New Delhi has become Islamabad’s skillful use of modern Chinese conventional weapons.
It had finally made its presence felt on the battlefield, and it promised the Indian army serious losses if the conflict continued. And even if it ended with a hypothetical overall success, India would be too vulnerable to China after the confrontation, given the losses it had suffered.
Pakistan, traditionally the main operator of Chinese military equipment in the world, has demonstrated that even in conditions of intense combat, equipment from China is not inferior, and in some respects superior to systems developed in the United States and Europe.
It should be noted that the key advantage of Chinese weapons remains their availability. For example, the JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters, jointly developed by China and Pakistan, are several times cheaper than the American F-16. At the same time, they demonstrate comparable characteristics in maneuverability, radar equipment and weapons.
In addition to the JF-17, the Pakistani Air Force also used the heavier Chinese J-10C fighters, using them successfully in combat for the first time. Developed by the Chengdu Aircraft Industry Group, these aircraft are equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar and are capable of carrying PL-15 missiles with a range of up to 200-300 km.
During a major air battle on May 7 involving up to 125 fighters from both sides, the J-10Cs demonstrated superiority over India's French-made Rafale jets armed with Meteor missiles.
The J-10C's key advantage is its combination of maneuverability, electronics, and weapons. Experts compare it to later F-16 variants, noting that the Chinese fighter is capable of operating effectively in close combat as well as at long ranges thanks to its PL-15 missiles.
Unlike the Rafale, which was positioned as a multi-role fighter with unique Meteor missiles (range up to 200 km), the J-10C was able to implement the “first strike” tactic, remaining outside the enemy’s engagement zone.
India, which had relied on French fighters, ran into unexpected problems. According to Pakistani sources, three of them were shot down during the battle. US intelligence indirectly confirmed these losses, which was the first documented case of a Rafale being destroyed in high-intensity combat. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said the Rafale was “overrated” and the Indian Air Force demonstrated “incompetence.” This dealt a blow to the image of not only France but also other Western manufacturers.
A similar situation is observed in the UAV sphere: Chinese Wing Loong II drones, actively used by Pakistan for reconnaissance and precision strikes, are close in efficiency to the American MQ-9 Reaper, but their cost is 30–40% lower.
The conflict also saw the use of Chinese HQ-9 anti-aircraft missile systems, which successfully intercepted modern aircraft.
China's electronic warfare and cyber defense systems have been effective in suppressing enemy attempts to destabilize communications, according to analysts, putting them on par with developments by companies like Raytheon or Lockheed Martin.
Thus, the Indo-Pakistani standoff has become further evidence that the Chinese military-industrial complex has not only caught up with the West in key areas, but has also created a new reality where price is no longer synonymous with quality.
This opens the door for Beijing to leadership in the 21st century, forcing even traditional US allies to reconsider their approaches to security. The success of Chinese technology has already been reflected in financial markets: shares of Chengdu Aircraft Company rose by 30% after the fighting.
AMERICA TAKES THE LAURELS
The conflict between Pakistan and India has clearly not gone according to the scenario expected by the forces interested in a moderate escalation.
This is especially true for the Donald Trump administration, which probably saw it as an opportunity to inflict a reputational defeat on Beijing through the political “humiliation” of its main ally, Islamabad. In this context, it can be said that Washington was interested in New Delhi’s military success. However, it later became clear that it would not be possible to give Beijing a pat on the back, and Washington abandoned non-intervention.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that the United States, along with other countries, had begun pressuring New Delhi and Islamabad, and that talks involving Vice President J.D. Vance had reportedly led to an agreement on an immediate ceasefire.
However, many experts familiar with the situation believe that the role of American diplomacy in resolving the current escalation is greatly exaggerated.
Washington has decided to take credit for the peacekeeping role, while the contribution of the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which are strategic partners for both Pakistan and India, has been much greater.
But China and Russia also had a major impact on the dynamics of the conflict, speeding its resolution. Beijing, an ally of Islamabad, not only called for restraint but also put pressure on both sides, as did Russia, which offered to act as a neutral mediator.
RUSSIA BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN
It is significant that Moscow, once a consistent partner of New Delhi, is now pursuing a multi-vector policy in the region and hedging risks.
The United States and India, together with Australia and Japan, conduct annual Malabar naval exercises and form the QUAD coalition with a clearly anti-Chinese focus, while also developing other areas of military-political and military-technical cooperation.
Against this backdrop, Russia is strengthening its ties with Pakistan. In 2020 and 2021, Moscow and Islamabad held joint anti-terrorism exercises called “Friendship.” In 2021, the first-ever Russian-Pakistani naval exercises, “Maritime Interaction,” took place in the Arabian Sea. And last March, the navies of the two countries organized the PASSEX maneuvers, which included practicing anti-submarine operations.
An important area remains cooperation within the SCO: in 2023, joint exercises “Peace Mission” in Kazakhstan brought together the military of Russia, Pakistan and China.
At the same time, Russia continues to develop a strategic partnership with India.
Trade turnover with Delhi reached $70 billion in 2024, while with Pakistan it was only $1 billion. India also remains the largest importer of Russian weapons: recently, it received batches of Su-30MKI fighters, S-300/400 anti-aircraft systems and T-90 tanks.
Therefore, it is probably most important for the Russian Federation to achieve long-term peace between New Delhi and Islamabad.
Since their contradictions, superimposed on the conflicts of interests of India and China, are also an obstacle to the formation of closer interaction in the Russia-India-China triangle and the alliances based on these countries: BRICS and the SCO.
CONSEQUENCES AND PROSPECTS
While the current ceasefire has reduced the immediate threat of war, fundamental differences remain unresolved.
A peaceful settlement requires not only international mediation, but also the willingness of the parties to compromise, which seems unlikely in the current political realities.
In particular, the policy of the Indian authorities, who advocate Hindu religious nationalism, does not contribute to de-escalation.
This has led to constant pressure on India's 200 million-strong Muslim minority, which has increasingly been subjected to discriminatory measures and practices, including mass Muslim pogroms, such as in Delhi in 2020, when dozens of Muslims were killed.
This provokes the growth of radicalism and the acceleration of the formation of a resistance movement in the Indian Islamic environment. But the Indian authorities are inclined to see in all manifestations of radicalism not their own mistakes, but the hand of Pakistan.
On the other hand, Islamabad indeed often turns a blind eye to the presence on its territory of bases of various rebel factions, including jihadist ones, acting under the banner of the struggle for the liberation of Kashmir or, in general, Indian Muslims from Indian rule.
It is obvious that maintaining tension in the Indian part of Kashmir is in the interests of Pakistani special services. In case of conflict, this will allow them to ignite a mass uprising in the rear of Indian troops. Therefore, New Delhi's claims cannot be called unfounded.
The key to a long-term settlement probably lies in re-establishing channels of communication between India and Pakistan. But it is precisely terrorist attacks that rupture such channels, as was the case after the Mumbai attack in 2008 or the Puluam attack in 2019.
Overall, the tangle of Indo-Pakistani contradictions seems insoluble in the foreseeable future and will constantly make itself felt. And peace initiatives, such as the 1999 Delhi-Lahore Declaration, regularly fail due to lack of trust.
However, the current pause offers a chance to tone down the rhetoric and begin targeted humanitarian exchanges. This may be the only way to avoid a new war in the Himalayan valleys.
At least there are positive examples: the ceasefire agreement concluded in 2003 lasted almost five years. Therefore, the main task now is to make the pauses between escalations as long as possible, and the escalations themselves quickly relieved.
|
